ML14321A146

Transcript of First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis Bess, Unit 1, November 12, 2014, Pages 713-932

ML14321A146
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	11/12/2014
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01, NRC-1200, RAS 26925
Download: ML14321A146 (221)

Text

Official Transcript of ProceedingsNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:First Energy Nuclear Operating CompanyDavis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1Docket Number:50-346-LRASLBP Number:11-907-01-LR-BD01 Location:Rockville, Maryland Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2014Work Order No.:NRC-1200Pages 713-932NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 234-4433 713UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2+ + + + +3BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD4+ + + + +5______________________6In the Matter of:  : Docket No.7FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR  : 50-346-LR8OPERATING CO.  : ASLBP No.9(Davis-Besse Nuclear  : 11-907-01-LR-BD0110Power Station, Unit 1):11______________________:12 Wednesday, 13 November 12, 201414 Rockville, Maryland1516 17BEFORE:18WILLIAM J. FROEHLICH, Chairman19NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge20DR. WILLIAM E. KASTENBERG, Administrative 21Judge2223 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 714APPEARANCES:1On Behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory2Commission:3BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.4CATHERINE E. KANATAS, ESQ.5U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission6Office of General Counsel7Mail Stop: 0-15 D218Washington, D.C. 205559Tel: (301) 415-1392 (Harris)10 (301) 415-2321 (Kanatas)11Email: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov12 brian.harris@nrc.gov1314On Behalf of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating15Company:16STEPHEN J. BURDICK, ESQ.17TIMOTHY P. MATTHEWS, ESQ.18of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP191111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.20Washington, D.C. 2000421Tel: (202) 739-5059 (Burdick)22 (202) 739-5527 (Matthews)23Email: sburdick@morganlewis.com24 tmatthews@morganlewis.com25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 715DAVID W. JENKINS, ESQ.1FirstEnergy Service Company276 South Main Street3Akron, OH 443084Tel: (330) 384-50375Fax: (330) 384-38756Email: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com78On Behalf of Don't Waste Michigan: 9MICHAEL KEEGAN10Don't Waste Michigan11811 Harrison Street12Monroe, MI 4816113Email: mkeeganj@comcast.net1415On Behalf of Beyond Nuclear:16KEVIN KAMPS17Beyond Nuclear186930 Carroll Avenue19Suite 40020Takoma Park, MD 2091221Tel: (301) 270-220922Email: kevin@beyondnuclear.org2324 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 716On Behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens1Environmental Alliance of Southwestern2Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green3Party of Ohio:4TERRY LODGE, ESQ.5316 N. Michigan Street6Suite 5207Toledo, OH 436048Tel: (419) 255-75529Email: tjlodge50@yahoo.com1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 717P R O C E E D I N G S19:01 a.m.2JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you. Please be3seated. Okay. Good morning, all. It's November412th, 9:00 a.m., and we're in the Nuclear Regulatory5Commission headquarters building in Rockville,6Maryland.7We're on the second floor, ACRS Conference8Room. ACRS stands for the Advisory Committee on9Reactor Safeguards, and we thank the ACRS for allowing10us to use their hearing room, while the ASLBP hearing11room is under renovation.12The docket number for this proceeding is1350-346-LR, which is the docket in which FirstEnergy14Operating Company has filed to renew its facility15operating license for the Davis-Besse Power Station16Unit 1, for an additional 20 years from its current17expiration date of April 22nd, 2017.18In accordance with the Board's public19notice and order issued October 27th, this oral20argument concerns a proposed Contention 7 filed by21Beyond Nuclear, the Citizens Environmental Alliance of22Southern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan and the Green23Party of Ohio. These are -- collectively we'll refer24to as the Intervenors.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 718Proposed Contention 7 is found in1Intervenor's Motion for Admission of Contention 7 on2worsening shield building cracking and inadequate3Aging Management Programs in the shield building4monitoring program, which was filed on September 2nd,52014 as supplemented on September 8th, 2014.6Intervenors' proposed Contention 77challenges the adequacy of FENOC's shield building8monitoring Aging Management Program, as revised by the9license application amendment 51. That's FENOC's July103rd, 2014 RAI response.11My name is William Froehlich, and I'm12chairman of this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,13established for this proceeding. To my right is Judge14Nicholas Trikouros. Judge Trikouros has been a full-15time member of the panel since 2006.16He holds a B.S. from Fordham, a Masters17from NYU, an advanced engineering degree from the18Polytechnic Institute affiliated with NYU, and has19over 30 years' experience in the nuclear industry,20including serving as an adjunct professor at Rutgers21University, where he taught at the graduate level.22To my left is Judge William Kastenberg. 23Judge Kastenberg holds a Bachelors of Science and a24Masters of Science in Engineering from UCLA, and has25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 719a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of1California at Berkeley. For over 40 years, Dr.2Kastenberg was a professor in the University of3California system.4He retired as the Daniel M. Tellep5Distinguished Professor of Engineering. He's6published numerous journal articles on nuclear safety7and risk analysis. 8As I mentioned earlier, my name is William9Froehlich. I'm a lawyer by training and have had10about 35 years of federal administrative and11regulatory law experience. Because I'm a lawyer, I'm12one of the three judges here, I'll serve as chairman13of this Board for procedural issues.14I'd also like to introduce a few other15people from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board16Panel. Our law clerk, who you've probably dealt with17by emails is Mr. Sachin Desai. We also have an18administrative and logistical support member with us,19Karen Valloch, and in the back of the room is Andrew20Welkie, who will help manage the audiovisual equipment21for this hearing.22I'd also like to acknowledge the people23from the ACRS, including Alesha Bellinger, Kendra24Freeland and Theron Brown. I believe Mr. Brown is in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 720the back room with Mr. Welkie, helping him support the1audiovisuals for today's argument.2Our court reporter is Daniel Michon. 3They'll be an electronic transcript made of this oral4argument, and copies of that transcript will be made5available to the public. They'll also be posted on6the NRC website in about a week.7At this point, I'd like the parties to8introduce themselves. I'd like the lead9representative to introduce yourself, state the name10of your client, any counsel who might be participating11with you in the oral argument, and I believe we'll12start with the Intervenors, go to the licensee and13then to the NRC staff.14MR. LODGE: Very good. Thank you, Judge. 15My name is Terry Lodge. I am an attorney and counsel16of record for Beyond Nuclear, the Citizens17Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't18Waste Michigan and the Green Party of Ohio, who are19the intervenors in this matter.20Seated to my left is Kevin Kamps of Beyond21Nuclear, who is going to be a co-presenter along with22me. Seated to my right is Michael Keegan of Don't23Waste Michigan, who is also assisting today. 24JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 721For the licensee.1MR. MATTHEWS: Good morning members of the2Board. I'm Tim Matthews of Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,3on behalf of the Applicant, FirstEnergy Nuclear4Operating Company, FENOC. With me at the counsel5table this morning is my partner, Stephen Burdick, who6will address the Board's questions related to the7proposed safety contention, and David Jenkins, senior8corporate counsel at FirstEnergy.9Also present with us today are my partner,10Kathryn Sutton and several FENOC personnel, including11representatives from the Davis Besse Engineering12Organization and the License Renewal Project should we13need their assistance.14JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Matthews. 15And for the staff.16MR. HARRIS: Good morning, Your Honor. 17This is Brian Harris representing the staff. With me18today to my left is Cathy Kanatas, who will also be19representing the staff today.20JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you. For any21proposed contention to be heard in an evidentiary22hearing, an intervenor must timely file that23contention. Whether it is timely or not depends on24whether it meets the standards in 10 C.F.R. 2.309, the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 722old 2.309(f)(2) or the current 2.309(c)(1) test.1It has to be based on new information not2previously available. It has to materially affect3either a safety or environmental issue, and the4contention has to be put forward in a timely manner5which, according to our prior orders, we define as6being put forward within 60 days after the information7was available to the public.8The crux is whether the Petitioner has9shown good cause. If timely, it must also meet the10six elements of 10 C.F.R. 2.309(f)(1). A request for11hearing, a petition for leave to intervene or a motion12to admit a new contention are set forth with13particularity the contention sought to be raised.14In each contention, the request for15petition must provide a specific statement of the16issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, a17brief explanation of the basis for the contention,18demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is19within the scope of the proceeding, demonstrate that20the issue raised in the contention is material to the21findings the NRC must make to support the action22that's involved, and provide a concise statement of23alleged facts or expert opinions which support the24petitioner's position on the issue, and on which the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 723petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with1references to the specific sources and documents on2which the petitioner intends to rely to support the3petition on the issue.4And finally, it must provide sufficient5information to show that a genuine dispute exists with6the licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This7information must include references to specific8portions of the application that the petitioner9disputes, and the supporting reasons for each dispute.10On September 2nd, 2014, Intervenors11brought a new contention regarding cracking in the12shield building that covers the Davis-Besse Unit 113nuclear reactor.14Intervenors' new contention alleges that15there is new information, primarily in the form of16disclosures by FENOC on July 3rd and July 8th, 2014,17that indicate the cracking in the Davis-Besse shield18building is propagating, and that this is a new19concern.20Intervenors claim as a result of the21plant's aging management -- as a result, the plant's22Aging Management Program needs to be revised, to23account for this crack propagation, more than has24already been done. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 724Intervenors also ask that this alleged new1issue be addressed in the Environmental Impact2Statement, within the Discussion of Alternatives3section and the section dealing with Mitigation4Alternatives for severe accidents. The licensee and5the NRC staff both oppose the admission of this6contention, arguing that no litigable issue exists7with FENOC's Aging Management Program or the8Environmental Impact Statement.9FENOC and the NRC staff also raise10timeliness concerns, arguing that Contention 7 was not11brought quickly enough after the information was12available to the public, and thus this contention is13precluded by NRC regulations. Intervenors, of course,14do not agree.15If any issue -- if any of the parties take16issue with how I have just framed this contention,17please address that as part of your oral argument or18opening statements. So today we'll be talking and19probing the intervenors about Contention 7, trying to20figure out whether they meet the timeliness and21admissibility criteria of 2.309 of the regulations.22If they meet the regulatory requirements,23we will rule that the contention is admissible, and if24they don't, we're obliged to rule that the contention25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 725is not admissible. After we hear oral argument today,1we'll review the pleadings and the transcript of this2argument, and issue a written decision, and we intend3to get that decision out within the next 45 days or4so.5As I mentioned earlier, members of the6public are free to observe the proceedings today, as7in all of NRC's proceedings. But it is only counsel8for the parties or their representatives that will be9allowed to speak at this oral argument.10At this point, if anyone still has their11cell phone on, please check, turn it off or turn it to12vibrate. If you have any conversations and need to13discuss with others, please take them out in the hall14during our proceedings.15At this point, I'd ask my two colleagues16if anything -- if they'd like to add anything before17we begin. Judge Trikouros.18JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No.19JUDGE KASTENBERG: Nothing at this point,20thank you.21JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay, all right. As22stated in the Board's notice and order scheduling this23argument, today's argument will begin with an opening24statement of no more than ten minutes in length from25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 726each party. The Intervenors will go first, followed1by the licensee and then the NRC staff. 2Each one will get ten minutes to give an3uninterrupted opening statement to us. We'll then4turn to reviewing the questions of timeliness and the5admissibility of the contention that's been filed. 6After we've asked all of our questions and heard7arguments from the parties, each party will get five8minutes for closing statements. 9At this point, I believe we're ready to10begin with an opening statement from the Intervenors.11MR. LODGE: Thank you. Members of the12Panel and parties and representatives, we are in our1337th month since the discovery in October 2011 of14laminar cracking problems that were visible during a15maintenance outage at the Davis-Besse nuclear power16station, and specifically around and near an opening17that was blasted through the wall for purposes of18replacing a reactor head.19The cracking controversy has evolved20tremendously in 37 months. We are now looking at what21appears to be the latest, I guess I would call it Root22Cause 3.0, the 2014 explanation for the cracking23phenomena. But it's interesting and useful to review24historically what the circumstances were.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 727In February 2012, FirstEnergy Operating1Company released their initial root cause analysis for2the laminar cracking, essentially concluding that the3blizzard of 1978 did it, that it essentially caused4unusual vulnerability to the outer concrete layers of5the shield building at the Davis-Besse reactor, and6that moisture over the decades infiltrated the7concrete and began to cause, from the freeze-thaw8cycle of northwestern Ohio winters, cracking to9develop.10The consensus of FirstEnergy's consultants11at the time was the problem is limited, the problem is12solvable, that a good coat of certified coating on the13building, which had been omitted or neglected to be14added during the construction process in the 1970's,15would do it, and now we know that it didn't do it.16In July of 2014, FirstEnergy's17consultants, in the latest in what we call Root Cause183.0, the apparent cause evaluation, full apparent19cause evaluation, indicate that there is now20microcracking, an additional type of structural21failure in addition to laminar or layered cracking,22and that there are going to be possibly continuing23difficulties.24The company's response in 2012 was to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 728propose a monitoring setup, wherein 20 core bores1would be developed at various locations near2identified cracks in the building, and that from time3to time on a scheduled, but infrequent we believe4basis, that there would be tests of the cores.5The response after the latest revelation6of microcracking and essentially a consensus that this7is an aging problem of increasing, potentially8increasing seriousness, is to -- is for the utility to9have promised that it will initiate three additional10core bore drillings at sites on the shield building,11which it will identify as being close to visible12cracking.13We have roughly calculated that the14interior and exterior surface area of the shield15building is somewhere in the neighborhood of 18016square feet. The core bores are, pardon me, 280. The17core borings themselves are a few inches across. They18penetrate perhaps a foot or less into the structure. 19So what is proposed by way of a monitoring20setup, of a building that was left open and uncovered,21unroofed if you will in the early 1970's, and that has22some controversy surrounding any protective barriers23in its foundation, which would protect the foundation24from infiltration and moisture.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 729What we have is a circumstance where1roughly a cubic foot of core borings are dispersed on2some unknown basis throughout the shield building3structure, and are supposed to past muster4regulatorily, as an adequate means of monitoring the5shield building.6This is a passive structure, but a very7obviously critical structure. The shield building is8approximately 30 inches thick. It is rebar-reinforced9concrete. It is supposed to be there to protect the10reactor from exterior threats, including tornadoes,11including damage from certain types of aircraft12accidents.13But it also contains a filter containment14type of system. So it provides a certain degree of15protection of the outer environment from mishaps that16might befall the reactor itself. A very critical17structure. It is degraded and deteriorated. There is18serious issue as to the extent of that.19The Intervenors contend that there is far20too much ignorance as to the actual status of the21structure, that any attempts to simply call a wait and22see monitoring effort, especially at this low level,23is very insufficient to provide the requisite,24adequate assurance that the shield building is going25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 730to perform its original design functions at any1adequate level throughout the expected 20 year or2anticipated 20 year license extension period.3The utility company and the staff have4tried in particular to argue that this is simply a5current licensing concern. The problem with that6argument is that it -- I would suspect that the first7day of the 20 year extension period they'll say it's8a current licensing concern. It's a day-to-day9problem.10Well, perhaps three years ago or two and11a half years ago, that might have had -- carried some 12credence. But 37 months into this, with now multiple13root cause reports being issued and issued on a slow14motion basis I might add, the latest coming rather15close to the end of the adjudicatory phase of this16license extension, we believe that there are serious17questions of whether there are adequate assurances18that mere monitoring is going to suffice.19The expert opinions that we are relying on20are those of NRC staff and FirstEnergy's consultants. 21We think that more than -- what was called sheer22speculation on the Intervenors' part in our multiple23filings of 2012, and we've all been together before on24those filings, that it was mere speculation and indeed25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 731we were castigated at some length for having, without1an expert, intentions to parlay FOIA and other2information into a contention.3But history is proving that mere4speculation of 2012 is hard fact and harsh reality for5the utility company to deal with in 2014. In sum,6this is a matter which must be scrutinized through the7adjudicatory process, must be scrutinized by way of8relief in the form of much beefier analysis and9discussion in the FSAR and the NEPA document, the10final Environmental Impact Statement, both in the11Consideration of Alternative section, because we12believe that the shield building is that big of a13problem, that it raises -- its condition raises grave14questions as to the continuing feasibility of using it15to protect the reactor, and also in the SAMA analysis.16The SAMA analysis presumes a pristine17structure. This is a uniquely non-pristine structure,18unique and admitted as such by FirstEnergy's own19consultant in its 2014 report. That's all we have at20this point. Thank you.21JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge. 22Mr. Matthews.23MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Judge Froehlich. 24Good morning again. FENOC appreciates this25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 732opportunity to address the Board. The parties appear1before you today on a now-familiar issue. FENOC2identified and reported its shield building laminar3cracks in 2011.4FENOC then promptly studied the laminar5crack phenomenon, identified its root cause,6demonstrate the capability of the shield building to7perform its intended functions, developed corrective8actions including application of external coating,9developed a condition monitoring program to assess the10possibility of crack propagation, and updated the11shield building design and licensing basis documents.12FENOC also prepared an Aging Management13Program or AMP for the shield building, to monitor14possible changes in the laminar cracks during the15period of extended operation, and supplemented its16license renewal application appropriately.17In 2013, FENOC discovered indication of18changes in the existing laminar cracks. This19demonstrated that FENOC's monitoring program worked. 20Using a more indepth inspection tool, FENOC found the21preexisting laminar cracks, fine cracks that had not22been identified earlier.23They also found new cracks in core bores24that previously had not shown cracks. Extensive core25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 733bore inspections followed by impulse response testing1indicated that the cracked area had expanded. In2other words, FENOC identified limited propagation of3some of the laminar cracks.4As it had previously in 2011 and '12,5FENOC identified the condition and promptly reported6it, studied it and confirmed the shield building's7ability to perform its intended functions. FENOC8updated the design and licensing basis documents,9identified the root cause of the propagation, and10modified its condition monitoring program during the11current license term. And again, FENOC revised its12Aging Management Program.13FENOC concluded that the cause of the14laminar crack propagation was ice wedging. Moisture15inside the existing laminar cracks froze during severe16cold. The coating contributed to the cracks by17retaining moisture.18FENOC's evaluation found that the laminar19crack propagation was very small in relation to the20450, approximately 450 foot circumference of the21shield building, and over 17 foot reach of each flute22shoulder. Volumetric expansion of freezing water from23its liquid state to its solid state opened the crack24tips a small amount, roughly 0.4 to 0.7 inches on25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 734average.1Although the existing program elements of2the shield building AMP were demonstrated to be3effective to monitor the propagation, FENOC further4enhanced its existing AMP by adding three more core5bores to be checked during each inspection, on top of6the existing 20.7FENOC specified that the additional core8bore locations would be selected the known edge to9identify crack propagation. It also extended the10period during which inspections would be performed11annually, regardless of whether further propagation12was identified.13FENOC has been open in its identification14of the cracks, thorough in its evaluation of the15causes, rigorous in monitoring of the condition and16appropriate in its enhancements of the Aging17Management Program.18Obviously, Intervenor disagreed, but we're19left to suggest why. Intervenors don't provide any20reasons for their disagreement. They suggest instead21yet again that this Board should undertake a broad-22ranging investigation. 23Intervenors continue to demonstrate a24misunderstanding of the role of the Atomic Safety and25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 735Licensing Board in the NRC's licensing and license1renewal process. As a result, they fail again to2state an admissible contention. 3Intervenors appear to argue that FENOC's4discovery of crack propagation somehow vindicates the5admissibility of previously rejected contentions. But6then, as now, it is the sufficiency of their proposed7contention that is at issue, not the crack8propagation. The only question before the Board today9is this: have the Intervenors timely proposed a10contention that satisfied the Commission's contention11admissibility requirements?12Once again for multiple reasons, they have13not. The Commission did not establish this14adjudicatory process to stop or hop over licensing15process. Rather, the Commission established the16adjudicatory process so that members of the public17with sufficient knowledge or information to inform the18agency's decision-making might have a forum to present19that information and to test it.20In this way, they enhance the agency's21safety mission. Toward that end, the Commission has22promulgated very specific contention pleading23requirements in its regulation, to clarify and make24more efficient this adjudicatory process.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 736First, the Commission made clear that1issues presented must be within the scope of the2licensing action then under consideration, here3license renewal. Second, the NRC regulations require4that proposed contentions may not consist solely of5vague generalities, but must be specific and clearly6stated. They also must be supported by some7identified basis statement and grounded in expert8opinion or appropriate authority. 9So too the Commission has defined10reasonable timeliness requirements in which to bring11proposed contentions. None of this new to the Board12or to these intervenors. Both the Board and the13Commission have instructed these same intervenor14repeatedly on exactly these requirements. Intervenors15simply choose to ignore them again.16Despite repeated reminders about the17limited scope of the NRC's license renewal decision,18Intervenors attempt to challenge NRC's information19disclosure practices, FENOC's quality assurance20program and safety culture, Davis-Besse's current21licensing basis, all baseless allegations and all22outside the scope of this license renewal proceeding.23Despite previous rejections of earlier24proposed contentions rooted only in speculation,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 737Intervenors again furnish nothing more. They advance1a wide array of hypothetical concerns, and invite the2Board to investigate them.3Specifically, Intervenors do not identify4any purported deficiency in FENOC's shield building5monitoring AMP, that would justify the changes they6suggest. They cite no inadequacy in FENOC inspection7methods, not in the number of core bores monitored or8their locations, and not in the frequency with which9core bores are monitored.10Rather, Intervenors call for more, more11testing methods, more core bores, more locations and12want the one-year inspection frequency extended13indefinitely, regardless of what the inspection14results or guidance from the American Concrete15Institute Code might suggest.16It's fine for Intervenors to want all of17these things. But here, before the Commission's18ASLBP, merely wanting them is not sufficient. 19Intervenors bear the burden of stating why FENOC's AMP20is not adequate for its purpose, demonstrating a basis21for that position and identifying their technical22authorities. They've done none of these things.23Intervenors also fail to connect their24complaints to any new information. To the extent the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 738concerns relate to the ability of the shield building1AMP to monitor crack propagation, the proposed2contention is untimely as well as unsupported. The3AMP has always been about monitoring for changes.4The only new information is this: One,5the cracks propagated in some areas, and two, the6monitoring program worked to identify that change. A7fundamental purpose of the AMP, from its introduction,8has been to identify any changes in the laminar9cracking, including propagation.10Intervenors have challenged the AMP before11many times and failed each time. FENOC's recent12enhancements to the AMP do not render the entire AMP13now subject to reattack. The Commission stated the14same logical conclusion in its Oyster Creek decision.15Also similar to their earlier failed16attempts, Intervenors include vague references to a17proposed environmental contention related to severe18accident mitigation alternative analysis. Here too,19they fail for all the same reasons they failed before,20because they chose again to ignore the Commission's21contention admissibility standards.22Intervenors are not unrepresented or23inexperienced citizen petitioners. Intervenors are24seasoned advocates and active participants in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 739NRC's adjudicatory process. They're aided by multiple1experts and very capable experienced counsel.2Accordingly, when a burden its theirs to3shoulder, as it is here, they must shoulder that4burden. We respectfully submit that they have not. 5FENOC's personnel have worked openly, candidly and6thoroughly to address this issue. They have retained7independent experts, commissioned testing at multiple8respected universities to confirm the conservatism in9their analyses.10They've responded to multiple rounds of11questions from the NRC staff, and diligently enhanced12the shield building monitoring AMP. We appreciate13this opportunity to respond to your questions, and14look forward to today's discussion. Thank you.15JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Matthews. 16And for the NRC staff.17MS. KANATAS: Good morning, Your Honors. 18My name is Cathy Kanatas and this Brian Harris. We19represent the staff. As Judge Froehlich indicated,20this oral argument is about the admissibility of21Intervenors' Contention 7. The question is whether22Intervenors have met their burden in showing that23their contention salsifies the Commission's contention24admissibility requirements.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 740The answer to that question is no. Before1I summarize why Contention 7 is inadmissible, I would2like to make a few points to address Intervenors'3assertions, and to put Contention 7 in context.4First, the staff recognizes that the5shield building a structure subject to aging6management review under 54.21, and that the staff must7make a finding that FENOC can adequately manage the8effects of aging on the shield building before issuing9a renewed license.10This is why the staff took the position11that Intervenors' Contention 5, which was submitted in12January 2012, after the laminar cracking in the shield13building was identified, raised an admissible safety 14contention of omission. At that time, the application15did not discuss how any AMP would account for the16aging effects of the laminar cracking.17However, since April 2012, FENOC's18application has provided for a plant-specific AMP to19manage the aging effects of the laminar cracks, which20are hairline cracks typically less than .01 inches in21width. Specifically, the shield building monitoring22AMP, which supplements the structures monitoring AMP, 23provides for the detection of aging effects prior to24the loss of shield building intended functions.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 741Second, it is important to note that1Contention 7 is not the first time Intervenors have2raised challenges to this shield building monitoring3AMP. Intervenors' Contentions 5 and 6 made claims4related to this AMP. However, those contentions did5not point to specific ways in which the AMP was wrong6or inadequate, or how it should be improved.7Therefore, the Board found that those8claims did not raise a genuine material dispute with9the application. Finally, the staff recognizes that10FENOC has modified the shield building monitoring AMP11in response to operating experience and staff12questions.13As you know, and we heard again today, the14monitoring done under the shield building monitoring15AMP led to the discovery of new cracks in August and16September 2013. Broken rebar was also discovered in17February 2014. In response, the staff issued an RAI18on April 15th, 2014, asking how the shield building19monitoring AMP would address these issues or how it20would be modified.21FENOC's July 3rd response to this RAI22provided modifications to the shield building23monitoring AMP. On July 8th, FENOC notified the Board24that it had submitted a full apparent cause25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 742evaluation, discussing the root cause of the new1cracks. These two submittals are the basis for2Intervenors' Contention 7.3As Judge Froehlich summarized, to be4admitted as a contention, Intervenors must meet two5sets of requirements. First, they must show that6Contention 7 is based on new and materially different7information than previously available and timely8filed.9Second, Intervenors must show that10Contention 7 satisfies the contention admissibility11requirements. Intervenors have not made either12showing. Therefore, Contention 7 should not be13admitted into this proceeding.14First, Intervenors have not shown that15Contention 7 is based on new and materially different16information. Intervenors claim that FENOC's July 3rd17submittal is new and materially different information,18because it modified the shield building monitoring19AMP.20Intervenors also claim that the full21apparent cause evaluation contains new and materially22different information, because it concludes that the23cracking propagation is aging-related, which24Intervenors claim is a change in FENOC's position from25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 743earlier root cause reports.1But Intervenors have not shown that this2information is new and materially different. Since3April 2012, the shield building monitoring AMP4accounted for the possibility of an aging-related5mechanism, used core bores and visual inspections to6monitor, and indicated that inspection frequency and7core bore sample size and locations would be8reevaluated if changes or any new cracks were9identified.10These are exactly the types of changes11that FENOC did in response to the recent operating12experience. They increased the core bores from 20 to1323, and increased the inspection frequency to annual14inspection to manage the cracks, including the15cracking propagation.16The full apparent cause evaluation does17not change the position taken in the previous root18cause reports. The previous root cause reports, which19FENOC submitted in February and May 2012, concerned20the initial laminar cracking, which was determined to21be caused by a combination of three things: The22blizzard of 1978, the design of the flute shoulders23and the lack of a moisture sealant.24The full apparent cause evaluation states25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 744that the findings of the previous root cause reports1with respect to the initial laminar cracking are still2valid. It then discusses the root cause of the3cracking propagation, which was determined to be4caused by ice wedging.5That requires the combination of three6things: pre-existing laminar cracks, water7accumulation and freezing temperatures within the8cracks. These findings about ice wedging are not9materially different information, because the shield10building monitoring AMP always contemplated11identifying aging effects.12Intervenors also incorporate their13Contention 5 filings and reference their Contention 614filings in support of Contention 7. But these filings15are not new and materially different information. 16These filings were based on the February17and May 2012 root cause reports, FENOC's April 201218shield building monitoring AMP, and documents19Intervenors received through FOIA related to the20current operation of the plant. All of this21information has been considered by this Board and is22not new or materially different. 23Second, Contention 7 is inadmissible24because it does not meet the Commission's contention25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 745admissibility standards. While the staff recognizes1that the shield building monitoring AMP is in the2scope of license renewal, Intervenors have not raised3a genuine material dispute with the AMP.4Instead, Intervenors only point to the5enhancements in the AMP, and assert that it's6inadequate. These type of unsupported claims that do7not specify what is wrong or inadequate with the AMP8do not raise a genuine material dispute.9The rest of Intervenors' safety claims are10out of scope arguments about safety culture, current11operation, the adequacy of the staff's review, and the12current licensing basis of the plant. These arguments13were rejected when they were raised in Contentions 514and 6, and they should be rejected again.15The license renewal safety review focuses16on managing the detrimental effects of aging on17certain structures, systems and components. The18license renewal safety review explicitly excludes19current operating issues.20Contention 7 also fails to raise an21admissible environmental claim. Contention 7 repeats22the claim made in both Contentions 5 and 6, that23FENOC's SAMA analysis is deficient, because it does24not account for the cracks. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 746While it is true that FENOC had to submit1a SAMA as part of the license renewal environmental2report, Intervenors offer no support for why the SAMA3that FENOC submitted, which concerns beyond design4basis accidents and assumes containment failure or5bypass, would need to account for the cracks, or how6the SAMA is deficient.7Likewise, Intervenors do not offer any8support for their claim that the discussion of SAMAs9in the staff's DSEIS is inadequate. Contention 7 also10claims that the alternatives analysis in the DSEIS is11deficient, because it does not account for the12cracking. 13Intervenors' argument is premised on the14idea that the shield building cannot perform its15intended functions, and should be replaced or16repaired. This argument is unsupported, and does not17raise a license renewal environmental issue. The18staff's environmental license review focuses on the19potential impacts of 20 years of additional operation.20If the shield building cracks prevented21the shield building from performing its design basis22safety functions, then the plant would have to shut23down now until those functions are restored. Any24environmental impacts resulting from that are not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 747unique to license renewal.1For these reasons, Intervenors have not2met their burden of proof, and Contention 7 should not3be admitted into this proceeding. Simply pointing to4the staff's RAIs or FENOC's responses to those RAIs is5not sufficient to trigger an adjudicatory hearing. 6Thank you, Your Honors.7JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you, Ms. Kanatas. 8Let us begin, and I'll begin with you, Mr. Lodge. Let9me ask first, the licensee and the staff are not10contending that this contention is untimely because it11wasn't filed within 60 days of the license renewal12application amendment or the FACE report.13The argument, I understand from the staff14and from the licensee, is that these -- this15contention relates to issues that happened well before16this report, and therefore it's untimely, more than 6017days. Is that correct? Is my understanding correct?18MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor.19JUDGE FROEHLICH: Also the licensee?20MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, this is Stephen21Burdick on behalf of the Applicant. I think that is22correct. But just to clarify, we make two timeliness23arguments. One is under the Oyster Creek principle24that Mr. Matthews discussed, that there hasn't been25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 748any material change to the AMP and to the extent there1were changes, they were enhancements.2But we did make the separate argument that3they do identify certain topics that are greater than460 days from before they filed their Contention 7, and5so untimely purely for that reason as well. But they6were more on the fringes. They weren't their primary7arguments.8JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. So that brings us9then to the question of whether the items that are in10the FACE report or in the license amendment, are11materially different from things that were in the12record of this case before that; is that correct?13MR. BURDICK: That's correct.14JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. So Mr. Lodge,15then to you. What is materially different in the16license renewal application or the FACE report, that17would trigger a new contention?18MR. LODGE: A new type of cracking,19microcracking, is finally conceded. Intervenors were20accused of merely speculating that there were other21cracks besides laminar. That's been now confirmed by22the July 8th, 2014 disclosure made by FENOC to the23Board.24I might point out that among the things25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 749that we learned at that point in July were that since1February of 2012, that FirstEnergy knew that there was2a considerable amount of water being identified in the3core drillings that they were taking. Then again in42013, there was some note taken of that, but the5significance of it was not summarized, brought6together into an identifiable explanation of causation7until this July 2014 disclosure.8So there also was identified in the July92014 disclosure the propagation, the spreading of10laminar as well as other cracks. FirstEnergy had11decided to use electron microscopic analysis and that12is how they began to identify the very fine, sometimes13invisible to the naked eye, cracking. 14So FirstEnergy's knowledge of the problems15has been growing, and the public somewhat behind16because of the slow pace of disclosures, is learning17and filing in the timely fashion, as timely a fashion18as can be expected.19JUDGE FROEHLICH: If the purpose of an20Aging Management Program is to detect changes in21matters that will need attention, why does it matter22what the cause of the cracking is? If the Aging23Management Program's goal is to be alert or be on the24watch for changes in cracks. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 750What does it matter what causes or what1changes it? Why is that new and significantly2different, if again we're talking about the purpose3and goal of an Aging Management Program?4MR. LODGE: Well since in the last two5years, FirstEnergy itself has caused some of the6cracking propagation that's present, I would think7that that has a few implications for prospective8management of the cracking problem. 9There is now saturation of the outer ten10inches of concrete that is apparently conceded not to11have existed at the 90 to 100 percent moisture content12level prior to the application of the coating to the13shield building.14The causation has changed. We have15multiple causations now being identified. Things16started out in 2012 in the initial root cause analysis17as some sort of discrete, controlled identification of18the cracking problem. Things are being handled. 19We're going to seal the building. It didn't work. 20That is a major material disclosure in 2014. I don't21know if that fully answers your question, sir.22JUDGE FROEHLICH: For the licensee, the23discovery of the new cracks or propagation of existing24cracks triggered the change or caused the change in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 751the Aging Management Program. Was it this crack1propagation or additional cracking that triggered the2changes that were made to the aging management3program?4MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, when FENOC5identified the additional or the laminar crack6propagation in 2013, they undertook an extensive7evaluation, and the result of that included what's8found in the apparent cause evaluation, and then that9was done not necessarily for this license renewal10proceeding.11But then as they evaluated it and12responded to questions from the NRC staff, they13identified some changes, some enhancements that we14wanted to make to the shield building monitoring15program. So ultimately, there is some connection16there. 17But I think this, as I've listened to the18Intervenors' response to this question, I think19they're answering the wrong question. The Board asked20what is materially different here, and the Intervenors21chose the content of Contention 7, the subject matter22for Contention 7. 23As it's worded, and they reproduce it in24their original Contention 7 or the amended Contention25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7527, it's focused on the shield building AMP, and they1identified some challenges to things like the number2of inspections, the scope of the inspection and the3frequency of the inspections.4So they selected that, and here's what we 5have to look at whether something's materially6different, and here it is not. If we go back to when7FENOC first submitted the shield building monitoring8program to the NRC in April of 2012, it was a9monitoring program to look at the laminar cracking, to10monitor the core bores in the building with a certain11frequency in certain locations, and to see if there12was any change in the nature of the cracking, whether13it's a lighter crack or a crack in an area that it14hadn't been before.15The shield building has changed a little16bit over time, but only to enhance it. It has not17changed. That is still the functioning, is to monitor18for any changes in the laminar cracking. So that's19where there hasn't been a material difference. This20is where we point to, in our brief, to the Oyster21Creek case in CLI-09-7, where we believe it's a very22similar circumstance.23There, the Applicant had an Aging24Management Program, and they enhanced it by adding25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 753additional inspections, and there both the Licensing1Board and the Commission concluded that enhancing a2program in that manner did not give a right to file a3new contention.4You know, the Commission explained there5in that case, CLI-09-7, that there just would be no6end to these NRC licensing proceedings if we could7just add a new contention for convenience during the8course of the proceeding based on information that9could have formed the basis for a timely contention at10the outset of the proceeding.11So here, if the Intervenors had a problem12with the way we were monitoring for propagation, which13hasn't changed, then they should have filed a14contention back in April of 2012.15MR. LODGE: If I may respond to that, sir.16JUDGE FROEHLICH: Yes.17MR. LODGE: What if the 2013 cracking18propagation had not been identified, because it had --19because the frequency was out to two or four years? 20I think you're seeing very substantial timing changes,21sampling timing changes within the AMP, but more than22that. 23The larger picture is is that I think that24there's an implicit concession here by the utility and25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 754staff, but especially the utility, that they're1increasing open to increasingly sophisticated2scientific explanations of cracking. The cracks are3bigger. The cracks are in new locations. 4The cracks are propagating in new5directions, and there is not just layered or laminar6cracking; there's cracking that appears to be7penetrating into the outer layer of concrete. There's8very significant problems. 9FirstEnergy's most central difficulty is10that they don't know where this will stop or what will11stop it. They're monitoring and they're gathering12some data. They have not done a comprehensive13analysis of the overall structure. They are hoping14that it will be sufficient for regulatory muster, for15there to be some spot checks, if you will.16I repeat: There's massive area that we17have cited, the 280,000 square feet, and 23 samples18and a cubic foot essentially worth of analysis19scattered across the building, but only identified20with known cracking.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: One of the themes that22I read from the Petitioners' documents is that their23concerned that the full extent of the shield building24is not being adequately looked at. The focus seems to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 755be more on, you know, what has occurred in the past,1and how it will propagate.2So I wanted to explore that a little bit. 3Also, I want to make sure we're all on the same page4with the design basis of this thing. As I understand5this, this is sort of a secondary containment6structure, that annular region between the containment7and the shield building wall, that filters any8radiation release from the containment by tech spec9leakage.10It provides biological shielding clearly11to anybody outside the shield building, from any12neutrons that may come through from the reactor. 13Also, if there's any tornado or hurricane generated14missiles, this shield building is there to protect the15containment, right, not the reactor as you indicated16earlier. But it's really to protect the containment.17MR. LODGE: Ultimately the reactor we18believe, but yes.19JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. For nuclear20engineers, containment and reactor are significantly21different.22MR. LODGE: Sure.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay, and as we said,24it's a very large surface area building. When you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 756look at the FACE report, it had mentioned that there1were three things that caused the original cracking. 2One was the -- it was a combination of3rebar spacing, high moisture content in the concrete,4and subfreezing conditions, which in that -- at that5point were brought on by this 1978 blizzard.6But those three things are still there,7right? We still have the same rebar spacing,8etcetera. So it would be difficult for me to believe9that cracking couldn't occur pretty much anywhere in10this building, laminar cracking. Is that a bad11assumption? Is that a bad belief?12MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, thank you. So13I think it's important to look at that there are two14separate causes here.15In 2011, when FENOC was performing the16hydroblasting through the shield building wall to17replace the reactor vessel head, they first identified18the laminar cracking, and they did extensive19evaluation, and you discuss some of the causes that20were identified for the cracking there.21One of the causes there, one of the22additional causes was a lack, and I believe it was23actually the root cause in the root cause evaluation, 24was a lack of an exterior coating to minimize the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 757amount of water that ingressed into the building.1And so FENOC, as one of its corrective2actions, applied that coating. So that's kind of the3first event. The second event then showed up in4August and September of 2013, when FENOC was5performing its inspections of the core bores, and in6monitoring for any crack expansion or propagation,7they identified some propagation scenarios and I'm8happy to talk more about that as well.9But after that evaluation, they determined10it was an ice wedging phenomenon. So I just want to11be clear that there is kind of two events. One was12the initial laminar cracking, and then the second one13is the laminar crack propagation.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So can you say there's15absolutely laminar cracking any place else in this16building right now?17MR. MATTHEWS: Can I supplement that? The18rebar spacing that you mentioned in the PII study19related to Contention 5, rebar spacing was significant20because it contributed to a stress pattern within the21concrete structure. The PII report found that the22concrete -- the initial laminar crack progressed to23its full length at the time of the 1978 freeze.24What's significant is they didn't find,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 758when they looked in 2000 -- the early era, 2011-12,1they didn't find evidence of step fracture. When they2looked again more recently, after discovering crack3propagation, they found evidence of step fracture, but4only after the application of the coating.5So the hypothetical that you started this6discussion with, Judge Trikouros, was that the cracks7could be progressing. That's not what FENOC's8analysis found. They found an initial step, and then9since 2012, evidence of step fracture since. So --10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But that's with respect11to that region, where the laminar cracking has been12identified to have occurred?13MR. BURDICK: And Your Honor, just to14clarify on that as well. When FENOC was performing15its cause evaluation other inspections back in the162011-2012 time frame, it did look at the entire shield17building, to characterize where the laminar cracking18was, and it used impulse response technology. I think19it took 60,000 plus impulse response readings to cover20all the accessible areas of the shield building, to21identify where the laminar cracking is.22Then based on that, and based on what the23cause was, they put together the shield building24monitoring program, which uses the core bores to watch25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 759for any propagation, in addition to the other core1bores that were used throughout the evaluation. So2FENOC did identify where the cracking was on the3shield building, but only as part of its management4program that looks at the core bores.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. So you've6answered my question, I think, that you did look at7the entire shield building using impulse response8testing methods, and determined that there was no9laminar cracking to be -- that was identified in other10portions of the building?11MR. BURDICK: So the laminar cracking is12in different places of the building. We believe13through those activities with the impulse response, as14supplemented by other core bores, we were able to15characterize where it is. So it is in different parts16of the shield building.17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. So as of18let's say -- what's that document, RCA 1, the first19root cause, you've had it characterized. There was no20laminar cracking anywhere other than what you21identified, and you put in place an AMP, which22included 20 core bores to examine those over the aging23program. Okay. 24But the conditions for which the laminar25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 760cracking occurred in the first place are still present1over this entire building; is that a correct2statement?3MR. MATTHEWS: To the extent the rebar4spacing that you're -- that we discussed initially,5the rebar spacing concern --6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: That was one of three7criteria.8MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. But it's the tight9rebar spacing, not rebar spacing generally. That10tight rebar spacing has already cracked. It's not11subject to recrack.12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: In that region. The13rebar, I mean the rebar is throughout the building. 14So it's at that spacing, right?15MR. MATTHEWS: The rebar at that spacing16is limited to particular areas, the flute shoulders17around the main steam line penetrations. The rebar18spacing throughout the shield building is at a broader19interval. It's not the tight rebar spacing --20JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. So you're21saying that the rebar spacing in other parts of the22building is not the same as the rebar spacing where23the cracking occurred, and are you further saying that24the rebar spacing in the rest of the building would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 761not be conducive to laminar cracking? Is that1something you can say or not?2MR. BURDICK: I think, you know, just to3clarify. There is different rebar spacing around the4steam line penetrations and along the top 20 feet of5the shield building, and if I recall correctly, the6rebar spacing is about six inches between the pieces7of rebar.8So the root cause evaluation looked at9that, and looking at the blizzard of '78 with the10sharp drop in temperature, the penetrating moisture11with the wind-driven rain and the stresses caused by12that event, were enough to cause the stresses, the13smaller allowable stress with a six inch rebar to14cause the laminar cracking.15It did not cause it as extensively in16other areas of the shield building. There is some17laminar cracking -- or beyond those areas, there is18some laminar cracking in the shoulders on the shield19building, which is also due to that design feature20with the shoulders that are sticking out from the21shield building.22So those are the areas where the original23laminar cracking was limited to, and also where we've24seen the, you know, sort of propagation.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 762JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So it was around the1flutes?2MR. BURDICK: That's right, that's right. 3But the mechanism is different from back then to the4issues raised by the Intervenors in this contention,5with the propagation identified in 2013.6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Did the moisture that7occurred because of the original laminar cracking, did8that moisture penetrate the building as a result of9the blizzard, or was that moisture that was always10there, but the combination of rebar and cold combined11to cause the laminar cracking?12MR. BURDICK: My sense a combination of13both. But the shield building was designed. There14was no coding specification, which would have been one15of the -- I think the root cause from that 2011-201216evaluation. So because it didn't have a coating,17there was some amount of moisture in the building,18just because there was nothing to prevent it from19coming in.20But I believe that blizzard, then, was21able to drive in more moisture at that time, combined22with the other factors that Your Honor has mentioned.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So it's a combination,24okay. Can we talk -- I just wanted to get sort of a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 763baseline understanding of things as we ask questions,1and of course I wanted to elaborate a little bit on2the -- what I think the Petitioners were saying.3This moisture that's in this concrete is4throughout the entire concrete structure right now;5correct? Or well let me ask it that way. I could be6more specific.7MR. BURDICK: My understanding, there's8moisture in the concrete. I believe it's certainly a9higher amount of moisture towards the exterior of the10shield building. But we believe it is migrating11through the building or dissipating through the shield12building.13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. So the mechanism14by which the root cause reports, or at least one of15them said it would dissipate, is -- they refer to16absorption and dispersement mechanisms. Could you17perhaps -- they never explained that. So you have any18explanation for that? 19In other words, this moisture is20disappearing. At least that's what they're saying.21MR. BURDICK: I'll try my best, and then22someone can correct me and elaborate.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I understand none of us24here are structural engineers, as far as I know.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 764MR. BURDICK: So when -- it was October12012. FENOC sealed the shield building with the2coating, applied that coating. There was moisture in3the building, because it was -- because there was no4coating there before. So once they've sealed that,5the shield building, it's preventing additional6moisture from coming in. Also, it's preventing7moisture from coming out.8So there's a finite amount of moisture in9there, and through the testing, it's primarily on that10outer region of the shield building. But our11expectation is that it will dissipate, which I think12means migrate through the building. So it's not13focused in the area of alignment of cracking, such14that that moisture can support the ice wedging,15because the ice wedging requires three things.16It requires the laminar crack or requires17an existing crack which is caused by laminar cracking;18requires a freeze event; and then it requires a19moisture -- the moisture has to be, I guess, a20significant enough concentration to have water at the21tip of that laminar crack, such that when you have a22freeze event, the water expands and causes the stress.23So the belief is that because there's a24finite amount of moisture and it will dissipate, that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 765it will dissipate to some point where there's not1enough water or moisture at that crack tip to cause2ice wedging.3JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Now when you say4dissipate, do you mean that it will migrate towards5the annular region between the containment and the6shield building on the inside surface of the shield7building? I mean that's the only place this water8could go, where it can eventually get out of the9shield building wall; correct?10MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, let me just11confer if I can. 12(Pause.)13 MR. BURDICK: Thank you, Your Honor, for14allowing me to confer. So the answer is yes, that15when we discuss the dissipation of the moisture, it is16towards the inner region of the shield building,17towards the annulus. That's both because of the, I18guess the concentration of moisture and there being a19relative humidity gradient as well that will cause20that moisture.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So most of the moisture,22then, is on the -- is within let's say ten inches of23the exterior surface of the shield building? You're24saying that's going to disperse towards the inside25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 766surface and eventually dissipate that way?1MR. BURDICK: That's correct.2JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. One other point. 3In terms of freezing, I mean this is concrete. It's4a thermal insulator effectively. The inside surface5of this thing is seeing probably something like6reactor building temperatures, I would assume. You7know, my memory of PWRs I worked with, it's maybe 120-8130 degrees in that reactor building, which would get9right through that containment and into that annular10region.11I would imagine the annular region is well12over 100 degrees normally. So some big fraction of13that shield building is fairly warm. But it wouldn't14propagate all the way through where you have a cold15outside. So you would have some 2D distribution. I'm16just making the -- I'm just trying to make myself17understand the heat transfer situation here.18So the freezing could only occur on the19outside, you know, within let's say, pick a number,20ten inches of the outside surface. Is that a fair21assumption? Do Intervenors have an issue with that?22MR. LODGE: Ten percent is outside23surface.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Freezing can only occur25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 767on the outside, from the outside surface in of some1amount of distance, because the other side of this2building is very hot, and would propagate in some3amount of distance. I know if you deal with 2D4distribution, it wouldn't be above freezing except at5some region on the outer surface.6MR. LODGE: Yeah, correct. We're not7prepared to stipulate to adjudicatory facts, but yes.8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. I just want to9understand. All right. Do you have any indication of10how long it will take for this moisture to leave that11building?12MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, what the13apparent cause evaluation concludes is that it's14leaving the building. But as far as the exact time15frame, you know, we have not determined that. I think16what's -- another thing that's important here, based17on this discussion, is the laminar cracking that we've18seen is always in the same layer of rebar in the19shield building.20So it's always -- it's just in the one21outer rebar layer. So when we're talking about the22laminar cracking from 2011 and also any propagation,23it's always in that layer. 24So I think, you know, this freezing25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 768question is also important is that some of -- because1of the design of the structure with the shoulders,2some of the locations of the laminar cracking are such3that they're -- that they are much deeper than other4locations, because of the slant of the shoulder.5So we did see that, and that's discussed6in the apparent cause evaluation. Some locations may7only see one freeze event in a winter, and others may8see more. So as it dissipates inward, you know,9that's when the risk of this laminar crack propagation10decreases.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But does the AMP make12the assumption that new laminar cracking will not13occur anywhere else in this building?14MR. BURDICK: Yes.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: That's the concern of16the Petitioners.17MR. BURDICK: Yes. There's no basis to18assume that additional laminar cracking will occur. 19Now I'm distinguishing that from any laminar crack20propagation. I think that's -- that's -- that's an21unknown, because it depends on many different22variables, including these ones that we've discussed.23That's one of the key reasons why this24shield building monitoring program is a monitoring25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 769program, is to monitor this. You know, we understand1the nature of the laminar crack propagation, the ice2wedging phenomenon. We understand what happened in3the winters behind us. So putting these together,4we've developed a monitoring program, and that's why5we believe it's appropriate.6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well for example, does7the AMP require impulse response testing of the whole8building at some frequency?9MR. BURDICK: It does not require it,10although there are statements in there that we can11supplement the core bore inspections with additional12methods, if appropriate. That's why when we monitor13the core bores, I'm sure we'll talk more about their14locations and we'll certainly explain that.15But the AMP requires the monitoring of16these core bores, and then it's watching for whether17there's -- for the uncracked areas, whether there's18new laminar cracking, and if there's core bores in19cracked areas, whether there's a change in the nature20of that cracking.21If anything is identified, then that will22be further investigated under the monitoring program,23to determine if any additional options are needed.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But the focus is what is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 770the regions that are cracked now. That's the focus. 1The focus is not to identify any new cracking. I mean2the Intervenors point out that, you know, it's X years3before this laminar cracking was found. It's not an4invalid point. There's a lot more building.5MR. BURDICK: Well, it's -- to this6question, it's a combination. You know, certainly all7these factors factored into our decision as to the8number of core bores and their locations. Some of9this is discussed on the docket in the November 201210RAI, where we explain the location of the 20 core11bores.12But what we determined, based on our13investigation and impulse response testing, was the14laminar cracking was more focused on the southern15exposure of the building, and also, as Mr. Matthews16explained, on the top 20 feet of the building around17the main steam line penetration.18So we've selected the 20 core bores before19this latest revision, to ensure that we covered many20of those areas where the laminar cracking was most21prevalent. But also some other regions, including the22flutes and other regions, just to ensure -- to look23for any other areas.24But the purpose of identifying the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 771locations is to perform a representative sample of the1shield building to inspect. I would also point out2that although the shield building monitoring program3has not been put into place, a very similar program4has been in place under our maintenance rule, under5the Part 50 license, that there's very similar6inspections.7And in fact it worked in a sense that it8identified the laminar crack propagation, and I think9is another indication of the reasonableness of using10a monitoring program.11MR. MATTHEWS: I think also, if I may,12Judge Trikouros, to your point, with the discovery of13the initial cracking, FENOC went out and did survey14the whole building exactly as you're discussing, with15numerous core bores and complete circumferential16impulse response testing, and developed its17understanding of where the cracking --18JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Is that the 80 core19bores that they referred to in the RCA 1?20MR. MATTHEWS: 80 or 82.21MR. BURDICK: So the impulse response --22yeah, there's not a core bore, of course. I think23that was 60,000 plus locations. I think there's more24than 80 core bores or there had been throughout the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 772investigation. But right now, I think there are 801core bores that are in the building. 2MR. MATTHEWS: But to your point, the AMP,3as originally proposed, was to assess -- we originally4looked at where cracking might be, to discover the5extent of the problem and develop the cause. From6that, the AMP then looked at where cracking was, to7see whether it was changing. There was no reason to8go back and look at the other places that were9uncracked.10When crack propagation was discovered,11FENOC modified the AMP in the areas of propagation. 12There was no reason, and there's been none asserted,13why FENOC should go back and reevaluate the entire14building now or elsewhere.15Now FENOC did do more extensive core bore16testing in response to this discovery of propagation,17and did some impulse limited, more limited than the18entire building impulse response testing. But there's19been no indication and certainly no reason advanced20why an entire diagnostic of the entire building is21called for, either now or at any frequency going22forward under a monitoring program.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So basically, FENOC has24the ability at any time to go and look at all of these25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 773core bores and make a very thorough investigation of1this building. They don't want to be committed to2that in the AMP; is that the way I read this? The AMP3is basically 23. They run from 20 to 23.4MR. BURDICK: I would explain it this way,5that we don't think it's necessary, that the core bore6monitoring or the shield building monitoring program7uses core bores for a representative sample. So we8believe that the 20 that we discussed, plus the9additional three are appropriate, and satisfy all the10requirements for a license renewal.11But you're correct. You know, as we did12in 2013, there are others we can look at if we need13to, if there's, for example, an indication. But we're14not committing to that. We don't think we need to.15Judge Trikouros, if I may too, we've been16discussing a lot of the technical aspects of these17issues, and the shield building AMP. I just want to 18emphasize, that I think we've gotten into way more19detail than have been provided in Contention 7 itself.20I note that this Board has made the point21to these Intervenors in I believe both the Contention225 and Contention 6 orders, is they have to provide the23support for the contention themselves in their24pleading. The Board -- and so that's our argument. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 774We can't supplement their arguments for them and1develop, you know, some support.2So I just want to make that point and make3it clear on the record. You know, we're going to be4on what was in the record.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But I wanted to make6sure that I understood the lay of the land, so to7speak, because you know, we're not going to reach a8decent decision if we have an unclear understanding of9what it is that we're evaluating here.10MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, for the staff, if11I may add one thing, because I think it's also very12easy to get confused with the terminology here when13we're talking about cracking and the laminar cracks14and then the cracking propagation, that we're really15talking about two different things.16It's been a long time since we discussed17the laminar cracks in a lot of detail. One of the18things that they found was with the laminar cracks is19that it actually split through the aggregate in the20concrete. So it was not, you know, what you would see21with your ice wedging, when it seems to go around the22laminar cracking.23So people sometimes, when you talk about24the cracks, is that we're really talking about two25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 775different mechanisms at the point, and that you can1see the difference in the force. I'm sure we can go2into detail, but I think it's important that we sort3of distinguish between the laminar cracking and the4propagation that we're seeing now, so that we don't5get confused on the record as to what -- which one6we're talking about.7JUDGE FROEHLICH: Maybe this would be a8good point for me to follow up with you or with the9licensee. The purpose of the Aging Management Program10is to discover cracks, as I understand it, and in the11course of its operation, certain laminar cracks were12found.13It's kind of addressed this -- the Aging14Management Program as it exists, discovered or15confirmed propagation of the laminar cracking. 16Correct me when I make a mistake here.17And also, we have come across a phenomena18of ice wedging, which leads to microcracking. Can you19please explain to me the propagation portion of the20laminar cracks, and how microcracking fits in either21to the propagation or to the original laminar cracking22that the AMPs are detecting?23MR. BURDICK: Certainly. Thank you, Your24Honor. Just to be fair, the purpose of the shield25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 776building monitoring program is focused on just the1laminar cracking, to look for changes in the nature of2that cracking and some other issues such as the3coating. 4But as far as cracking, it's focused on5the laminar cracking and just to be clear here, the6program itself, it talks about laminar cracking and7says we will monitor for cracking, changing material8properties, lost material concrete. So but here it's9focused on laminar cracking.10The laminar cracking is really just11referring to the cracks along this outer rebar layer. 12So in 2011, that was -- what was found is this laminar13cracking along the outer rebar layer. When we're14talking about cracked propagation, all we're talking15about is that same laminar cracking just expanding. 16So it's continuing to expand. But it's17still a laminar crack, but the 23 identification was18when we talk about --, it's just propagation that19laminar cracking. Microcracking is a whole separate20type of cracking. So it's not directly tied to the21cause of the ice wedging or vice-versa.22Microcracking is discussed in the apparent23cause evaluation, was identified in some of the24investigations where we withdrew a core from the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 777shield drilling and analyzed it. I think one thing1that needs to be clear is when we talk about2microcracking, it's really to support the conclusion3that there was ice wedging, because the microcracking4is an indication that there's moisture in the building5at that area.6Because what microcracking is is the7concrete, totally separate from this laminar cracking,8has very small pores in it. So when those pores have9moisture in it and you have a freeze event, then that10moisture in those pores will expand as it freezes, and11the microcracks are minuscule cracks coming from those12pores.13So when we talk about microcracking in the14apparent cause evaluation, it's just to show that15there was water transport to where the laminar16cracking is, to provide that moisture that's needed as17one of the three prongs for ice wedging.18JUDGE FROEHLICH: Microcracks are part of19the laminar cracks?20MR. BURDICK: No.21JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. You want to try22again?23MR. BURDICK: I understand. It's24confusing here. To have ice wedging, there has to be25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 778moisture at that laminar crack. So before we talk1about microcracking, you just have to have moisture at2that laminar crack. If you have water at that cracked3tip, it freezes. That will cause some expansion of4that water at the crack tip, causing some stress, and5that can propagate the laminar crack, and so that is6the ice wedging mechanism.7Microcracking is completely separate. It8was something that was identified during our9evaluation, and was an indication that there was water10in the shield building, that would have reached the11laminar cracking. 12So it's a separate mechanism. It was just13an indication that there's water in the shield14building, and it was one of the things we looked at in15our failure methods analysis and the cause evaluation,16that supported our conclusion that there was ice17wedging. There's two separate things.18MR. MATTHEWS: It's not a separate failure19mode of the concrete. 20JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay.21MR. MATTHEWS: At least as identified at22Davis-Besse, that has not been a concern.23JUDGE FROEHLICH: And is your allegation24different than that? It's not a separate mode or it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 779is a separate mode.1MR. LODGE: It is a separate mode.2JUDGE FROEHLICH: You're suggesting it is?3MR. LODGE: Yes. Microcracking can4proceed radially, as opposed to laminar, which is more5on the order of layered -- more tied, I would say,6probably to the presence of the rebar.7There are a number of responses we have. 8I first think that it is somewhat interesting that9even though the staff and the FirstEnergy have argued10vigorously that best not incorporate by reference our112012 filings, we're talking about facts from the 201212filings that were raised.13Thus proving that history is highly14relevant to trying to figure out and get a grasp of15what the future looks like in the shield building. 16There are many sources of moisture infiltration into17the shield building, which date back to the 70's and18to the construction of the building and the fact that19it was left open for approximately three years, and20that even in 1976, there were cracks that were21identified on the roof of the shield building.22Davis-Besse has, of course, had a history23of boric acid leakage within the shield building, and24water vapor and water leakage. So there are some25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 780sources also from the sand bucket region. 1We established from FOIA and other2internal FOIA documents from the NRC that the concrete3was sub-par and that particularly the concrete that it4is in contact with or near the ground level of the5shield building may be developing its own problems. 6There are barrier degradation difficulties, that7there's lot of water source problems here.8The discussion of the impulse testing is9problematic because from what we discerned, that10occurred before they applied the coating. So it would11seem to us that those test results may be completely12out the window and useless at this point, that there13has been damage identified and now admitted by FENOC14since that time, and apparently attributable to the15fact of sealing the building, very very decades16belatedly.17The microcracking is far different. As18Mr. Harris pointed out, the laminar cracks may have19actually sheared through aggregate. The microcracks20may be working their way around the more solid or more21integral portions of the concrete.22But the problem with the microcracking is23that it is very capable of penetrating radially,24inward from outside inward on the shield building. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 781Just one moment, please. I have notes. FirstEnergy1has a policy that 1/16th inch surface cracks aren't2even required to be repaired, meaning that there's a3conscious determination to allow pathways for moisture4to remain open as pathways.5It is somewhat remarkable to note that the6decision that's taken place just in the last half hour7or so actually suggests very strongly that there8should be an adjudication. So that instead of9listening to unsworn representations of counsel after10they've talked with their respective experts and11engineers, and you know, that they're simply saying12things that they're told, we can hear from those13experts and engineers, and ask our own questions of14them.15I think that this is a very complicated16issue, that once again 23, you know, an additional17three bore holes is not a significantly useful18informational device. But it does constitute an19admission that there are some big changes that have20now been discovered, and now are admitted.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: With respect to the22dissipation, the dissipation mechanism is not23discussed in -- I just want to make sure -- is not24discussed in the reports. We were just -- we were25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 782sort of thinking out loud, if you will, where water1might be able to go.2I mean it's rational, but it's not in the3report. So I want to put that on the record.4MR. BURDICK: The reports talk about5water, potential water sources, and then that those6potential water sources are no longer available,7because of the sealing of both the shield building8walls and the shield building dome. 9So I think with respect to dissipation, it10does discuss that there's a finite amount of water,11and there is some discussion about the humidity in the12internal. So I think there is some support, even if13it's not discussed in excruciating detail.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Umm, I guess I15was going to ask the question later, but maybe I16should bring it in now. 17(Off mic comments.)18JUDGE KASTENBERG: I appreciate your19comment before about it's so easy to slip into20technical discussions, because they're interesting. 21But I just wanted to clear one thing up on the22timeliness issue that Judge Froehlich started at the23very beginning. 24I just want to get a sense of something,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 783because clearly Petitioners claim that the contention1is timely, and NRC staff made an opening statement and2an argument that it's not timely. And as I read the3licensee's submittal or pleading, you are kind of in4the middle, I guess.5It says here "Parts of Contention 7 are6untimely," which leads me to believe that there are7parts that are timely. So maybe we could kind of8complete the discussion about timeliness before we get9into the discussion of the technical questions and10other issues regarding -- procedural issues. But11maybe we can complete the discussion on timeliness.12So where do we stand? We have it's not13timely, we have it's timely and we have it's partially14timely. Some parts are timely and some are not. So15perhaps a statement from each party on this, and maybe16we can go on to other things.17MS. KANATAS: I'm happy to make a18statement. Again, the standard in both 2.309(f)(1)19and yes, it applies here, is that it's new and20materially different. So while something might be new21in terms of 60 days from the time filed, it also to be22timely has to be materially different. 23I think that is the crux of staff's24position, that none of the information cited to in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 784Intervenors' Motion to Admit and Amend is materially1different, and that it does not support the2contention, and also that there were indications3previously in the 2012 AMP that these type of4modifications would be made, as well as the Contention55 and 6 filings, which have already been considered by6the Board.7So that really -- it's the "and materially 8different" portion, I think, that we primarily focus9on.10JUDGE KASTENBERG: So your argument is11based on the idea that it has to be both, timely and12material?13MS. KANATAS: Yes, yes. 14JUDGE KASTENBERG: Not just timely or15material?16MS. KANATAS: Yes, correct, correct.17JUDGE KASTENBERG: Got it.18MS. KANATAS: And it must support the19proposed contention, and in our mind, none of the20information supports admissibility of the contention.21MR. HARRIS: And just to add some facts to22that, looking at some of the AMPs, and as they've been23modified over the years, things like ice wedging and24these kind of freeze-thaw cycles and crack propagation 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 785were contemplated in FENOC's response as early as1April 5th, 2012, that you know, there could be freeze-2thaw cycles that could affect these.3So these are all things that they would4look at, and now that they've found it, they've made5it more explicit in their AMP, you know, to look at6these things, now that you're seeing the propagation7that they contemplated in the AMP originally.8MR. BURDICK: Thank you. Let me try to9clarify our position here. I think the reference to10different parts of Contention 7 are untimely was11because we have multiple arguments for why different12information is untimely. 13So as discussed in our answer on pages 5414through 56, we identify certain topics discussed15throughout the Contention 7, the original and the16amendment, where they refer to documents or17information that were available more than 60 days18prior to the submission of Contention 7. 19So there are some arguments that fall into20that category, things like discussing an Inspector21General report from 2002. So things that were just22simply old information, things like the 2012 and 201123emails on the design and licensing basis that just24don't satisfy it for that 60-day reason.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 786But certainly they filed their contention1within 60 days a couple of documents. So, you know,2we can't say that there aren't some new facts in3there. But what we do say, I think consistent with4the staff, that there isn't any material new5information in those documents.6For that part of our argument, I'd point7the Board to pages 52 through 54. So I think8collectively, the contention is untimely. The9confusion was we were making multiple arguments, not10just the one. Just to reemphasize, I think our11primary argument that we start with on timeliness12issues is this one that I mentioned earlier about the13Oyster Creek.14This contention is really challenging the15revisions to the shield building AMP that were made on16July 3rd, 2014, and as the staff just explained now17and we explain in our briefs as well, the Commission18and the Oyster Creek Licensing Board concluded that19adding additional inspections or other types of20enhancements to an Aging Management Program does not21provide a new opportunity.22So that's the focus of our argument. I23think that's the key point with respect to timeliness.24JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. You have the last25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 787word on this.1MR. LODGE: Thank you. As I understand,2the staff's point is gee whiz, FirstEnergy promised,3when they formulated their AMP, that they would stay4open to new information and maybe develop some new5data, and perhaps change their approach if there were6reasons to change their approach.7That's fine. That's a pledge. That is8not an act. What has happened in the interceding time9is that there is new evidence, there are new facts,10there is new scientifically verifiable, objective11information, and that information points in a new root12cause direction. 13It points in the direction of an14inescapable conclusion that the cracking phenomenon is15ongoing, is not over, and is not solved, is not16perhaps conceptually completely understood yet.17So yeah. We were partly within the 60-day18limit because we're pointing out is these earlier19promises to stay open to changing the AMP, and there,20yes, concededly have been some minor changes to the21AMP in terms of changing the schedule of doing22analysis work.23But what the bigger problem is is that24there is totally insufficient knowledge, based on the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 788changing conditions, based on the changing conditions1caused in large part by the coating of the shield2building. So the problem here is we're quite timely. 3The Intervenors raised this -- we made the 60-day4limit, but we made the evidentiary limit.5The public has not known of the6considerable moisture infiltration problem. Nobody7knows what the dissipation rate is going to be, how8long it will take, what the winters are going to be9like and how much further damage will occur before10there is, I guess for want of a better word,11equilibrium again achieved to the 65 percent humidity12level or whatever you want to call it.13But the problem is is that we're 37 months14into this, and we're still having these new revelatory15discussions and discoveries, new propagation, new16cracking and new methodologies for that cracking to17occur. So I think it's quite untimely.18JUDGE FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, I think19you've outlined a number of the new elements. Could20you address, I guess, the staff's perspective, that21there's nothing materially different in these new22elements, because I believe that was their point. Not23that there are new, issued new facts that are coming24to light.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 789But the second part of that, I guess,1according to what the staff had said, is that they2have to be materially different from what was3previously in the record.4MR. LODGE: Well the previous5understanding was that there was a finite -- that we6have identified the laminar cracking, we've identified7the source, and we're going to slap a coat of paint on8it, for want of a better word, high quality coating9material, and we're going to change the penetration10ability, of the resistance, if you will, of the shield11building.12Well, that's all been done and as part of13a -- what's turning out in retrospect to look like an14experiment, there are new implications for it. That's15different. Please remember also, Your Honor, we're16talking about when did the public -- when was the17public finally let in on this information, and that18did not occur until July.19It may be two years old or two and a half20years old, but it is -- it cannot be something which21becomes the fault of the Intervenors for simply not22knowing it. It is materially different because we23have a new cause articulated by FirstEnergy's24consultants, not by the public.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 790We have propagation spreading identified. 1So the new, materially new information is is that this2is ongoing. It ain't fixed. It is not stopped. It3has not been curbed, and I repeat. It may also not be4fully understood. There are welcome and increasingly5sophisticated scientific analyses that are starting to6appear in PII's writing.7But the thing is is that yes, there's8considerable material difference between what we know9as of July of this year, versus what we knew even in10the spring of this year.11JUDGE FROEHLICH: But Mr. Lodge, I mean12let me just tell you what we have to deal with in our13decision. If the previous AMPs had, you know, Content14A in them and this July AMP has Content A plus B in15it, the fact that there's a B in it doesn't mean that16you have the legal right to go back and question the17A part, which was available two or three times earlier18in years.19Now that's what we're being told, is that20that is not admissible. You never submitted a21contention that criticized A before, even though it22was available.23MR. LODGE: June 4th, 2012 we did, Your24Honor, and we -- understand our contention is is that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 791they don't know enough to be making the judgment calls1they're making. This is -- particularly the earlier2calls apparently were grossly erroneous, and I am3operating from 20-20 hindsight here.4But we did critique the AMP before. It5was terribly insufficient; it wasn't really fully6investigatory. The response at the time, and I'm7willing to accept the Board's decision at the time. 8But the response at the time was "Hey, man. We've9done all these impulse tests; we have been all over10this building."11But there's been a lot of change since12that time, much of it initiated by the utility itself,13and now a certain number of chickens are coming home14to roost, and it is creating new problems. They15actually could also be because of the more16scientifically capable investigatory method of17electronic microscopy. They may actually simply be18identifying things that could have been identified had19that technique been used in 2011-2012.20But there's also propagation on top of21that. There is new cracking besides. So I simply22repeat. We're talking about a wait-and-see monitoring23effort that is revealing new information, and the24utility's saying "hey, the plan works. We're finding25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 792this stuff, and in fact we're going to now go to an1annual basis for a while."2But they do not have a knowledge base of3the status of the entire building, and they're looking4at new changes. It is not enough to say that we're5going to keep looking at this for the remaining two6and a half or three years of license activity under7the 40-year license, and then we'll just continue8keeping an eye on things. 9There's no plan for mitigation. There is10some discussion of how the building is out of11compliance with this licensing basis. I don't see how12that gets -- how that passes muster and justifies a1320-year extension at this point.14JUDGE FROEHLICH: We're going to talk more15about these others as this day progresses.16JUDGE KASTENBERG: Thank you. I just17wanted to follow up on something that Mr. Harris said18before about the ice wedging, that there was some19indication that there might be ice wedging in a pre-202014 report. Could you point us to where we could21find that?22MR. HARRIS: It is in a letter response,23the July 3 modifications. No, that's not the right24one.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 793MS. KANATAS: Uh-uh. 1MR. HARRIS: There is -- FENOC had2provided a number of responses to RAIs related to the3Aging Management Program. There is an April 5, 20124response, and that ML number is ML 12097A520, and in5the enclosure to it, it discusses cracking of concrete6from freezing water that has permeated the concrete.7It's monitoring the surface condition, the8bore holes, the core bore samples and changing crack9conditions and by visual inspection. So this is one10of the things, one of the things that they were11monitoring from the initial AMP, you know.12As we continue to go through this, this13same sort of language appeared in other responses and14November 2012, 20-2012. That ML number is ML1512331A125. It had very similar language in an16enclosure. That can be found in Enclosure A, page 817of 12. These are letters that FENOC sent in in18response to RAIs.19Then when you get to the final one, and of20course some of that becomes more explicit in terms of21not just being in these enclosures; they're talking22about now that we have this crack propagation, we're23going to be trending it, you know. Whereas before24with those responses, there was not any indication of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 794propagation.1So you know, it was one of those things2you don't need to explicitly say, I should trend the3crack when I don't expect to find any crack. 4JUDGE KASTENBERG: Right.5BH So it's just -- it's one of those6that's almost implicit in what they were monitoring,7that as soon as you find it, you need to trend it. 8MS. KANATAS: And if I may, Your Honor,9getting at the timeliness issues in response to some10of what Intervenors just said, to the extent that11they're talking about this new cracking being12materially different, it was the subject of their13Contention 6.14So it was August and September 2013, and15the subject of Contention 6. So to the extent that16they're talking about the full apparent cause17evaluations ice wedging, as Mr. Harris just said,18multiple submittals from 2012 and through these years19have indicated that ice wedging aging effects may be20identified, including ice wedging, and that ice21wedging could affect rebar and coating effectiveness.22To the extent that this is an issue about23compliance with the current licensing basis, that's24clearly outside the scope. Therefore does not support25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 795admissibility and gets at that materiality prong of1timeliness. Thank you.2MR. BURDICK: Judge Froehlich.3JUDGE FROEHLICH: Yes?4MR. BURDICK: Can I make one more point on5the timeliness before we move off this topic? You6know, I've heard from their Petitioners in their7explanation a few times today. They talk about how we8didn't think there would be propagation. 9There is some discussion about it in our10root cause evaluation, that we didn't expect11propagation from I think it's thermal fatigue. But12regardless of that, we put in -- in 2012, we13deliberately put in the shield building monitoring14program to monitor exactly for propagation, to look15for these types of incidences, events.16So it functioned, and that's really our17timeliness argument here, is we had a program in18place. Part of the discussion of the Commission in19the Oyster Creek decision that I referenced earlier20was they referred to some of the Licensing Board's21discussion of, you know, why you shouldn't be allowed22to keep doing this, that if the Petitioners have a23problem with this enhanced program that has additional24inspections, you know, a shorter or a larger25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 796frequency, then they should have had a problem with1the earlier monitoring program and should have2challenged it then. So that's really our argument3here.4JUDGE FROEHLICH: Did the earlier program,5the AMP deal or address the microcracking?6MR. BURDICK: The shield building7monitoring program has never been designed to address8microcracking itself. Instead, there's a separate9AMP, the structures monitoring AMP, that addresses10other types of cracking within concrete structures,11including microcracking.12JUDGE FROEHLICH: Yeah. I think certainly13the answer, looking at the FACE report, quotes14something. It says "Performance International15concluded in RCA 1 that the general determination, it16was not likely to propagate." That was the original17conclusion. 18"Note that in RCA 1, ice wedging was not19considered because it had not been known to be20involved in concrete crack initiation." So basically21they didn't know. Now they know.22MR. BURDICK: And Your Honor on that23point, we're not disputing that. We acknowledge that24in that document. But our point is notwithstanding25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 797that conclusion, we still put in a shield building1monitoring program to monitor for propagation, and it 2functioned. It identified the propagation.3So that's from a timeliness perspective is4our argument there, consistent with the Oyster Creek5case.6MR. HARRIS: And Your Honor, just to7address the microcracking a little bit, microcracking8is somewhat inherent on all concrete structures, you9know, because there is water present in them. So any10structure that's getting a freeze-thaw cycle, that was11true when we started this proceeding a long time ago,12that you know, microcracking is an inherent part of13any large concrete structure.14MS. KANATAS: In the FACE, the Full15Apparent Cause Evaluation discusses this on page 63 of1698. The presence of moisture is inherent in any17concrete structure, and as in the case of the shield18building, it was not believed to pose any challenges19to the coating effort.20JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. Well, what I'd21like to do is take about a ten minute break at this22point, and collect our notes, and I'm going to get23into the contention itself and move away from some of24the timeliness and groundbreaking -- the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 798groundbreaking or the initial portions of this. 1So let us stand in recess for just ten2minutes. We'll resume against 11:00 a.m. Thank you.3JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I just have a couple of4preliminaries I hadn't finished before and I want to 5-- this deals with which parts of the shield building6were originally coated. There seems to be some7confusion and I wanted to make sure I understood that. 8As I can determine from looking at RCA1, the portion9below grade of the shield building was waterproofed10back in the '70s and also the dome of the shield11building back in '76, I believe. Is that correct?12MR. BURDICK: Let me check on the dome,13Your Honor. 14(Pause)15MR. BURDICK: Thank you, Your Honor. For16below grade there is a waterproof membrane that's17around the shield building walls that are below grade. 18The dome, there was some evidence of some coating19applied prior to 1976, however, the dome and the20above-grade walls were all re-coated in -- or coating21was applied in October of 2012 as a corrective action22from RCA1.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So the dome was also24coated at that point? Nothing was done below grade25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 799though, right?1MR. BURDICK: Just there was a waterproof2membrane, but not the same type of coating about, yes.3JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I just wanted to read4from the root cause report. It says, "The shielded5building dome lacks susceptibility to the causal6factors for concrete cracking found in the7architectural flute shoulders involving waterproof8coating on the exterior surface." It says, "The9discontinuities, stress concentration factor and the10intermediate radial reinforcing steel and high-density11reinforcing steel. Therefore, only the remainder of12the accessible above-grade exterior wall of the shield13building should be examined similar to those." Is14that where we are and this is correct?15MR. BURDICK: That's correct from the --16the conclusions in that RCA1 document was it was the17shield building walls and portions of those that are18susceptible to the laminar cracking that was19identified at that time. And then no laminar cracking20was identified except for in those areas of the shield21building wall above grade.22JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Does the AMP exclude23these areas, specifically the dome and the below-grade24or do you know if they've ignored and just --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 800MR. BURDICK: Because there was no laminar1cracking identified in the dome and their conclusion2was it's not susceptible. It's excluded from the3extent that the Shield Building Monitoring Program is4monitoring for additional crack propagation. That5same Shield Building Monitoring Program also covers6the coatings. And so the coating applied to the7shield building dome in October 2012 is covered by8that AMP.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Thank you.10JUDGE KASTENBERG: So I wanted to get now11more to the technical aspects of the contention as12proffered by petitioners. And first is the question13of the containment, the concrete structure itself. 14And in your answer you summarize the function of the15structure. You said, "As stated in the LRA the shield16building is a concrete structure surrounding the17containment vessel. It is designed to provide18biological shielding during normal operation and from19hypothetical accident conditions." 20So I'm curious about the hypothetical21accident conditions. And can you say whether that22includes both design-basis accidents of a hypothetical23nature and/or what used to be called Class 9 or24beyond-design-basis, which I think now are called25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 801severe accidents? So can you clarify what you1actually mean by "hypothetical accident conditions?"2MR. BURDICK: Certainly. The shield3building, given that it is a two-and-a-half foot thick4wall with concrete with rebar in it, provides some5amount of biological shielding no matter what just6because of its nature. Any radiation would be7directed out the wall. Some of that would be8mitigated by the wall. And so I think this discussion9here is certainly during regular operating conditions,10but also would provide some protection.11Let me check though, if you'd like, Judge12Kastenberg, whether there are specific accidents that13are accounted for. I don't know that level of detail.14MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I might be able15to add something to that while he's checking. At16least in terms of the technical requirements for the17reactor is we're dealing with what are traditionally18called design-basis accidents in terms of their19intended functions, so these severe accidents, what20used to be called Class 9 accidents or beyond-design-21basis accidents. So where this tends to get22overlapped is when we start looking at severe accident23mitigation analysis. Its intended function would be24for the design-basis accidents required as part of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 802regulations which do include some beyond-design-basis1accidents: station blackout, ATWIZ, those kind of2things. 3But in general I think for what you're4referring to the severe accidents that are account for5in the SAMA don't actually take any credit for the6concrete shield building. 7JUDGE KASTENBERG: That's where I was8going with this line of questioning. Thank you.9MR. MATTHEWS: I'd add one caveat there,10Judge Kastenberg. And that is correct, with the vast11majority of the SAMA the analysis assumes that there12is no shield building in the release path. There are13some SAMA for interfacing system loss of coolant14accidents where you have penetrations through. And so15in small-break LOCA analysis there are some that16consider the flow path there, the flow path up through17the shield building vent, a very small considerate in18the SAMA analysis. But that is the existence of a19vent path, not the exterior laminar coating.20JUDGE KASTENBERG: Yes. So, reflecting21back on your SAMA analysis, I guess the way I would22phrase the question is do you take credit for the fact23that the shield building is there or is not there? In24other words, did it enter at all into any of your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 803consequence calculations in your SAMA?1MR. MATTHEWS: And I'm not clear whether2it's the consequence -- the maps or the max piece of3it. I'm not a SAMA expert. 4JUDGE KASTENBERG: I get that. 5MR. MATTHEWS: But for a small subset of6the small-break LOCA accidents, the interfacing system7there is credit for the pathway between the8containment and the shield building. So it's a9qualified yes. There is some consideration of it. 10It's interesting, but as a contention of11omission there's no suggestion why cracking on the12exterior surface of the shield building is in any way13relevant to the analysis. There's no discussion of14what's wrong with it. There's not even a reference to15the analysis itself, whether it's the identification16of AMPs, the screening of AMPs, the assessment of17AMPs, the cost benefit evaluation of the AMPs. 18There's no reference to any of that. Just SAMA as if19it were some incantation that trumps the contention20admissibility rules. 21To the extent it's a contention of22omission it would have to identify and explain the23legal requirement and the technical requirement why24somehow this changes the outcome of the SAMA analysis25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 804in some material way. There's nothing there. It just1says SAMA should be considered and they invite the2Board to conduct some investigation. So on the3threshold matter is the contention sufficient? 4There's nothing there to assess. The discussion we5are having or started to have is more on the merits of6it, and cracking would have no effect on the SAMA7analysis.8JUDGE KASTENBERG: Thank you. Well,9perhaps we should ask Mr. Lodge to --10MR. LODGE: Thank you. The incantation is11that a couple of NRC engineers projected in 2011 that12there was a possibility in the event of a minor13earthquake or a heat event within the containment of14the reactor that there could be a serious, if not15massive, collapse of a lot of the shield building16material down to a thickness of perhaps three or four17inches in the inner rebar layer. That has not been18discussed. There certainly are some questions about19the loss of the filtering action that is performed by20the building. It's not simply mumbling SAMA as though21it were something sacred and indecipherable, although22it is both of those things, too. 23JUDGE KASTENBERG: Can you tell me is24there any indication in your pleadings as to what you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 805think the effect of the cracks would be or the1collapse would be on the SAMA analysis itself, how it2might actually change the result? Is there anything3in what you've submitted to us?4MR. LODGE: Well, you mean besides the5obvious fact that perhaps 90 percent of the concrete6function to protect from outside missiles and that7sort of thing would be gone? I mean, I think that8there's a certain obvious problem that would occur.9There's also the opportunity of, as we10said I think at page 14 of our reply on October 10th 11-- we cite an NRC engineer who talks about if there12were loss of concrete FACE material, that there could13be a collapse of the rebar. And if you're talking14about a collapse of the rebar in the direction of the15containment, the containment is an inch or an inch-16and-a-half thick steel shell with its own corrosion17problems, incidently, and I haven't heard or seen18anything that suggests that it would be strong enough19to hold up a significant hundreds-or-thousands-of-20tons-kind of collapse of shield building material onto21it.22JUDGE KASTENBERG: But how would you23envision, given that scenario, that the reactor itself24would still be operating at that point?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 806MR. LODGE: How would I envision it would1still be operating?2JUDGE KASTENBERG: Yes, I think we heard3staff say this morning that in extended operation of4the plant that if for some reason the concrete vessel5reached the point where it's no longer function-able,6the reactor would have to be shut down. And in a7shutdown state how would you envision a severe8accident taking place?9MR. LODGE: I think a severe accident took10place at one of the reactors at Fukushima that shut11down, too. I think shutdown reactors certainly can12pose some problems if there is a massive failure such13as we're talking about. And this is not to dodge it,14but under NEPA the responsibility of the public, of15the intervenor, is to raise the unconsidered16potential, not to necessarily explain every nuance of17what might happen as a result of the scenario. I18think that there would be some serious problems19occasioned by destroying a reactor that's in a20shutdown state, or damaging it.21(Off microphone comments)22MR. LODGE: That's true, too. My friend23points out that an earthquake could potentially cause24a very rapid, if not sudden, collapse of a perhaps25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 807operating nuclear reactor. 1JUDGE KASTENBERG: And do you have any2data to indicate that earthquakes are an important3external event for Davis-Besse? 4MR. LODGE: In 2012 -- it's in the record5some place, but in one of our filings we identified a6document as V1, which actually does talk about that.7MR. MATTHEWS: Judge Kastenberg, if I8might respond? The intervenors point to some staff9emails, internal discussions in the deliberative10process that they've referred to in the previous11iteration of the contention that have no connection to12propagation. So we're untimely in the first instance. 13But coming again to those points, they're14internal discussions that are in conflict with the15staff's ultimate conclusion. The staff, to its16credit, was looking very hard at FENOC's analysis. 17FENOC's analysis concluded that the shield building18was capable of performing its intended functions. The19structural integrity, even discounting a conservative20discount for the rebar, was still able to perform its21intended function. It was able to withstand the22seismic qualifications, the seismic requirements. 23The staff came to that same conclusion. 24And the staff as recently as May of this year25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 808reiterated that same conclusion at looking at the1analysis. The laminar cracking phenomenon has not2impacted the shield building in the way the3intervenors suggest. And all they ride on is an4internal staff deliberation. Even it were timely,5there's no basis for it.6And to your point do they identify7anything wrong with the SAMA analysis or suggest how8it would change, I think the omission in the answer9answers it.10MS. KANATAS: And I would add to what was11just said. In support of Contention 5, when these12claims about internal emails that the staff was having13in relation to the restart of the reactor, there were14mis-characterizations that were just repeated. And I15would just point to the affidavit of Abdul Sheikh that16was submitted as part of the Contention 5 filings,17which we discussed two years ago at oral argument when18these claims were raised before. And again, they do19have to do with the ability of the plant to restart.20And as Mr. Matthews just indicated, the21shield building is classified and designed as a22seismic class 1 structure, which means that it is23designed to remain capable of performing its functions24even during and following a design-basis or safe25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 809shutdown earthquake event. And as Judge Kastenberg1alluded to, if the shield building was determined not2to be operable, it would have to shut down. And when3a plant is shut down, the gaseous effluents and direct4radiation levels within the plant are significantly5reduced. Thank you.6MR. LODGE: Judge Kastenberg, just to7answer your question, in what I'm guessing to be8approximately 1983 the ACRS raised some serious9questions in a document called, "Licensing Basis10Seismic Ground Motion Concern." We identified it in11connection with one of our 2012 filings as Exhibit12B/1. I'd be happy to provide it if you want to make13a copy.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I guess since we got15into design-basis analyses, we might pursue that a16little bit. 17Okay. First of all, in the May 12th, 201418inspection report it indicates that FENOC had19completed two calculations presumably to reestablish20the design-basis of the shield building. And I guess21the inspectors looked at those calculations. Do you22know what the status of the NRC review of those23calculations is?24MR. HARRIS: I believe there is one25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 810unresolved item. I don't believe it's the actual1calculations, but one of the methods that they used. 2I can't really comment too much further on that3because it's still being under consideration within4the staff in terms of that, what they submitted.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Well, as I6understand it, again, just from the material in the7record, there's a method of spherical shells that8apparently is what the USAR calls for for the design-9basis calculation for the shield building. I believe10these calculations were done using ANSYS, a modern,11more computer-oriented calculation. And from what I12can see, it's a URI. What is that?13MR. HARRIS: Unresolved item.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Unresolved issue, or15item, right. So what does that mean?16MR. HARRIS: Let me try to sort of start17a little bit earlier. There are two things: When a18plant finds a condition of a component that is19different than it was built to is it -- it can be in20a degraded condition. And so one of the first things21plants do is to do an operability determination to22determine whether or not the plant as it currently23exists can meet its intended functions. 24And for doing an operability determination25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 811you can use a different method of analysis to show1that it would still be able to meet all of its2intended functions as opposed to the analysis of3record. Then when they've gone back to go to4reestablish the design-basis, you have to look at sort5of the analysis of record and in terms of how that all6fits together. 7One of the unresolved items, as you8mentioned, is what was originally done back before we9had modern computers to do a lot of this analysis was10really sort of a spherical hoop analysis looking at a11section instead of a more finite element analysis that12you can now do with these. And so that's the13unresolved item of how that should be used in terms of14reestablishing the design-basis.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, then let's assume16that -- I mean, certainly ANSYS -- somebody would17argue ANSYS is a better method than the old method,18but would that require a license amendment? And I19guess my is is do you know if there going to be a20license amendment request issued?21MR. HARRIS: I do not know if there will22be a license amendment request issued. I'm not sure23that that's contemplated at that time. That's part of24what the staff is currently looking at right.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 812JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Do you have any insight1into that?2MR. BURDICK: No, I agree with what I've3heard. But just to provide a little more background4on this, this May 2014 inspection report relates to5the efforts that came out of a corrective action from6RCA1. And so at that time back in 2011-2012 FENOC, in7talking to the staff, determined that the plant was8operable but non-conforming, and then had the9corrective action then, then developed this design10evaluation that Your Honor has raised. And so, FENOC11went through the process of significant testing and12developing this evaluation. 13And then FENOC; the way the process works,14looked at its existing licensing basis and design-15basis and updated its design-basis documents to16incorporate this new design evaluation that relies on17these test results and everything. And so it did18that, and through its processes determined a license19amendment was not needed. But then now is discussing20with the NRC. So I think that's where we're at is21there's still ongoing inspection and discussions as to22what happens.23But I think what's key to point out here24is this question though is part of the current25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 813licensing basis and outside the scope of this1proceeding. I know the intervenors raised questions2about FENOC's compliance with the current licensing3basis and design-basis in a number of different places4and we've argued; I think it's in our answer at pages540 to 44, or 42 to 46, that that's outside the scope. 6And I think that's true of this question as well. 7Regardless of whether a license amendment is8ultimately determined we need it, that's going to be9separate and apart from this license renewal10proceeding. 11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But as of this moment12the design-basis of the shield building has not been13reestablished?14MR. BURDICK: From FENOC's perspective it15has been reestablished. So all these activities after16the root cause evaluation of 2012 led to FENOC17updating its updated safety analysis report of USAR. 18So that now includes discussion of laminar cracking19including this design evaluation. So from FENOC's20perspective it has updated its licensing basis. 21And additionally, in 2013 after22identification of laminar crack propagation, FENOC did23a similar exercise, looked at its design-basis24evaluation to first ensure that the additional25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 814propagation identified fell within that design1evaluation, but then again updated the USAR to provide2some additional discussion of the laminar crack3propagation event. 4So again, I think the key point is from5FENOC's perspective it has updated the design-basis6and licensing basis to address laminar cracking and7laminar crack propagation. And it's under the Part 508inspection process.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, in terms of10contention admissibility the AMP would have to make11some conclusions regarding design-basis acceptability12if more cracks were found in the course of the AMP,13implementing the AMP. In the period of extended14operation now I'm talking about. Are those15investigations considered current licensing basis even16within the extended licensing period associated with17the AMP?18MR. BURDICK: Let me explain it this way: 19So the definition of current licensing basis is in 1020CFR 54.3, and that includes regulations, commitments,21but also the updated safety analysis report. So from22our perspective this design evaluation is within the23updated safety analysis report and so it is part of24the current licensing basis. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 815The Aging Management Program then is1separate from that in the sense that the standard for2license renewal in 10 CFR 54.29 assumes that that3current licensing basis goes into the period of4extended operation, but then changes are made as part5of the license renewal process to ensure that any6aging effects during that period of extended operation7are managed in a way to ensure the intended function.8So we've proffered, we've put forward this9Shield Building Monitoring Program as part of the10license renewal. If something were identified as part11of that monitoring, certainly we would not be12prohibited from looking at our current licensing basis13to look to see if there's something that's at issue14there, but that alone does not pull the design15evaluation into the license renewal. It's still part16of the current licensing basis. 17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So if something is18discovered, additional cracks are discovered as part19of the AMP implementation in the period of extended20operation, I'm assuming then they're referred to the21plant's Corrective Action Program? There's nothing in22the MAP that says here's what we're going to do other23-- and I don't even think it says Corrective Action24Program. But in any event, from my experience, it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 816would have to go to the plant's Corrective Action1Program. 2MR. BURDICK: That's correct.3JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Which would then apply4the licensing basis methodology for evaluation?5MR. BURDICK: That's correct and --6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Whatever is agreed to in7all of this would become then the current licensing8basis, right?9MR. HARRIS: I think that's generally10right. You're sort of looking at acceptance criteria11for what you find. Those cracks, are they large12enough to no longer meet the acceptance criteria for13the design? And then you would have to figure out how14to either show that the building was still operable,15basically similar to what was already done now, or16what kind of repairs you might have to make in light17of what you discovered at that point. But that's true18of every Aging Management Program.19JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So there's nothing20different in the period of extended operation then21today?22MR. HARRIS: In terms of the acceptance23criteria? That's correct.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, and except for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 817the requirement to do the AMP investigations, which1really today there's a requirement to evaluate that2building as well. I just want to make sure I3understand the --4MR. BURDICK: And, Judge Trikouros, just5two points: One is if the renewal license issues as6requested, then the AMP does become part of the7current licensing basis, or the licensing basis at8that time. And so they're working together. And so9my comments earlier were to distinguish what's part of10this proceeding, as part of the license renewal11review. But when you're actually in the period of12extended operation, that's all your licensing basis,13and so they're certainly working a function.14And I'd just point out in our July 3rd15revision to the AMP -- and actually this has been in16there the whole time, but it does specifically mention17that if the acceptance criteria are not met, then the18indications or conditions will be evaluated under the19FENOC Corrective Action Program. And so that is the20process.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So that's good. 22MR. BURDICK: Yes.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And that Corrective24Action Program would implement the current licensing25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 818basis analytical methods for doing that analysis?1MR. BURDICK: So if something were2identified as part of the Shield Building Monitoring3Program, and there are certain criteria -- and all of4this has been in here, but it talks about a5discernable change. So if we were to identify a6widening of a crack or additional propagation in the7laminar direction crack; so some change, then we would8put that into our Corrective Action Program. And that9would drive us to look at the design evaluation, of10course, just to make sure that it's still appropriate.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. 12MR. HARRIS: And, Judge Trikouros, just to13indicate how long that's been in there, it was14actually -- originally that same language about the15Corrective Action Program was in their April 5th, 201216response under the acceptance criteria. It's on pages1713 and 14 of, 15 and it's the enclosure that's18attached to that response. I mentioned the ML number19before, which is ML 12097A520. But it says basically20if the acceptance criteria is met, then the21indications or conditions will be evaluated under22FENOC's Corrective Action Program.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Okay. So I24think I understand how that works.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 819I just wanted to ask, Mr. Lodge, do you1have any problems with what we just discussed?2MR. LODGE: We do. I'm going to defer to3Mr. Kamps to respond.4MR. KAMPS: Just big picture, we're over5three years into this cracking phenomenon, going back6to October of 2011. And we were promised, for7example, at the town hall meeting in Oak Harbor, Ohio8at the high school that current licensing basis would9be restored. I believe it was by December of 2012 at10that point. We've cited in our recent filings that11there is an interplay that was admitted to between12current licensing basis and license renewal13application. There's a lot of overlap. It's14incredible that we're this far into this discussion,15three-plus years, and we're still talking about it.16And I would refer you back to what we've17cited by reference, our 2012 filings, which would be18the July and perhaps also the August, those three19filings, where based on the FOIA return, which is20right here, it was very apparent from October-November212011 that the staff, whose emails we have cited22repeatedly for all these years, were very concerned23about the loss of current licensing basis at Davis-24Besse. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 820And what was really incredible to us was1the morning of the confirmatory action letter that2allowed the rushed restart, December 3rd of 2011,3there were still questions being asked by NRC staff. 4And they were abruptly stopped. The call was issued5and the plant has been operating ever since with6problem after problem piling up that we've cited. And7this seems to be the way things have gone these past8several years. This is going to continue on into the9license extension. 10And that is our objection. It's very11loose. The definitions are very loose. The12commitments are very loose. I heard FirstEnergy's13attorney say that impulse response testing could be14deployed, if need be, but there's no commitment to do15that. It's a very amorphous moving target that we're16dealing with. And that's why I emphasize those17initial responses to the severe cracking, which we now18have established FENOC has admitted is worsening19significantly, which was denied previously. So I20refer back to those initial responses by NRC staff21that this is a serious problem. And it has been22pushed off. The can has been kicked down the road23repeatedly for years now.24JUDGE KASTENBERG: Yes, just a follow-on25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 821to that. I appreciate your concern, but if I read1your contention literally, that's not what your2contention is about. At least the way I read it, the3crux of your contention is that the AMP itself is4inadequate. And you cite scope or location, you cite5frequency, you cite number of bore holes and so on. 6That's the heart of your contention. And I appreciate7your concern of this other matter, but I don't see8that in the way you've stated this contention.9MR. KAMPS: We've certainly -- 10JUDGE KASTENBERG: Am I misinterpreting11what you've written here?12MR. KAMPS: I think so. We've certainly13raised the interplay between current licensing basis14and the license renewal application. I thought I just15heard FirstEnergy's attorney admit that there is that16interplay, that these commitments in the AMP are a17part of the current licensing basis. Once April 23rd,182017 arrives, what is currently a future commitment19during the license extension under the Aging20Management Program will then become a part of the21current licensing basis. 22So these splitting of hairs that are going23to allow this license to be renewed is what concerns24us, that there's no firm commitment, that those25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 822impulse response tests that seem to be a part of the1possibility that haven't been done since cracking2propagation was admitted to, or perhaps even occurred,3will ever happen. We don't know the status of the4shield building in the current moment and we're not5sure that we ever will under these loose commitments,6which are no commitments at all. 7JUDGE KASTENBERG: Do you have a response8for that?9MR. BURDICK: Well, so first of all, the10description of -- I guess my description of the11current licensing basis and license renewal simply12describing how it works in the license renewal13regulations at 10 CFR Part 54, Section 54.29 discusses14the current licensing basis in the standard for15license renewal. And then Section 54.30 specifically16addresses that the staff's review should not cover the17current licensing basis. If something comes up18related to the current licensing basis, then I direct19it to their NRR folks that address the current20operating. 21So I was not making any revelation here. 22Simply describing the regulations. And just point out23here, too, in this proceeding under 10 CFR 2.335 the24intervenors are not permitted to challenge the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 823regulations, if that's what they're trying to do here. 1This is simply describing how the process works.2MR. KAMPS: I found the citation I was3referring to. It's page 12 of our October 10th, 20144filing. It's footnote No. 5 where we point to NRC5regulations that show that current licensing basis and6license renewal application overlap, have interplay,7have an interchange. And that's our concern. 8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, let me9ask the NRC, or the staff, the current obligation of10Davis-Besse with respect to -- first of all, let me --11I prefer to use the term "design-basis of the shield12building," but the current licensing basis is a13broader a thing and certainly would include the AMP in14the extended period of operation. I don't think15that's anything new. 16But in any event, would the license17renewal for this plant be issued if the design-basis18of the shield building were not adequately19established, I guess is my question.20MR. HARRIS: That's a big question because21in terms of what do you really mean by "adequately22established?" If the shield building could perform23its intended functions, then -- and met its design-24basis, whether that was the -- or the design-basis25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 824when it was built. or if it was modified through1either the 50.59 process or through a license2amendment, then yes, you could issue the license3renewal. But in terms -- 4MS. KANATAS: Sorry. Assuming that we5also found that FENOC's AMP adequately managed the6aging effects as well.7MR. HARRIS: Yes.8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right now the shield9building is operable but non-conforming.10MR. BURDICK: Our view, we have updated11our design-basis documents to address both the laminar12cracking and the laminar crack propagation. So we13have updated. That is our design-basis. So it's part14of our updated safety analysis report. It's in the15Part 50 inspection process, but that doesn't change16the fact that that has been updated.17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, but there's an18existing unresolved issue regarding the method of19analysis that was used.20MR. BURDICK: I don't think it's the21method of analysis. I think it's a process question. 22It's not a substantive question about whether the23design evaluation was sufficient. It's almost a24licensing question or a process. Did we go through25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 825our process as far as looking at the prior approvals1of the ANSYS, too. But based on the conclusion of2that inspection report I don't think there is a3substantive question here. It's just a process4question. But it still doesn't change the fact that5our design-basis addresses the propagation and the6laminar cracking.7MR. MATTHEWS: And it's a question, not a8finding. It's an unresolved issue, not an inspection9finding. It's not an apparent violation. It's a10question the staff had.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. I understand. 12So there is a design-basis calculation using i would13say an advanced method of analysis that shows that the14design-basis of the shield building is intact with all15of the current cracking information included in the16analysis. The staff review of that in the inspection17of it indicated that they thought that that was18correct, that that conclusion was correct. However,19the method that was used didn't conform to the method20that was originally used in the UFSAR, and therefore21a URI was identified. Is that a correct statement?22MR. HARRIS: If you're talking about this,23that's the right way to describe it. That unresolved24item is in -- as FENOC just described it, it's sort of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 826a process question of how should that be put into the1FSAR. And it's a complicated question with some of2those codes and who has authority to approve different3uses of it. 4JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So back to my original5question now, in this context will that URI have to be6resolved before the license amendment gets issued?7MR. HARRIS: Can you give me one second.8(Pause)9MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I don't believe10that the unresolved item would have to be finalized11somehow some way before we could issue the license12amendment contingent on all the other findings that13have to be made.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So it's falling under15the umbrella of COB?16MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.18JUDGE FROEHLICH: Mr. Kamps, a moment ago19you referred the Board to I guess footnote 5 on page2012 of your pleading.21MR. KAMPS: Yes.22JUDGE FROEHLICH: And I just took a look23at that. How does point (b) support the argument24you're making? 54.30(b).25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 827MR. KAMPS: Well, as we have been from the1beginning in 2010, we've been focused on the 2017 to22037 time period. So we've been accused by both3FirstEnergy and NRC staff that we're concerned about4current operations. We certainly are. We're very5concerned about them. But the basis of our6contentions throughout have been on the license7extension period. 8And so what I'm hearing today is that9current licensing basis commitments under AMPs become10current licensing basis on April 23rd of 2017. And so11we're certainly going to challenge them. It's a part12of our contention's theme. I mean, it's throughout13this section F of our October 10th filing. Footnote14No. 7 is also relevant. The entire section is15relevant. The reason that I brought up the late 201116internal NRC emails is to emphasize the significance17of the loss of current licensing basis. And I think18it's very telling that here we are three-plus years19later and this is still unresolved, very much so, and20appears that that will continue. If I heard you21correctly just now, Mr. Harris, that will continue22indefinitely into the future.23JUDGE FROEHLICH: Mr. Harris, how does24paragraph (b), Section 54.30 support the argument that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 828this is within the scope of license renewal.1MR. HARRIS: It doesn't. It doesn't2support that this was in the scope of the license3renewal. It's the shield building. For hypothetical4purposes if the shield building was non-conforming or5degraded or out of compliance, that is an issue for6current licensing basis inspection and 2.2067petitions, not for license renewal. The scope of8license renewal is limited to managing the aging9effects through AMPs or TLAAs, or some combination of10those structure systems and components that are11passive.12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Let me just ask13this: If you decide that the new method is an14acceptable method for doing the design-basis analysis15for Davis-Besse shielding, would the applicant then16have to file a license amendment request to modify the17USAR to include that method as the new method?18MR. HARRIS: Well, I think -- and I don't19want to put words into FENOC's mouth -- is that20they've indicated that they think that they have21updated it already through the 50.59 process. That is22part of what the staff is looking at in terms of when23we went out to inspect that process. So through 50.5924you can make changes to your FSAR that are -- and I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 829don't want to quote or paraphrase that -- or not --1there's a big long list of how you go through that2process, but in terms of -- it sort of turns on safety3significance of whether or not that should require a4license amendment. So that is what the staff is5concentrating on. 6MR. MATTHEWS: 50.59 allows different7methods if they have been previously accepted by the8staff. Judge Trikouros, I'm sure you've seen from the9inspection report FENOC looked at where the NRC had10accepted the ANSYS code and FENOC relied on that. The11staff has a question, or the inspection report12identified a question as to whether those were13appropriate, whether those were sufficiently formal14rigorous staff approvals in those applications for a15licensee to use it in this application. So the staff16is evaluating that question.17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, how does the USAR18get updated? You just update it every two years and19say here's the new method? 20MR. MATTHEWS: It's supported by a21detailed 50.59 evaluation. And that was a part of the22staff's inspection. 23MR. BURDICK: The USAR is a licensee-24controlled document. And if we identify some sort of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 830update that we want to make or need to make, then we1go through a process, follow the regulations in 10 CFR250.59 to see if that's something that we can make on3our own. There are certain screening criteria. If4it's a tech spec change, for example, we need a5license amendment. There's other things it can screen6out. Then if it passes that screening, we look at7these eight factors. If none of those are tripped --8there are certain ways that we control that document. 9And then we provide reports to the NRC staff on --10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: My understanding is if11you use an entirely new method to do an analysis in12the FSAR that that isn't a simple 50.59 pass-through. 13Now my understanding may be incorrect, but that USAR14says you're going to use method A. You've done the15analysis using method B. Are you saying the staff16doesn't have to review your analysis at all? Because17that's what -- 18MR. MATTHEWS: 50.59 allows applicants to19us methods previously accepted by the staff in20addition to the one identified in your license -- or21design-basis. Under 50.59 it evaluated the screening22review, the review of the evaluation. Under the23evaluation the regulation allows the licensee to apply24methods that have been accepted for use by the staff.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 831JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Now the inspector1looking at that said that this method of analysis has2been used in the past but never with tracks like this. 3So that's part of this URI, I believe.4MR. MATTHEWS: That's correct.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And I'm trying to6understand how this whole thing closes, because I7think the petitioners are concerned about this. So,8so far we haven't determined the closure point.9MR. HARRIS: I think I now understand a10little bit more of what you're asking. It could close11in a number of different ways. The unresolved item12could be closed in basically a follow-up to the13inspection report that could find; and I'm not14prejudging, I'm not saying what we will find, that15there method of updating the FSAR through 50.59 was16allowable under the regs. 17It could also find that using 50.59 to18update that analysis was not acceptable in the regs19and that there was some sort of violation in terms of20updating that way and that it would actually have21required a license amendment. And then the22expectation would be that they would submit a license23amendment under those situations. But it is an issue24that requires some amount of work on the staff to sort25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 832of trace through this in terms of that particular1part. 2I think ANSYS -- and you probably can see3from the inspection report, it was used in the ESBWER4analysis. It was used in one of the new reactors5analysis in terms of being approved in new reactors. 6And that's some of where FENOC is citing to the7staff's previous approval of ANSYS for this kind of8structural analysis. And that's what the staff is9working through right now.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So one of the closure11paths would include a license amendment that's filed?12MR. HARRIS: It could. Yes, Your Honor.13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. In which case14then the intervenors would have the opportunity to15file a contention regarding that follow-up?16MR. HARRIS: Right. Now, the intervenors17also under 50.59, even if we closed it as it was an18acceptable allowance, they could still file a 2.20619petition that they're somehow outside the scope of20their license. I mean, they're not foreclosed from21challenging that change. 22MR. KAMPS: Could we respond at some23point?24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 833MR. KAMPS: Just the 2.206 process is a1black hole by design, apparently. I mean, our expert2Arnie Gundersen who's with us here on the steam3generator replacement at Davis-Besse in 2013-20144confirmed that something on the order of 1 in 20052.206 petitions have ever succeeded. So we don't have6the resources to waste on dead end by-design7processes. 8The other rebuttal I'd like to put out9there is on the 50.59 itself. That was really at the10heart of our intention against the steam generator11replacement in light of the debacle at San Onofre. 12And so the overlap of these concerns at Davis-Besse13are pretty astounding when you start to add up the14cracking of a Crystal River, the steam generator15experiment of a San Onofre. We've got it all going on16at Davis-Besse all at the same time. And in the very17tight strict by-design constraints of an LRA18proceeding we tried to raise our concerns. 19We also raise our concerns about current20operations every chance we get. We raised our21concerns about high-level radioactive waste in the22Nuclear Waste Confidence Hearing in Perrysburg. But23I think we have an abundance of concerns right in this24LRA proceeding that deserve a hearing and have25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 834deserved a hearing for three years at this point. 1JUDGE FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you. 2Anymore? 3JUDGE KASTENBERG: Not on that subject.4Given the time we might have before lunch5or so to begin a discussion of what I consider the6heart of your explicit proffered contention which has7to do with location, which is scope or location of the8bore holes, the number of bore holes, frequency of9inspection and the possibility of other means of10examination, which is to me at the heart of this, at11least as you explicitly stated it, could you kind of12summarize for me -- what basis do you have that the13scope, frequency and number are inadequate? What's14the technical basis, or at least enough of a basis15that would lead us to conclude that this was16admissible? Given all the other considerations aside,17why this would be admissible? On what basis would you18argue that this is admissible?19MR. KAMPS: Well, we've mentioned already20today that the surface area of the shield building is21280,000 square meters. Square feet. Square feet. 22You have to add to that 30 inches of thickness of23thickness of the shield building. All that adds to a24very large volume structure. And we're talking about25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 835before the cracking propagation 20 bore holes to try1to monitor the situation with the cracking. After2cracking propagation is admitted to and acknowledged3by FirstEnergy because of evidence that it's4happening, a 15-percent increase, 3 more bore holes on5a very small sample size. 6And we've made this point for years now7that this exclusive focus on sub-surface laminar8cracking is already very limited. We've raised many9other forms of cracking that have been documented in10this proceeding. Today the micro-cracking has been11raised, the risk of radial-oriented cracking, the12synergisms between these various forms of cracking,13some of which in the course of this proceeding were14made public, things like August 1976, cracking at the15dome, pre-blizzard of 1978. 16So the reason that we need a diversity of17testing methodologies. We've talked about the impulse18response testing being dated at this point. That was19a snapshot at a certain point in time. That was years20ago now. Cracking is worse now. What does that look21like across the full structure? 22Back in 2012 we talked about the risks of23micro-cracking. And back then CTL Group, a contractor24for FirstEnergy, had identified micro-cracking 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 836shallow in the wall, at a shallow level. And now it's1getting some acknowledgement in the PII Face report of2July 2014. But our concerns about the risks remain3about the synergisms of these various forms of4cracking that can only be detected if they're looked5for. 6And I think that given that -- the phrase7that's used by both FirstEnergy and I think also by8NRC is this is a unique operating experience, a unique9operating experience in all of industry and that the10ramifications of that, if you're not looking for -- if11you're not curious about what could be happening. And12the July 2014 FACE report is a good example of this. 13The worsening cracking was not expected even though14earlier today Mr. Harris said that some of these risks15were within the realm of possibility in 2012. Things16like freeze/thaw was on the radar screen. 17In fact, the heart of our July and our18especially our two filings in July of 2012 were based19on the FOIA returns where NRC staff had 27 areas of20inquiry about other root causes that could be at play. 21And that's another part of our bafflement at the22disinterest in root cause. Because if there had been23more concern about the possibilities, then perhaps24this rush to seal the building would have been better25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 837thought through. 1So my colleagues also want me to raise the2issue of the potential of the shield building3initiating an accident itself. I mean, the question4was raised earlier, Mr. Kastenberg, about the reactor5being shut down when the shield building failure6happens. And we want to get the point out there that7the shield building's collapse itself could be the8initiator of an operating reactor accident. So that's9why we've called for diversity of testing. The small10increases in number of tests are insufficient. 11The frequency. Again, we made that point12earlier that if this lax attitude in the license13renewal period of every couple years, every four years14were to have been in play in the last couple of years,15the cracking growth would have been missed. We16wouldn't know about it and that the material change17that's happened since 2012 is before FirstEnergy and18NRC denied that cracking would get worse. They said19it happened in 1978. It's not going to get worse. In202013 it was detected as getting worse. And finally in21July of 2014 it was explained the likely apparent22cause as to why. 23So more interest, more curiosity, more24concern over the risks in the last few years could25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 838have averted further damage to the building. I think1it's fair to say it's ironic that the only corrective2action, actual action that's been taken, the sealing3of the building, actually worsened the situation. 4Didn't make it better. 5JUDGE KASTENBERG: Before we ask the6licensee, I appreciate your argument, and to me it7feels like a rather set of general statements, and yet8your wording of the proffered contention is somewhat9specific regarding scope, frequency and sample size. 10What in your view might be an adequate scope,11frequency and sample size? What would you actually12base a change on?13MR. LODGE: Can we take a moment?14JUDGE KASTENBERG: Sure.15(Pause)16MR. LODGE: One more moment, sir. Sorry.17(Pause)18MR. LODGE: We're trying to find the19location where we made the point, but in one of our20probably September filings, and probably September218th, we made the point that there was no statistical22significance of doing 23 samples in an area this23large, in a potential problem area of the magnitude24that we have been talking about this morning. And I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 839guess we are not in a position to give you an express1number of what would be an adequate investigation. 2And part of the reason is is that the intervenor's3position is that there has not been a comprehensive4investigation that identifies factually objectively5the status of the entire shield building. What you6have is this wait-and-see -- 7(Off microphone comments)8MR. LODGE: Ah, our first filing,9September 2nd, page 20, where we made the point that10the significance of the cracking problem demands that11there be --12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: This is page 20 of your13initial pleading?14MR. LODGE: Yes, of our September 2nd15filing, that a mere increase of three core bores to 2316is completely inadequate because there's not17statistical significance to the sampling methodology18that FirstEnergy is using. FirstEnergy has a wait-19and-see approach without understanding clearly, after20three years, the scope of the problem. You have21microscopic cracking that is in all likelihood going22to be continuing to expand and no longer be23microscopic while other microscopic cracking develops24in and around those areas, but you don't know what25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 840areas of the shield building are affected. 1There's an enormous circularity in the2arguments that I hear. We hear that the root cause3problem in 2012 was identified as the blizzard of '784and there is a very dramatic explanation of why that5has to be the cause, that it enveloped the shield6building in a 360-degree storm with all kinds of high7wind penetration. But then we hear this morning that8it was more directional, or that it may been that9instead of comprehensively affecting the building that10the blizzard of '78 only caused laminar cracking that11we've seen. So you have this utility postulation12that, trust me, we have found everything. 13It was wrong in 2012. The solution was14obviously flawed, the one corrective action that was15taken. And at some we believe the Licensing16Board must accept the proposition that there is not17enormous credibility that can be attributed to an18investigation of this very limited magnitude. 19Again, they took perhaps thousands of20impulse types of readings, then did the coating of the21building and changed everything. So what is the value22of that data set now after the winter of 2013-2014? 23What is the prospective potential for another vortex-24type of weather setup in future winters? And in fact,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 841maybe it's not even the vortex setup that one must1worry about. It's the climate change-induced mild2winters that have sharp periods of freezing3interspersed with sharp periods of thawing. 4The PII report, the July 2014 disclosure5talks a lot about how the cracks extend with a6freeze/thaw type of cycle about five-and-a-half inches7a year. And when they use 0.4 inches and 0.7 inches,8we're calculating maybe they're discussing what, 10 to913 freeze/thaw kinds of events per year? Ten degrees10penetrates a lot deeper into the building, depending11on how prolonged of a cold snap that is, than thirty-12one degrees would. But those are tons of unknowns13that have not been discussed. 14Finally we're discussing ice wedging, but15what I'm seeing is that it's sort of now caused the16latest -- it's the latest explanation, it's the latest17rationale. But there's not redirecting that knowledge18into meaningful future projections and understanding19how much of the shield building is affected today and20how the building will be affected from April 23rd,212017 on into the deeper future.22MR. KAMPS: And just real quickly to23follow up on that, the discussion of the deep24penetration of the freezing into the shield building25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 842wall I wanted to mention because Mr. Trikouros earlier1had said that concrete has an insulative property, but2one of those 27 areas of inquiry in 2012 the NRC staff3raised and brought to our attention in the first place4was the poor quality, the subpar; as Mr. Lodge5referred to it earlier, quality of the Davis-Besse6shield building concrete to begin with, which has a 507percent thermal diffusivity poor quality. The freeze8is able to get deeper into the concrete of the shield9building. 10And as was mentioned; we could get into so11much more detail in a hearing, another detail that12hasn't come out yet is that the annular space of the13shield building, I think it goes against the scenario14that Mr. Trikouros painted earlier of the shield15building wall being heated to a certain extent or a16certain depth outward. Actually that annular space is17preventing the heat buildup in the wall to the point18where FirstEnergy has to install heaters in the19annular space to heat up the annular space. And many20of those, half of those heaters don't work, are21malfunctioning. So I think it's wrong to think that22heat is traveling outward and preventing the freezing23from traveling inward. I think especially given the24winter last year that the freezing of that shield25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 843building wall probably went very deep into that 301inches. 2JUDGE KASTENBERG: Does the licensee have3any comments regarding petitioner's statements?4MR. BURDICK: Of course.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I'm sure.6(Laughter)7JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Why do I ask? Yes, go8ahead.9MR. BURDICK: We've heard a lot of topics10here just now from the intervenor, a lot of different11topics, and some of them sounded familiar and I think12are at least raised their pleadings, but a lot of them13are new, especially towards the end here talking about14how the coating changes the impact or I guess the15value of the earlier impulse response, things like16climate changed-induced changes, these 27 inquiries,17the poor quality. I think it's pore, P-O-R-E or --18anyway, I think a lot of these topics are found19nowhere in Contention 7. 20And so just the first point I wanted to21make is this oral argument is here to look at whether22the contention as already submitted by the intervenors23is admissible. And they submitted the original24contention, they submitted and amendment and I think25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 844some errata to that. It's to determine whether that1is admissible. So they're simply not permitted to2bring up new topics here at this oral argument to try3to support their contention.4And I won't belabor the point because I5think it's pretty standard, but let me just provide6just on the record in response just one quotation from7a Commission case. And this is an LES case, CLI 04-835, 60 NRC 619. And there the Commission said,9"Allowing contentions to be added, amended or10supplemented at any time would defeat the purpose of11the specific contention requirements by permitting the12intervenors to initially file vague and unsupported13and generalized allegations to simply recast, support14or cure them later." And I think that's what they're15trying to do here when given this opportunity. I16understand they're responding to a question by the17Board, but they're just simply not permitted to bring18in this new information.19Let me also on the contention20admissibility front -- we discuss this in extensive21detail in our answer, but one of the largest, most22significant deficiencies of this contention is they23fail to provide the alleged facts or expert opinion24that are required by 10 CFR Section 2.309(f)(1)(5),25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 845and they also fail to demonstrate a genuine disputed1material issue, fact or law under Section22.309(f)(1)(6). And we discuss that in detail. But3I think as we've listened to the intervenors describe4their contention, that's only been emphasized. 5If I were to summarize their arguments,6they claim laminar cracking is bad and then they claim7you need to do more. There is no explanation for why8what we proposed in this Shield Building Monitoring9Program is insufficient or much less that it's not10enough to satisfy the NRC's license renewal11requirements. Instead, they're just claiming you need12more without providing that basis or that specificity. 13This Board has rejected I think in both Contentions 514and 6 in part because of the bare assertions and15speculations that the intervenors provided in those16contentions. That same conclusion applies here as17well. They simply provide conclusory statements on18these issues.19I'm happy to talk through any of these20topics in more detail, but I think some of them are21fairly obvious. In the section where they talk about22additional testing techniques, they provide one23sentence that identifies eight different possible24testing mechanisms, but there's absolutely no25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 846discussion as to why they apply here, why they would1do more than we're doing, why they would be2preferable. One of them is even impulse response3testing. Well, we've done impulse response testing. 4A couple others are electronic testing, or I think5there's ultrasonic testing. They don't explain why6are those different? What are they really talking7about as doing with those? Why are those better than8impulse response testing that we have done? 9They identify some different testing to10look at I guess the quality of the concrete such as11the strength testing or tensile testing, pull testing12or creep test. They mention all of those, but again13they don't explain why that would help us to monitor14for laminar crack propagation. And in fact we have15done some of those testings throughout our evaluations16as we were looking at the quality of the concrete, but17now when we understand the mechanism, they don't18explain why should we be doing those things to look at19if there's propagational laminar cracking.20The same with chemical testing. They21mention chemical testing. Don't explain why what22we've done in the past is not sufficient or why that23is necessary to monitor for laminar crack propagation. 24Instead it's just the bare assertions and conclusory25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 847statements.1Your Honor, I guess I'll take your lead2whether you want me to try to walk through all of the3subject matters they have identified, but I think --4JUDGE KASTENBERG: Not necessary, but I do5have a follow-up question, I guess. Do I understand6correctly that the choice of frequency, number and7location is -- that you used the American country8society as the guide, that they have a standard and9that you use their standard to determine?10MR. BURDICK: So for frequency we sort of11looked at -- I think it's ACI report 349.3R, which12actually recommends a five-year inspection cycle. And13so we make the point in a few places, but including14our most recent response, we're actually shorter than15that. And so that factors into acceptability of our16frequency.17JUDGE KASTENBERG: So you feel you're18being conservative compared to this so-called accepted19standard?20MR. BURDICK: Yes, especially with21frequency.22JUDGE KASTENBERG: And the other question,23I think you referred to it as it's a standard that has24to do with concrete chimneys or concrete cylinders, I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 848think? Is that what you call it? A chimney? A1concrete chimney?2MR. BURDICK: I'm trying to recall if I3said anything specific on that.4JUDGE KASTENBERG: Well, I think in your5pleading you talk about that the standard applies to6concrete chimneys.7MR. BURDICK: Oh, I think that's right8that the shield building is a chimney-type structure. 9There's nothing that's unique in the sense that it's10a cylinder, that it's reinforced concrete and steel. 11And so we have looked at some of the standards for12those types of structures, and that factored into our13building of the AMP.14JUDGE KASTENBERG: And the standard just15talks about frequency and not about number and not16about location?17MR. BURDICK: I think it does talk about18frequency. Let me check with my -- 19(Pause)20MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, so with respect21to the ACI code, our understanding is we used the --22just for the frequency, that there's not a specific23location or number of inspections specified in that24code, is my understanding.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 849With respect to the location of the1inspections, some of that is discussed in a November22012 RAI response when we first specifically3identified that we would do 20 inspections. And as4part of that we looked at where the laminar cracking5was most prevalent in the shield building. And some6of this is -- I mentioned earlier that there was more7prevalence on the southern exposure, and some of that8is due to the weather during the winter, that I think9the wind is prevailing in that direction, in addition10to on the top, the 20 feet, and then around the main11steam line penetrations because of the rebar12configuration. So we looked at that. 13And there are some statements in the14record, for example, that we have core bores that we15inspect on I think 8 of the 10 shoulders that are on16that kind of southern exposure. And just to ensure17that we encompassed, we encompass a large percentage18of that. And so most of the core bores, or many of19them are done in pairs where one is un-cracked and one20is in a cracked area. And then there are some as well21in the flutes and then in that 20 feet and by the main22-- so we have done a representative sample for that2320. So we believe that it reflects the different24types of cracking around -- or different locations of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 850laminar cracking in the building.1The three that came about was related to2our identification in 2013 of the laminar crack3propagation. When we did the investigation, we looked4at all 80 core bores that are in the building once we5identified the propagation. I think we did 916inspections in those 80, so some we inspected more7than once. And we identified that there were eight8locations where there was some amount of new9propagation, some new laminar cracking due to10propagation, due to this ice wedging.11In three of those locations the12propagation was in plain with existing laminar13cracking. So the laminar cracking is not an exactly14straight line, but some of it's weaving through the15rebar. And so it's not a perfect line. So we found16a couple places where there was kind of an offshoot of17the crack. Well, because that has no impact on our18strength calculation for the shield building, we19didn't do special or additional inspection for those20locations, because it's also where there's existing21cracking.22So then that left us with five places. 23Two of those places were already bound by existing24core bores from the population of twenty. And so that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 851left us with three new locations of laminar crack1propagation. So those are the three that we've added2that go from 20 to 23. So we certainly have a basis3for doing that. And so we're inspecting that. 4And here the AMP makes it very clear that5we put in these three new core bores into locations6that are un-cracked. We'll monitor for any cracking. 7But these three there's a very specific commitment in8the Shield Building Monitoring Program. If there is9more propagation, these three will always be -- this10will be moved and added so there's always one on the11leading edge of any propagation, if there is12propagation.13JUDGE KASTENBERG: Is all this described14in the AMP?15MR. BURDICK: I think it describes the new16three and how these will be at the leading edge of the17concrete. So that's the explanation. And then I18believe some of the RAI responses, including the July193rd have a little more description about the basis for20the three, and in addition a more recent RAI response.21JUDGE KASTENBERG: So one way; correct me22if I'm wrong, I could summarize what you've said is23that you have some rationale behind how you determine24the number, location and frequency?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 852MR. BURDICK: Certainly, yes.1JUDGE KASTENBERG: Without stipulating2whether that's a good rationale or not, but you have3some process that you're following to determine4number, frequency and location?5MR. BURDICK: That's correct.6MR. LODGE: Judge Kastenberg, if I may7respond to that? Conceptually what's going on is8FirstEnergy is chasing the cracking. They are not out9in front of the cracking. And our contention is that10they must be out in front of the cracking. 11I've got the ACI reference open here. The12problem is that the frequency presumes that you may13have the beginnings of degradation, but it's time to14start monitoring at some frequency level to make sure15that things don't get worse. 16Reading from chapter 6, which I believe17was the cited -- it has a little table which contains18that five-year frequency business in the ACI Committee19report, quote, "The established frequencies should20also ensure that any age-related degradation is21detected in an early state of degradation and that22appropriate mitigative actions can be implemented." 23The one mitigative action that was24implemented has turned out to be a mistake and has25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 853serious flaws, and in fact was something to which the1intervenors objected or mentioned as a potential2problem back in 2012 before the coating took place. 3So the problem is is that the ACI4Committee report presumes not pristine conditions, but5not degraded with visible cracking present. It's fine6that there are inspections going on, but we contend7that the objective analysis of the entire structure8now is what is warranted, what is indicated. So the9ACI report should not be deemed very persuasive by10this Panel.11MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, just --12JUDGE KASTENBERG: Follow-up comment to13that by either staff or --14(Simultaneous speaking)15MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, my colleague will16follow up, but just for matters of keeping an adequate17record, can we have intervenors sort of indicate which18ACI report they were reading from?19JUDGE KASTENBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes,20thank you very much. 21MR. LODGE: One second here. It's ACI22349.3R-02. I think that was the -- it may have been23the one that was cited. 24MS. KANATAS: Whenever -- staff would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 854obviously like the opportunity to comment on the1challenges to the AMP, but certainly whenever. 2MR. BURDICK: Just real quick if I can3make a correction to something I said earlier. Just4when I was describing these core bores that will be5used and will ensure the leading, I said that the6three -- the specific ones, but it's really three of7the five. So it's a sample of three of the five where8there was additional laminar cracking. So just to9correct the record.10On this ACI report issue, I think from a11contention admissibility perspective, again this is12new information. So if they wanted to use this to13support their Contention 7, then they should have14submitted it in their Contention 7. And so they can't15supplement the record here. And I understand some of16this was responding to questions, but this cannot be17a basis for a new contention. 18But as we discussed from the ACI report,19we were using it as support for our frequency. And we20have the five-year frequency, as we talked about in21the ACI report. We're actually starting with an22annual frequency, which is much more conservative. 23And then with respect to the location and24number of core bores, it's not directly the ACI25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 855report. It's other things that we've relied upon. So1even if this was a timely argument, I don't see why it2provides any basis for their contention.3JUDGE KASTENBERG: Would you like to4comment?5MS. KANATAS: I'll just cover the points6that I think haven't been covered. In terms of7specific challenges to the shield building monitoring8AMP, I think first a question that Judge Kastenberg9raised earlier about it seems that intervenors'10concern is that the AMP is inadequate because the July118th submittal admitted that cracking propagation is12age-related. But there's no indication in the13Contention 7 of why the root cause of the cracking14propagation would impact the staff's license renewal15findings or why the shield building monitoring AMP,16which monitors cracks through multiple inspections17over the period of extended operation, is inadequate.18As we've repeated since 2012 in the19Contention 5 filings, the staff's Aging Management20Review focuses on managing the functionality of21structures and systems and components, not identifying22and mitigating aging mechanisms. So again, while23intervenors obviously have a problem with the full24apparent cause evaluation's conclusions, they don't25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 856tie their concern with anything material to the1staff's license renewal decision. 2Again, I think we've already covered that3testing frequency is called woefully inadequate and4intervenors request that annual inspections be5conducted, but in fact the July 3rd modifications6changed the inspections to annual inspections every7year for a minimum of four years starting in 2015, and8annual inspections would continue if aging effects9were identified. So this doesn't raise a genuine10dispute with the shield building monitoring AMP11because they're asking for something that's already12provided and they're also not indicating why what is13provided is inadequate.14We've already covered the core bores. 15They make a few other claims to other16AMPs. For example -- or I guess this is actually17still Shield Building Monitoring Program. On page 3118of their Contention 7 they say that there needs to be19a comprehensive sealant AMP. So presumably they're20talking about the coating. 21The parameters monitored an inspected22element of the Shield Building Monitoring Program23includes visual monitoring of condition of coatings at24five-year intervals. For loss of protective25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 857effectiveness with quantitative accepted criteria1based on ACI 349.3R the coating will be replaced every215 years. So again, the only claim is that a3comprehensive sealant AMP is needed, but one is4provided and there's no indication of why what is5provided is not comprehensive or adequate. 6Likewise, at page 27 intervenors claim7that there's an astounding deficiency in the aging8management of the rebar. It appears that intervenors9are challenging FENOC's plans to manage the age-10related degradation of the rebar. The LRA provides11for visible inspection of the rebar and it seems as if12intervenors are saying that a measurement technique13should be used, but there's no indication of what14measurement technique or why a visual examination on15an opportunistic basis is inadequate.16The staff continues to ask questions and17I think some of -- Mr. Kamps has alluded to the fact18that the staff does not just take what is given to it19without a questioning eye. And for example, the20staff's most recent RAI was September 29th. I believe21that's the date. And the most recent response from22FENOC was October 28th. And in that response FENOC23provided further justification for the adequacy of the24opportunistic visual inspection. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 858So finally, as in Contention 6, Contention17 raised anticipatory changes. Specifically the2motion to admit at page 2 intervenors said that they3seek to litigate the adequacy of FENOC's anticipated4modifications to the shield building monitoring and5structures monitoring AMP. The Board in its6Contention 6 order indicated that anticipatory7challenges are inadmissible. And so I'd just like to8note those. Thank you.9JUDGE FROEHLICH: My colleagues tell me10that they're hungry. I think what we'll do now is11take an hour for lunch. When we return we will12continue with the questioning, although we will focus13on the legal and factual foundations of the contention14going to the issue of whether there's a genuine15dispute here.16Just for parties that have been concerned,17obviously the decision on this is going to be based on18the pleadings that have been filed so far and the19regulations which apply to contention admissibility. 20This is oral argument. We are here just to answer21questions and supplement the understanding of what's22in the filed pleadings. 23So with that, we'll adjourn until 1:45.24(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 859off the record at 12:35 p.m. to reconvene at 1:45 p.m.1this same day.)2JUDGE FROEHLICH: We'll be back on the3record. Mr. Trikouros.4JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Am I up?5JUDGE FROEHLICH: Yes, you're up.6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: There was an SER. I7guess there was a question of whether or not this8cracking problem should be addressed in the EIS and9the SER contention. But it did say EIS. I have the10question of the SER.11Are you going to address this at all?12MR. HARRIS: It depends on the nature of13the cracking problem. There are a couple of ways that14something like this might be addressed in the EIS. 15There's what we talked about before in terms of SAMA16analysis. Should it be addressed in the SAMA17analysis? And what we've indicated is that this18cracking phenomenon really doesn't have any impact on19the SAMA analysis in terms of the overall consequences20of what would be considered a potential cost21beneficial mitigation measure.22You could I think from reading their23contentions that they would suggest that you should24account for the cost rebuilding/repairing the shield25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 860building. And that would be addressed in the EIS. 1But normally we would only do those things. That's not2an alternative issue. We would do that under3refurbishment should FENOC decide at some point and4indicate that it's going to do some sort of that major5reconstruction activity. So this kind of thing would6not normally impact or do something that would be7addressed in the EIS. Just the fact that there are8cracks.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Now the 2013 SER did10address cracking. Is there at least as of that time11going to be any additional supplementation of that or?12MR. HARRIS: I believe that there will be. 13There is the potential for some additional14supplementation. The staff is still going through15that analysis and hasn't fully made up its mind in16terms of supplementing. The staff does try to update17and supplement as things are finalized. The cracking18is likely to be addressed in an updated supplement to19the SER.20JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But there are no firm21plans to do it. It's just you're thinking about it.22MS. KANATAS: I believe there's a schedule23to do that currently.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Oh you are?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 861MS. KANATAS: Yes, I believe so.1MR. HARRIS: I don't --2MS. KANATAS: Oh no. I'm sorry. There3might not be a firm schedule, but it -- I don't4believe the -- No.5MR. HARRIS: There's not a firm schedule6to do that. The staff is looking at that to7supplement, but has not made a decision to supplement.8But they're going through all the process of figuring9out whether to supplement.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. All right. Now11I just had a few questions regarding the pleadings,12things I didn't quite understand. And if you'll bear13with me, I'll try and get that done.14In the petition on pages 18-19 regarding15the issue of new cracks that might develop, I'm16talking about the initial Intervenors' petition. Is17there a basis to conclude that no new cracks will18develop in other areas? Is that a going in19assumption? We sort of dealt with that this morning20but.21MR. BURDICK: Yes, the ice wedging22phenomenon identified in 20.13 requires an approval of23any laminar cracks. So any propagation would be at24the location of an existing laminar crack.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 862JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. But you're1making the assumption that given what you've done so2far that there won't be any laminar cracks developing3elsewhere.4MR. BURDICK: That's correct. And some of5that is based on our 20.13 investigation of that6laminar crack propagation where we looked at all 807core bores and identified exactly the population of8core bores with additional laminar crack propagation. 9We also did some impulse response testing at that time10to confirm those results. And based on that the11laminar cracking propagation that would happen12potentially due to ice wedging would be limited to the13existing laminar crack propagating.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.15MR. MATTHEWS: Judge Trikouros, your point16though, your question, and this may have been a17background question but it kind of flips the argument18that contention should say a basis what the reason is19to believe or to suspect that there might be cracking20in these other places.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I think the contention22--23MR. MATTHEWS: The contention is you24shouldn't expect cracking before. So you can't25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 863believe anything is kind of the basis of the1contention.2JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. I think the3contention though is arguing that the laminar cracking4had existed for a long time before you realized it and5that it might occur somewhere else and that the amp6didn't seem to them to be adequate to assure that7cracking anywhere else would be discovered.8MR. MATTHEWS: It's the might occur9somewhere else that is about basis in the contention.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right.11MR. MATTHEWS: And as my partner indicated12FENOC did have a basis for identifying what it had. 13The point was the question seems to flip the burden.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I understand. The15staff is okay with that.16MS. KANATAS: I'm sorry. The staff is17okay with --18JUDGE TRIKOUROS: There's a presumption19that the laminar cracking that occurred in the flute20shoulder areas would have to be monitored in the AMP,21but that there wasn't a need to go and look on a22regular basis for cracking elsewhere, laminar cracking23that might develop elsewhere in the shield building. 24Is that the staff's understanding?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 864MS. KANATAS: That is.1JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. And clearly2the Intervenors are not happy with that.3All right. Well, there's a whole series4of pages in the petition that deal with that. I don't5think I need to go any further into that. Okay. This6is on page 31, bottom 31, top 32 of the petition. It7says -- It actually starts "FENOC has done nothing to8address the shield building cracking." That9paragraph. 10But at the center of that it says, "Even11without flaws or degradation, however, FENOC has not12established that the whitewash coating, the exterior13of the shield building, actually insulated the side14wall thickness against freezing and thawing15temperatures." Was it the Intervenors' thoughts that16that coating was some sort of a thermal barrier? Is17that why you asked that?18MR. LODGE: May I ask again? Where is19that? Is that from the September 2nd filing?20JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes.21MR. LODGE: And it's on pages?22JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Thirty-two. Yes, it's2331.24MR. LODGE: Sorry.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 865JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It was at 31-32, bottom1of 31, top of 32.2MR. LODGE: All right.3JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It's the top of page 32.4MR. LODGE: The answer to your question --5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: That statement was on6the top of 32.7MR. LODGE: I see that. Thank you. The8answer to your question, sir, is that may have been a9poor choice of words. It was not my contemplation in10writing that that it insulates thermally rather than11seals the wall against --12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. So given13that it read like thermal insulation, it's not.14MR. LODGE: No.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Then that's16fine. Thank you.17In your motion to amend and supplement.18MR. LODGE: That's September 8th.19JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes.20MR. LODGE: Okay.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: You refer to the22consideration of alternatives as well as in the SAMA. 23This consideration of alternatives, are you referring24to alternative power sources other than Davis-Besse?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 866MR. LODGE: Yes.1JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And is it based on the2presumption that shield building may not be viable and3the plant would have to be shut down?4MR. LODGE: Correct. The economics, yes.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. We never did6talk about the details.7JUDGE KASTENBERG: Just as a follow-on to8that though, what you mentioned in terms of9alternatives not necessarily for the power plant, but10alternatives in terms of mitigating the cracking. Are11we talking about the same thing?12MR. HARRIS: No, I think we're talking13about the same thing. But you've got two different14things. You've got the SAMA which is a different part15of the EIS and then you have the Consideration of16Alternatives which was also alternative power17production.18JUDGE KASTENBERG: Right.19MR. HARRIS: Which the way I understand20the contention to be written is that the Intervenors21want us to consider the added cost of having to do22something with the shield building when you're23comparing it to other alternative energy sources.24JUDGE KASTENBERG: Is that correct?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 867MR. HARRIS: And I'm not trying to put1words in their mouths.2JUDGE KASTENBERG: I appreciate that. But3I was going to come back to that a little bit later. 4But since it's brought up now, can we be a little more5precise about what it is that we're talking about in6terms of alternatives and costs?7MR. LODGE: I think the response to his8interpretation is that it wasn't our intention. Our9intention was SAMA considerations based on whatever10presumptions go into how the shield building is11treated in this severe accident mitigation analysis12and alternatives to a continued use of Davis-Besse13because of the non-functioning shield building.14PARTICIPANT: If I might, Judge15Kastenberg.16JUDGE KASTENBERG: But are you saying17both?18MS. KANATAS: Yes.19JUDGE KASTENBERG: It sounds to me like20you're mixing two ideas together, two separate things21together. I'm still confused. It's your contention.22MR. LODGE: Right.23JUDGE KASTENBERG: So what are we24evaluating here, alternatives to Davis-Besse or the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 868cost of alternatives of to dealing with the shield1building?2MR. LODGE: NEPA calls for both. So I3guess it is both. I'm just trying to recall what must4have been in my mind when I was drafting that.5JUDGE KASTENBERG: We certainly can't6recall it for you.7(Laughter)8MR. LODGE: Unfortunate, it may be9unanimous.10JUDGE KASTENBERG: Did you want to say11something here?12MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Judge13Kastenberg. Obviously, from our pleadings, they're a14contention. But we understood it as suggesting that15we had not considered the environmental analysis, both16the Applicant's and the staff's. We had not17sufficiently considered the no-action alternative, not18relicensing Davis-Besse.19And if that is part of the contention, (1)20it's timely. It could have been when cracking was21first identified. (2) It's not specified. There's no22reference to the no-action alternative that is clearly23discussed in both EER and the FSIS. There is no basis24articulated as to why what's there is not sufficient25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 869authority, any of the other 2.309 criterion. It1doesn't address any of them.2And the same would be true even if the3Intervenors now tell us that it means refurbishment. 4(1) They haven't articulated that to the point where5anyone here in the room who had studied it interpreted6it clearly that way. And again timely, no basis, no7authority, doesn't meet any of the criterion for an8admissible contention.9MR. LODGE: Your Honor, I maybe have found10the tiebreaker here. On page 19, we state that the11"Cracking phenomenon must be identified, analyzed and12addressed within the SEIS for the license renewal both13as part of the SAMA analysis and as part of the14Consideration of Alternatives to a 20 year operating15license extension." So no-action alternative I think.16JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Bear with me because a17number of these actually got resolved during the all18morning's conversation. So I'm trying to just skip19over them.20JUDGE KASTENBERG: While you do that I21have a different question or do you want to just keep22going?23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, go ahead.24JUDGE KASTENBERG: I just want to hone on25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 870this question of whether or not ice wedging is new or1old so to speak and whether or not in your view ice2wedging and freeze/thaw are the same thing. In other3words, my understanding is that there were words to4the effect that freeze/thaw was a possible phenomena5for cracking and that ice wedging was something that6came much later. If you could just clarify that since7you had mentioned this a number of times and since at8least as I understand it in the contention this is an9important part of the argument that this is timely. 10So I just want to kind of hone in on that and be11clear.12MR. HARRIS: Right, and I think we ought13to step back a little bit from aging management14programs just before I addressed that. Aging15management programs like this they're designed to16monitor some particular event. And they're fairly17agnostic as to what the cause of the crack18propagation. They're measuring it. They're trimming19it. Really in a lot of ways it doesn't matter for20purposes of being able to monitor the cracking and21whether or not the building can meet its intended22function what is driving that growth in the crack.23For ice wedging, the same thing. Also24with freeze/thaw cycle. For a crack to propagate you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 871need a pre-existing crack. You need some form of1stress concentrator at the end of that crack. And in2the case of ice wedging, it's the water being there3frozen, expanding and creating that stress at the end4of that crack that causes this to open up and continue5to grow further.6The freeze/thaw cycle, as long as all7concrete buildings do have water in them and they8maintain water and they never really fully dry out9completely, you're going to have this kind of crack10propagation any place where you have water that can11collect in a crack. It will be able to grow. One of12the things that they were monitoring for was that13freezing of water that has permeated the concrete and14specifically they were looking at. And this is15referring back to the April 5, 2012 RAI response that16I had mentioned previously.17The parameters that they're monitoring18when they're talking about cracking in concrete from19freezing of water is the surface condition of the core20bores which is different than the laminar cracking,21the core bore samples, and the change in the crack22conditions in the core bores. And I've added in the23core bores, but I mean the change in the crack24conditions. It was looking at freeze/thaw cycles in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 872those particular cracks which is a function of ice1wedging. I look at that as freeze/thaw is a much2bigger description that includes the ice wedging3phenomena.4JUDGE KASTENBERG: Is that a -- I5appreciate that's the way you look at it. But is that6something that I can find in any of the documents?7MR. HARRIS: It is in the documents. It's8on potential --9JUDGE KASTENBERG: That explains that?10MR. HARRIS: That freezing thawing is ice11wedging?12JUDGE KASTENBERG: That ice wedging is13contained within the definition of --14MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think that there15is something that's explicit in there that says ice16wedging is the same as the freeze/thaw cycle. I don't17believe there's any language in the responses that18makes that.19MS. KANATAS: And, Judge Kastenberg, just20to add, I think one of the key points, too, of what we21keep reiterating of why the full apparent cause22evaluation does not constitute materially different23information is that Intervenors repeatedly claim that24it's the admission of an aging mechanism that brings25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 873this into the scope. But this has been within the1scope. I mean as I'm pointing to the same page on the2April 5, 2012 AMP which says potential aging3mechanisms. So it's always contemplated a potential4aging mechanism even though it was put in place5following the laminar cracking which was determined6not to be the result.7JUDGE KASTENBERG: You would say that if8some new aging mechanism is discovered a year from now9it would never qualify as new information because10you've got a blanket statement.11MS. KANATAS: No, I don't think that's12what I'm saying. I think it's more of the assertion,13first the assertion, that the fact that there was an14aging mechanism at all brought this into the scope. 15And I think that's a direct quote from their pleading. 16And our position was always that regardless of the17mechanism how the laminar cracks would be managed, the18aging effects, was within the scope. And that's why19we initially said there was an omission which was then20mooted by the April 5, 2012 AMP which when submitted21indicated that it would be looking for potential aging22mechanisms.23And as Mr. Harris was describing, while24the freeze/thaw phenomenon doesn't explicitly say this25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 874is ice wedging, it's looking for similar --1MR. HARRIS: And let me add just a little2bit to that and I hate to sort of go back and forth is3that the aging management programs aren't designed to4figure out necessarily the mechanism of particular5aging. It's designed to manage the impact of that6aging on the ability of the shield building in this7case to meet its intended function. So the aging8management program was never built to go this is ice9wedging or some other crack developing. 10It's designed to be able to show that the11shield building will still meet its intended function. 12The materiality of what's driving the crack really13doesn't affect whether or not the aging management14program could be effective. 15Now could there be some aging mechanism16out in the future that we discover that might change? 17It's a possibility. But I'm not sure. In this case,18I don't think it is.19JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But it's more than that. 20There's a presumption that there won't be cracking21elsewhere. I mean didn't we just discuss that?22MR. BURDICK: Just to be clear, there is23a presumption that the ice wedging mechanism will not24exist in places that there's no laminar cracking. So25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 875I think I agree with the staff of what they're saying1about the alternative purpose of the shield building. 2It's always been a monitor for any changes in the3laminar cracking. And that's regardless of the4specific mechanism. In 2013, we specifically5identified the ice wedging mechanism. And one of the6requirements for that is to have a pre-existing7laminar crack. So it's a very specific mechanism8there.9Just to clarify, too, in the apparent10cause evaluation, we looked at a number of different11failure modes and similar process in the RCA1. We did12treat ice wedging as its own mechanism separate. We13looked at a few other freeze/thaw mechanisms. They do14have similarities as far as they're both dealing with15moisture in the concrete and freezing of that water. 16And ice wedging is a very specific17mechanism where you do have this pre-existing laminar18crack and it's at the freeze event with the moisture19in the building that's causing to propagate. And20freeze/thaw refers to other things as well or refers21to mechanisms such as the micro-cracking we talked22about earlier. It's a different mechanism, but23they're related as they're both dealing with water24that's freezing in the concrete.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 876JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Are there other1structures, monitoring AMPs, that deal with the2broader expanse of the shield building?3MR. BURDICK: The shield building4monitoring program specifically focuses on the laminar5cracking, but it also covers things like the coating6on the exterior of the surface. There is also a7structure monitoring which is not a plant-specific one8but covers all in-scope structures on site, too. And9that's the AMP that would address microcracking. 10There are certain inspections to look for evidence of11microcracking, spalling or things like that.12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It comes up in the13pleadings in multiple places. The concern is you're14not looking for any new cracking. You're monitoring15all the existing cracking. Your entire program is16based on making sure that there's no propagation of17the existing cracking.18What I'm trying to understand is is there19a requirement to look for any new cracking on this20building.21MR. BURDICK: I think the answer is no. 22You know our evaluations, our testing, our inspections23all identified the laminar cracking in 2011. And that24was a set amount. We concluded that that cause still25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 877holds it. There was a set amount of laminar cracking. 1Now in 2013 we've identified this one mechanism, this2ice wedging, that could cause that to propagate. So3we're watching monitoring for that.4Other cracking on the shield building, it5would be covered by the structures monitoring AMP6which has not been challenged by the Intervenors here. 7So if there's some, for example, surface cracking8that's identified through an inspection, it's covered9by the structure monitoring AMP and not this AMP.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Does the staff agree11with that? That the broader expanse of the shield12building cracking is part of another AMP.13MR. HARRIS: That's correct, Your Honor. 14The structure monitoring AMP would cover the things15like spalling and those kind of issues. Those kind of16inspections for the surface monitoring of the crack is17that the shield monitoring AMP was designed to look at18this particular event.19MR. LODGE: If I may respond on behalf of20the Intervenors. Judge Kastenberg, in direct response21I think to your initial question, in the full apparent22cause evaluation at page four of 80, it says,23"Contributing to the ice wedging cause is application24of the coating to the shield building." I would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 878remind the panel that the coating application occurred1approximately from August to October 2012 references2therefore to April 2012 AMPs. They didn't anticipate3they were going to have a problem with that particular4mitigation step and did.5Furthermore, the difficulty here is that6we have articulated in our pleadings and in discussion 7earlier today the fact that there are other transitory8points for water, for moisture, into the annular space9as well as into the exterior of the building and down10through the walls. The shield building vacuum11propagation was enhanced, worsened, by the application12of the coating. The water is trapped. We're hearing13discussions of it dissipating, no particular analysis14of that, no expertise that is explaining exactly that15is going to happen and what the anticipated timetable16would be nor if there are any other mitigations set to17be taken.18We believe that ice wedging certainly19existed. I can't find the reference. But we've also20seen some mention I think in some FENOC document that21basically says in industrial concrete types of22applications this sort of problem is not well23identified or discussed.24(Off microphone comments)25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 879Yes, the geological says no ice wedging,1but it hasn't come over into industrial engineering. 2It may or may not be true. It may or may not be an3accurate statement, but it's a 2014 statement I think4if I'm recalling it. I guess it's in the 98 page5document from July 2014.6The point is it's new. Ice wedging may7have existed as an academic phenomenon. As it does8cause damage to the shield building it is new and9recent in terms of it being disclosed publicly.10JUDGE KASTENBERG: Any other comments on11ice wedging?12(No verbal response.)13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Again, in the14original petition -- I'm sorry. This is the motion to15amend. It looks like it's on page eight. It's a16statement that says "PII concludes that a review of17engineering analysis documentation developed following18the initial laminar crack condition demonstrated that19the shield building remains structurally adequate for20the controlling load cases and is in compliance to the21current design and licensing bases." This is they're22quoting the FACE report, right?23MR. LODGE: Yes.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And Intervenors make the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 880statement "This statement is highly suspect and1probably false." Is there any basis for making that2statement or?3MR. LODGE: Yes. In the next paragraph,4we begin to explain in numerous comments by NRC staff5people relating to whether or not the shield building6conforms to its current design licensing bases. The7very next paragraph referenced to the Timothy Riley8email as one example.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Now we talked about this10this morning. And I was thoroughly satisfied with it. 11I talked about the different paths. Do you still12believe that this is "highly suspect and probably13false"?14MR. LODGE: Yes. I don't think the15discussion this morning completely forecloses a16conclusion that perhaps the agency believes that17there's a conformance to current design and licensing18bases. You have a severely degraded building and as19I say an open-ended causation problem.20Incidentally, one other thing which we21didn't discuss this morning is that there are22significant out-of-plumb -- and we have mentioned this23in the pleading somewhere -- portions of the shield24building. It is not considered to be within plumb for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 881any longer runs than a few inches or a few feet at a1time. And when you're talking about something that2huge with that type of enormous density and weight,3that can be a very significant problem especially if4you have cracking phenomenon starting to crop up.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But you don't have any6separate analysis that you'd --7MR. LODGE: No.8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: You don't have anything9like that.10MR. LODGE: Our evidence is based upon --11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Have you actually looked12at the calcs they were talking about? Were those13available to you? Those weren't put before you or14anything like that, right?15MR. KAMPS: We've been displeased with the16FOIA response to be honest with you.17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I think we18can go on from here. Okay. This has to do with --19This is your Intervenor motion on page 11. It has to20do with the fact that there are no corrective actions21being implemented in the AMP basically. And it22indicates that there would be a pass-through to the23corrective action program.24I would like to understand what your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 882problem is with that. You didn't -- I don't think 1you elaborated on it, at least, not according to my2notes. What is your problem with their AMP not having3a corrective action program or not having any defined4corrective actions and a pass-through to the5corrective action problem? What is your issue there? 6You seem to identify it as an issue but.7MR. KAMPS: Is this page 11 of the initial8petition?9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No, the motion.10MR. BURDICK: September 8th.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No, the motion.12MR. LODGE: The current -- Even though in13the FACE evaluation, PII talks about how mitigating14steps being taken are monitored and revising the path15or pattern of monitoring depending on what the16monitoring showed. We think that's a plan to have a17plan. It's a return to our position that this is a18wait and see and see as little evil as possible in the19shield building until some new problem develops. The20utility is chasing the problem and not leading toward21some realistic analysis of what the status is and what22to do next.23If there were some comprehensive24evaluation undertaken in light of coating the building25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 883and now we've got a micro-cracking problem. It's1possible the Intervenors wouldn't even be here. But2you have some analysis being done of the shield3building, application of the coating. Whoops, new4problems have cropped up and looks like we may have5caused them. And our solution is simply to engineer615 percent expansion of the core borings and see what7happens. See what happens next. I don't think -- We8don't think collectively that that is a prudent way to9proceed with a license extension.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. But my question11is dealing specifically with your comment that dealt12with not having corrective actions in the AMP. It's13a criticism of the AMP if you will. And you have a14problem with the pass-through to the corrective action15program.16Perhaps I could turn to the staff and the17Applicant to ask the question. Is it typical for an18AMP to include corrective actions in the body of19itself?20MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, we're confused21by the use of corrective actions. If the Intervenors22are saying that the AMP should have identified23additional corrective actions that we should have24taken in response to the laminar cracked propagation,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 884I'm not sure that's quite correct. Once we saw the1laminar crack propagation, we performed evaluation. 2We performed the full apparent cause evaluation. In3there we identified certain corrective actions. Now4some of those corrective actions resulted in revisions5to the shield building monitoring program. That's6kind of one issue.7But certainly AMPs do utilize the8corrective action program. In fact, one of the ten9attributes of AMPs is the corrective action program. 10And so that's certainly fundamental to the age11management program.12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So is it typical to13include a section on corrective actions in that other14than to say it goes into the corrective action15program?16MR. HARRIS: I think typically with the17majority of the AMPs that they call send it to the18corrective action program for the plant and they don't19necessarily create a separate corrective action20program for that particular AMP.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. So your22comment that says there should be a corrective action23that's your opinion basically. You're not quoting any24authoritative. I'm just trying to understand you.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 885MR. LODGE: I understand, sir. It's fair. 1I think the answer to your question is yes. But we're2mindful under Commissioner Jaczko's observation one3time that once you grant a license there's very little4further control that you have and certainly from a5public perspective, an Intervenor perspective, any6further problems that might crop up from the same line7of shield building cracking I can see the solution8will be to 2.206 petitions. And that is a highly9unsatisfactory type of method because it doesn't10reflect any potential for directly participating in11the regulating decisions.12JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, I13think I understand where you're coming from now. It14wasn't clear when I read it just in a vacuum. You15indicate that there's a 0.4 to 0.7 inch crack growth16presumption probably in the FACE report I assume.17MR. LODGE: Yes, it is.18JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And which will lead to19you indicate 10.8 inches of additional cracking for20two years.21MR. LODGE: Yes.22JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I think here then -- I23wasn't sure where you were going with this. My24question really would be what are the implications of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 886this with respect to the design basis of the plant. 1In other words, if one reestablishes the design basis2of the plant today, how does this comment factor into3that in terms of two years from now or four years from4now, that sort of thing. Does their design basis have5to be reevaluated to account for crack growth? How6does that work?7MR. BURDICK: The Aging Management Program8as it's written in the acceptance criteria, first you9look for if there are any changes in the nature of the10cracks and certain issues if identified can go into11the corrective action program. Part of that is also12to look at the design basis evaluation just to make13sure that it's acceptable with respect to what you're14seeing with cracking.15The design basis evaluation we've16discussed. That FENOC is completing with its17contractor. It's a strength calculation that looks at18some of the design basis events. So it addresses kind19of the design basis of these issues. But there is20certainly significant margin in that document. So21certainly FENOC if it identifies any cracking it will22consider that. But it's a very conservative large23margin design evaluation.24MR. MATTHEWS: It's assessed the condition25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 887to assess whether it is within the design basis that1exists. It's not to go out and reestablish the design2basis. There is margin in the design basis to assess3whether it does. Again, to your question, a very4legitimate question and we appreciate the opportunity5to answer it. But the burden here, the Intervenors6haven't said why it's not. They haven't said what's7wrong with our calculation or any of the analysis of8why the AMP is insufficient, why that period of9checking after each winter is not sufficient.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I understand. Okay. 11But the comment was made by you to what end? To say12there's going to be something wrong in two years? You13never really to my memory and to my notes gave us the14end point of that comment. You've made that statement15that I just read and then that was it. There was no16development.17MR. LODGE: One moment. I'm just thinking18it over here.19JUDGE TRIKOUROS: This is in your motion20on page 12.21PARTICIPANT: Top of page 12.22JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, top of page 12.23MR. LODGE: Well, the context of it was24that we were referring to the two years, actually more25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 888than two years time, during which the fact of the1propagation was kept rather quiet and certainly wasn't2known to the public to us as Intervenors and talking3about --4Essentially this is the apparent damage5that has happened during that stretch of time. It was6a credibility problem on the utilities part in terms7of this being a very serious problem three years ago8that was seriously litigated throughout 2012 with9additional information and revelations.10And then to learn in 2014 that indeed11during the period of time that we were litigating in122012, FENOC knew that there was a propagation problem13cropping up. That's rather astonishing. And that's14the context in which that comment is made.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.16MR. LODGE: Once again, we think that it's17a problem that the management of the problem is18designed to minimize the problem.19MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I do take some20issue with this claim. And they make a similar one in21their contention seven document that somehow we were22withholding information from this Board, from the23parties. It's simply not true and they have not24identified any facts.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 889I certainly take issue with them claiming1there's some credibility. In some of their documents,2they claim that we've concealed information. We've3been through this before and it was in the reply to4contention five where they made similar claims of our5active concealment and fraudulent nature. And we6moved the Board to strike that and the Board did and7instructed them to not make these statements.8So I think we're hearing these statements9again. And they've presented no basis for that, only10speculation. Certainly, I take issue with that.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.12MR. KAMPS: I'd like to respond briefly. 13February of 2012 FirstEnergy knows that there's water14in the bore holes. We would have been very interested15in that information. In fact, with six filings that16year, we were very engaged on these issues. And the17only explanation for why that information was not18revealed until July 8, 2014 comes in the PII FACE19report which said that the belief was that the water20was atmospheric, that it was finding its way in from21the outside, which was hard to understand because22those bore holes were effectively sealed with caulking23and with plugs.24And then it was admitted even in the FACE25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 890report that FirstEnergy realized that the water may be1internal to the walls. But it was deemed to be of2such a small quantity that it couldn't be significant. 3And now we know because of the FACE report that it's4quite significant.5And the significance is that -- I'm6referring back to Abdul Sheikh and Pete Hernandez back7when cracking was first discovered -- they were8worried about collapse of the shield building. They9weren't worried about architectural impacts to the10shield building. They were worried about structural 11integrity of the shield building.12And we've raised those emails numerous13times. But the two and a half year delay and the14revelation of this information we find very15significant given the engagement of everybody who is16sitting in this room at that time. How is that not17material information to be shared through discovery. 18There are monthly discovery disclosures. There was no19document.20MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, that's simply21incorrect. There are no monthly discovery disclosures22in this proceeding.23MR. KAMPS: Documents that arise each24month are announced to the other parties. But it took25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 891two and a half years for this information to be1shared.2JUDGE FROEHLICH: I believe he's referring3to admitted contentions.4MR. BURDICK: Yes. And there's nothing in5the contention on this.6JUDGE FROEHLICH: That provision which you7refer places an obligation upon parties to disclose8documents relevant to admitted contentions. I guess9the perspective of the Applicant here is that since10there was no admitted contention at that point in time11there was no monthly disclosure requirement. Is that12correct?13MR. BURDICK: That's correct. And the14Petitioner just read our explanation for the water in15the core bores. I don't think we need to say anything16more about that. But certainly concealment was not17part of that.18JUDGE FROEHLICH: I think we should move19on.20JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. I'm satisfied21with that. I don't have any other comments on the22motion or on any other issues that I wanted to23understand. I'm going to go onto the Applicant's24answer. Most of my issues have been resolved on this. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 892So that's good.1I do have one question though on FENOC's2answer, page 41. The Intervenors use a term "full3spectrum investigation." And I would just like to4understand what full spectrum investigation means. Is5this something specific that we don't understand or?6MR. LODGE: No.7JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No, okay.8MR. LODGE: It does mean the global9investigation of the nature and extent of cracking.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Is this some specific --11MR. LODGE: It's not an engineering term,12sir.13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It's not something that14-- All right. That's fine.15All right. This is a SAMA issue, but I16think we've cleared up for SAMA.17With respect to the difference between18this July 3rd AMP which is the AMP that you have19specifically wrote a contention on and previous AMPs. 20In the Applicant's answer on page 52, they say "The21Commission and the licensing board also agreed that an22enhancement to an AMP should not be considered new23information to support a new contention." We touched24on this earlier this morning. The staff made exactly25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 893the same comment if I remember correctly.1Could you tell us how the information from2this July 3rd AMP and the FACE report basically3validated that comment if in fact there is something4new and significant about the July 3rd AMP?5MR. LODGE: What page is that on, sir? 6Fifty-three?7JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Fifty-two. This is the8FENOC answer on page 52.9(Off microphone comments)10MR. LODGE: I'm sorry. Is it -- I just11want to read the comment if I may. Is it 51 of the12PDF or is it the actual page 52?13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I believe it's the14actual page 52.15MR. LODGE: Okay.16(Off microphone comments)17JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It's in the first18paragraph under A.19MR. LODGE: We understand the principle20that making some changes in the AMP does not create21some litigation opportunity. But that isn't the gist22of our contention. The gist of our contention is that23there are -- somehow we're not done with the matter of24identifying root cause. And it is difficult if not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 894possible to conclude at this point that the cracking1is actually going to cease. It is somehow going to be2frozen at whatever level. Poor choice of words, but3that it's going to stop and not worsen over time.4We were not -- We're quibbling with the5inadequacy of the AMP, but we are quibbling because6the underlying basis is considerably more troubling7than we believe is justified by three additional bore8holes and a little bit more frequent analysis being9performed.10We think that the root cause is a marked11departure from the earlier explanations of the12cracking. And the new root cause, the new improved13root cause, basically suggests that it is probably14going to be a continuing phenomenon that continues15indefinitely certainly into the 20 year period. It's16not at an end.17Therefore, the AMP is not adequate. I18understand that -- We're not saying you made changes19to the AMP. Therefore, we should be allowed to have20an admitted contention. We're saying there are21dramatic new explanations being offered and22essentially new points being conceded as to the aging23relatedness of this and the revelation that the24mitigation didn't work and in fact caused more25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 895problems.1JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So it's the FACE report2new information.3MR. LODGE: Yes.4JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Regarding the new5mechanism that you view that as a --6MR. LODGE: Correct. And that is a7misread by FirstEnergy of the thrust of our8contention.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. I don't have any10more questions on the FENOC answer. These issues came11up and I really would like to understand them.12The NRC staff answer on page 20, you make13the statement that "The root cause is not14determinative of the shield building monitoring AMPs15adequacy." So you're saying there's no connection16between the root cause and the AMP actions.17MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, we18made those statements back the last time we were about19this is the mechanism for the cracking in a program20like this where you're monitoring and trending and21comparing it to acceptance criteria is not necessarily22going to tell you whether or not the AMP is adequate. 23The idea is not to arrest. You don't have to arrest24the cracking. You have to make sure that the shield25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 896building maintains its functions. And that does not1require arresting the cracking.2JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And would the root cause3have any effect on the type of analysis that you do? 4For example, whether you use just visual observations5or what you refer to as enhanced optics, wouldn't the6root cause be determined if it were that as well? I7mean, do you really see there's no connection between8the root cause and the AMP?9MR. HARRIS: There is some connection. So10if you had some cracking that was not visible that you11could not monitor and trend, of course, then a visual12inspection would probably be insufficient. Yes, in13principle, you can.14In this case for the shield monitoring AMP15we're looking at the cracking propagation from this16where you have it. It's been detected by visible. 17You're able to see it in trend the growth of those18cracks. In this case, you're able to measure that19trend. I don't know that the ice wedging would impact20whether or not the monitoring of the crack growth is21material to whether or not the AMP or the laminar22crack propagation is adequate.23JUDGE TRIKOUROS: For me, this is related24to the comments made by the Intervenors regarding the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 897need for additional testing evaluation methods. 1Whatever methods are in the AMP, they have to be able2to see cracks regardless of the root cause. And the3question is in many cases it's just visual. And it's4not clear to me how that plays out.5MR. HARRIS: That would be true of almost6any structure is that there are lots of places in any7structure that you're not looking at. These8challenges could have been brought up before. This is9not a function of the crack propagation in terms of10monitoring for other cracks that are not visible. 11That was true when they first discovered12it. It was true when they first put the AMP in place. 13Those issues have been around since we started14discussing this issue.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. And the comments16were not made by the Intervenors regarding the17structures AMP in general. They were made18specifically regarding the shield building AMP which19is specifically geared toward certain root cause in a20sense. So I just wanted to make sure I understood why21you said that. That's all.22MR. HARRIS: There's no evidence that23there are cracks -- In terms of those cracks, the24Intervenors haven't put forward anything that would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 898suggest that the cracks, those laminar cracks, that1were characterized by the impulse response testing,2the core bores, that they haven't been located and3they can't be found by visual inspection. That there4is some crack that we're missing somewhere.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So, Applicant, do you6agree that the adequacy of the AMP is not related to7the root cause?8MR. BURDICK: Yes. And I think this goes9back to some of our earlier discussion that the shield10building monitoring program was put into place to11address this laminar cracking. And it's focused on12the laminar cracking and to see if there are any13change in the nature of that cracking.14When it was implemented or I should say15when it was submitted in April 2012, it already did16that. It still focused on the laminar cracking to see17if there were any changes in its nature. That hasn't18changed in 2013. There have been some enhancements,19but still it's looking for changes in the nature of20the laminar cracking.21JUDGE TRIKOUROS: If the AMP finds22something, then a root cause is usually done to23evaluate what's causing the problem. Then isn't it24true that the AMP would then be modified to reflect25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 899anything learned from the root cause? I mean the1statement that they're just totally distinct I just2don't understand.3MR. BURDICK: If any of the acceptance4criterion in the AMP are I guess affected, if they see5a change in the width of a crack or the expansion of6the crack into an uncracked area, then certainly FENOC7would investigate that. It may not require a root8cause. It depends on what they find.9But they're investigate to look if10anything needs to change. Just like in 2013, still11the purpose and what's monitored and the focus on12laminar cracking didn't change in those circumstances.13JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. So where the14Intervenor has claimed that you need additional15testing methods, your position is that your current16testing methods are adequate. But that you would17implement new testing methods if there was an18observation of something new.19MR. BURDICK: I don't know.20JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I'm trying to21understand.22MR. MATTHEWS: Judge Trikouros, we're here23today because the monitoring program worked. It24identified changes in the crack. It identified crack25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 900propagation. That was under the maintenance rule1program in the current period that is functionally2similar to the AMP and now identical. It found it and3put it in the corrective action program. Under4appendix B corrective action program, there was an5evaluation of the issue.6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: It found it because you7used enhanced optics.8MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I mean that10specifically.11MR. MATTHEWS: In the current program. 12Even in our monitoring program, we used advanced13optics. Then when we identified indications of14cracking it was put in several condition reports into15the corrective action program. In the corrective16action program, then all the appendix B sections that17I think you're referring to all applied.18FENOC assessed whether this should be a19low tiered evaluation, whether it was an apparent20cause, whether it was root cause. This was a full21apparent root cause or full apparent cause evaluation. 22Nonetheless, they used a contractor who did a root23cause to help support their apparent cause. And they24did extentive condition which they decided to do, a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 901more comprehensive core bore evaluation, look at all1the core bores.2In those areas where they suspected there3could be possibility of crack propagation, they did4impulse response testing which is not the same, not5better, than core bore. It's another datapoint. It6tells you something different about the concrete, not7necessarily that it's cracked. But it's an8indication. They used that.9So the short answer to your question is10yes. They would use the corrective action program to11evaluate what further methods would be necessary to12identify the cause and the extent of condition.13But can we tell you today sitting here14that if we found this crack they would do this many15more core bores or this area for the analysis that16might have to do with impulse response testing or17chemical testing or whatever else they might do? We18can't say that. It would be addressed under the19corrective action program appropriately as it was. 20And that's why we're here.21MR. HARRIS: And, Your Honor, I think22maybe to clarify. What we were intending to say when23we were talking about the relationship of the cause of24cracking to the AMP was the method for the cracking is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 902not determinative of the adequacy of the AMP. Whereas1you could determine the adequacy of the AMP without2necessarily knowing the method of cracking.3Now does that feed into how fast the crack4may be growing? What's the particular mechanism in5terms of when you might challenge the acceptance6criteria? Of course. Should you feed that7information in as they did? Of course. But what8we're saying is you can determine the adequacy of the9AMP simply because the mechanism -- a new mechanism10has been identified. 11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. I'm just trying12to correlate here the comments made by the Intervenors13that there should be additional methods of14investigation identified. And the fact that the AMP15itself pretty much says visual I believe I don't think16there is any -- I'd have to pull it out and look at17it. But I don't see -- There's a lot of visual18inspection using an ACI-approved method.19And yet here in this situation we had a20very astute consultant, PII, who chose to look at the21bore holes using an enhanced optics method which22identified the additional cracking only because of23that and then preceded to identify an additional root24cause, namely ice wedging.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 903MR. MATTHEWS: Judge Trikouros, there's1just a small factual piece of that that's flip. FENOC2used the enhanced method and identified the cracking3and referred to PII. And the PII used other methods.4JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I stand corrected.5MR. MATTHEWS: But FENOC on its own.6JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. That's good to7know. So FENOC chose to use an enhanced optics method8and found the crack. That's good. But the point is9that if they hadn't the cracks would have gone10undiscovered or so it appears by reading whatever is11in front of me.12MR. MATTHEWS: And they have until the13next core bore inspection.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Again, I'm just trying15to relate this to the comment that we're dealing with,16the contention that we're dealing with, that is17addressing the need for additional methods of18investigation with respect to the AMP.19MR. MATTHEWS: But I think we're flipping20it again, Judge Trikouros. They haven't said why we21should expect cracking anywhere else other than on the22fringe of the existing laminar crack. We have23identified why the crack grew in those areas and24through the ACE explained that. They just said they25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 904want these other testing methods in other areas but1not why it's necessary. Why that's a deficiency of2the shield building AMP or the structures AMP or any3AMP? They haven't told us why that's necessary at4all.5I understand your question why is FENOC6comfortable. But we don't need to look in other7places.8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I agree that the comment9is very broad and broadly applied. Use other methods10and they mention -- you mention five or six. But you11don't identify one in particular or two in particular. 12There's truth to that.13MR. MATTHEWS: And FENOC is not sticking14its head in the sand. FENOC has evaluated all the15core bores they had in response to this. They went to16all 80 and checked. They have a structure monitoring17AMP.18There's just no reason to suspect that19this laminar cracking phenomena may pop up somewhere20else. The building is not coated. So there won't be21wind driven rain into it to cause that saturation in22these other areas. The rebar is not at that spacing23in these other areas. Without that, FENOC doesn't24have a reason to start drilling holes all over the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 905shield building or any other building.1JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I think I'm2okay with all the rest. Just for my own information,3the contentions five and six material, while we did4not admit those contentions for a variety of reasons5that we documented, what is your position regarding6the availability of that material for this contention?7MS. KANATAS: Certainly, it is8Intervenor's right to incorporate by reference past9filings. But that doesn't excuse Intervenors from10having to meet the contention admissibility standards11and indicate at this point since we're now almost four12years past the deadline for initial petitions for13intervention how that information is new and14materially different and how it supports admissibility15by raising a genuine material dispute with the16application within the scope of the proceeding.17And they did not do that. They simply18repeated their arguments that they've raised these19concerns before and they've possibly should have been20admitted before and that they show that there's a21problem. But they don't -- That's not enough I mean.22So it's certainly not our position that23they cannot cite to past pleadings. But again it24doesn't excuse the need to tie those pleadings to a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 906specific, adequately supported challenge to the1application as it stands now.2JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I understand. Okay. 3But there's no problem with looking at that4information and making a determination as to how it5might or might not impact this.6MS. KANATAS: Well, it's for the -- This7is not -- Certainly, we can look at what they filed in8their pleadings in support of their contentions. It's9not for the staff or the Board or anyone else to build10a contention for them. They have proposed certain11claims based on those filings. And we are here. It12is our position that they have not demonstrated that13those filings raise a dispute.14JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right. Now I15understand. Any comments on that?16MR. BURDICK: I agree with that. Their17contention is certain building requirements. We18talked about them multiple times today. There are19timeliness requirements. Those all have to be20satisfied for that information as well.21So there is a burden on the Intervenors to22demonstrate it is timely. If they're raising the23document to make an argument that they could have made24back when the information first became available then25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 907that would be untimely. And if they try to use it,1for some reason it is timely and they try to use it,2they still have to meet the six other contention3admissibility factors including providing the alleged4facts and expert opinion or identifying the genuine5dispute. So they can't just cite the information or6incorporate it and assume that meets that hurdle. 7They still have to demonstrate it. And that's8certainly one thing they have not done is try to pull9the argument together.10JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Now I have a11question on the Intervenor reply on -- It would be on12page four. I don't quite understand what you said13that 10 CFR 54.29 -- I'm sorry. It says "FENOC and14the NRC staff has made conjectural arrangements15commencing in 2017 to be predicated upon information16learned about the cracking FirstEnergy has not yet17identified much less absorbed." I didn't understand18that.19(Off microphone comments)20MR. BURDICK: Judge Trikouros, I think it21might be on the top of page 15 of the reply.22JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes.23MR. LODGE: Sorry. I didn't realize you24were still looking for it. It is the first full25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 908sentence.1JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. Sorry. I had the2wrong reference there. Could you explain that to me?3MR. LODGE: Yes sir. I apologize. This4is again draftsmanship.5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Of what?6MR. LODGE: Of the meaning of that7statement was that FirstEnergy is proposing aging8management plan arrangements commencing for the 209year renewal period based upon unknown unknowns. That10essentially until there's a baseline set of data11established as to the cracking status of the overall12shield building that to come up with in 2014 with an13aging management plan for 2017 is fatuous. That's14what we meant.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. All right. On16page 16, you make the statement "Contention 7 must be17adjudicated by the Board not as a determination of the18adequacy of present CLB activities but to ascertain19whether there was reasonable assurance that the20present CLB efforts will tandem into the obligatory21shield building CLB activities." Perhaps you can give22me a little more on that.23MR. LODGE: We were respecting the fact24that it is by regulation not permissible to litigate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 909what is done by way of corrective action or the things1related to continuing license basis between now and2April 22, 2017. But we believe it's incumbent on the3Board in terms of an adjudication to determine whether4the continuing licensing basis activities in the5extension period are in any way logically related to6whatever happens over the next two and a half to three7year period.8We've haggled a lot today about the hands-9off circumstance over continuing license regulatory10activity between now and the end of the four year11period in our very limited recourse to question or12challenge that. But the FirstEnergy approach has been13to treat this as a day-to-day management problem.14We contend that so long as there is a lack15of comprehensive understanding of the status of the16structure that they get that pass. It would be a17different picture and it might even make the18Intervenors go away if there were comprehensive19knowledge of the status of the shield building. We20believe that after the coating was applied which was21a big game changer that that's a very different22circumstance which has apparently caused additional23cracking.24And I'd like to take this opportunity to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 910point out that from 1978 until 2011 either because1they weren't visible or because they weren't being2looked for cracking was not noticed. We're talking3about the blizzard of '78 setting up the preconditions4for the cracking to commence and have to presume that5it was under way continuously through 2011.6In 2002, there was a maintenance breach of7the shield building. The cracking is not noticed. 8Perhaps it was not visible. But it existed. It had9to exist in some form. The deterioration was10happening.11So we're talking about decades where12cracking is not identified. And then we sort of get13into this anecdotal phase where in 2011 in a14maintenance breach circumstance laminar cracks are15noticed. And there is an investigation performed. 16And even if you were to concede that the17impulse testing done at that time were done and it was18relatively comprehensive it was not the -- it19certainly was not exactly the best available20technology. But even if it were, the later technology21that has been applied has shown that there's22microcracking that has not been identified.23Our point is that this panel has to --24Certainly, we think it is relevant to look at what the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 911plan is right now, the aging management is at this1moment. But you have to make inferences as to its2adequacy during the 20 year period that would follow3if an extension were to be granted. And based upon4historical cracking, I think that there's a lot of5data that's missing that would be very necessary for6consideration in that proceeding.7(Off microphone comments)8JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay. I'm done with my9questions regarding the pleading. Just again to10understand this a little better, laminar cracking11appears the winter of '78. Does ice wedging not occur12from that point forward or does it occur?13MR. BURDICK: There is no evidence of ice14wedging prior to when it was identified in 2013.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Prior to what?16MR. BURDICK: Prior to when it was first17identified in 2013. So our conclusion from the root18cause evaluation in 2011-2012 was that there was the19one event laminar cracking that was by the '7820blizzard. Only through that event and the design of21the shield building that caused one laminar cracking. 22So it was only after that point when the ice wedging23occurred. So after -- In the last couple of years.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: What is it about the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 912last couple of years that's different.1MR. BURDICK: So the apparent cause2evaluation identifies the attributing cause as3coating. So there's the application of the coating to4the shield building. So there's no evidence that5there was any ice wedging before application of that6coating.7MR. MATTHEWS: Retrospectively to see if8there had been indications of step fracture prior to92012 and did not find indications of step fracture10which would be indicative of ice wedging.11JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So really applying the12coating did it.13MR. MATTHEWS: The ACE concluded that was14a contributing cause.15JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yeah, I've had trouble16understanding. I'm not a structural guy, but I've had17trouble understanding why applying the coating would18cause that to happen.19MR. MATTHEWS: And that same analysis20affirmed the evidence earlier of the initial freeze as21causing one continuous crack and not the suggestion22that's been tossed out here without basis that it's23some type of living phenomena.24JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 913JUDGE FROEHLICH: At this stage, I would1propose that we take a ten minute break. If people2would please correct your closing arguments, we'll3hear them in the order of staff, the Licensee, closing4finally with the Petitioners. Then we'll call it a5day. We'll take ten minutes and then proceed directly6to closing arguments. Off the record.7(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went8off the record at 3:13 p.m. and resumed at 3:26 p.m.)9JUDGE FROEHLICH: On the record. Start10from the top.11MS. KANATAS: Okay. Thank you, Your12Honors. This oral argument is about the admissibility13of Contention 7. Have Intervenors met their burden in14submitting an adequately supported contention that15raises a material, genuine dispute with FENOC's Davis-16Besse's license renewal application and meets the17Commission's standards for contentions filed after the18deadline for petitions to intervene.19The answer to that question is no. 20Intervenors proposed Contention 7 should not be21admitted to this proceeding because Intervenors have22not shown that the contention is based on new and23materially different information or that the24contention raises a genuine material dispute with25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 914FENOC's license renewal application. In support of1Contention 7, Intervenors incorporate all of their2Contention 5 filings and provide a history of the3shield building issues that led to the filing of4Contention 6.5While the staff recognized that Contention65 raised a single admissible safety claim at the time7it was filed, that claim was mooted by FENOC's8submission of a shield building monitoring AMP. Since9April 2012, FENOC's application has included plant10specific shield building monitoring program to monitor11the shield building cracking during the period of12extended operation.13Intervenors claim that changes made to14this AMP by FENOC's July 3, 2014 submittal are new and15materially different information. Intervenors also16claim that the full apparent cause evaluation contains17new and materially different information given its18conclusions on ice wedging. However, Intervenors have19not shown that the changes made to the AMP or the20conclusions in the full apparent cause evaluation are21new and materially different information.22The shield building monitoring AMP always23contemplated the possibility of an aging mechanism and24increasing monitoring and augmenting inspections if25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 915new cracks were identified. And this is exactly what1FENOC did in response to operating experience. 2Intervenors could have and did raise challenges that3the scope, method and frequency of the testing was4inadequate prior to this September. But those5previous challenges were rejected. Under Oyster6Creek, Intervenors' attempts to challenge the7augmented shield building monitoring AMP must fail. 8In terms of the coating being a9contributing cause to the crack propagation, the10Intervenors do not indicate why this suggests11inadequacy in the monitoring proposed by the shield12building monitoring AMP. Likewise, while Intervenors13might incorporate by reference their previous filings14on the shield building, that does not excuse them from15showing how that information is new and materially16different. 17Intervenors do not indicate how any of the18information in the Contentions 5 or 6 filings is new19or materially different. Instead Intervenors repeat20arguments considered and rejected by the Board and21suggest that the Board was wrong to reject them in the22first instance.23This rehash of previous arguments does not24support admissibility of Contention 7. Even assuming25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 916the Board finds that Contention 7 is based on new and1materially different information, Contention 7 should2still be found inadmissible. Intervenors have not3shown that the Contention 7 satisfies the Commission's4contention admissibility standards.5Intervenors' challenges to the shield6building monitoring AMP while in scope do not raise a7genuine material dispute with the application. 8Intervenors only point to enhancements made to the AMP9and assert without support that more is needed, more10core bores, more monitoring, more tests or they raise11nonspecific and nonsupportive challenges that other12AMPs are inadequate. This is not enough to trigger an13adjudicatory hearing.14The rest of Contention 7 safety claims are15issues that are outside the scope of this limited16proceeding such as current operating issues, safety17culture claims and challenges to the staff's review. 18This Board has made clear that these issues are not to19be adjudicated in this license renewal proceeding. 20Even assuming these claims were in scope, Intervenors21claim that basis.22Intervenors do not explain why using facts23or expert opinion the shield building cracks impact24the shield building's ability to perform its intended25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 917functions. Likewise, Intervenors' environmental1claims do not satisfy the Commission's contention2admissibility standards because their lack of support3and specificity and do not raise a genuine material4dispute with FENOC's environmental report and the5staff's draft environmental impact statement.6Intervenors assert that the SAMA is7inadequate, but Intervenors offer no support for this8assertion and do not point to any specific portion of9the SAMA or the DSEIS or indicate how those analyses10are inadequate. Likewise, Intervenors claim that the11alternatives analysis is inadequate, but do not12specify how the analysis is flawed. Instead13Intervenors claim that the shield building must be14repaired because it is not able to meet its design15basis functions.16But Intervenors do not offer support for17these claims or explain how using facts or expert18opinion the shield building cracking are connected to19an environmental impact that is relevant to the 2020more years of operating the plant. Therefore, it is21clear the Intervenors believe there are errors or22deficiencies in FENOC's license renewal application. 23Intervenors have not indicated some significant link24between a claim deficiency and the health and safety 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 918of the public or the environment.1While the staff has not made its findings2on the shield building monitoring AMP, Intervenors3have not raised a support of genuine dispute with the4AMP. The staff continues to review the shield5building monitoring AMP. FENOC's October 28, 20146response to the staff's September 29th RAI and may ask7additional questions.8But this does not give rise to an9evidentiary hearing. The RAI process is routine and10customary in licensing reviews. To admit a contention11into this proceeding, Intervenors must do more than12point to FENOC's responses and claim that they are13inadequate.14In closing, I'd like to repeat a point15that I opened with. The staff recognizes that the16shield building is a structure within the scope of17license renewal and that is subject to aging18management review. The staff also recognizes that the19shield building performs important design basis20functions. The staff will not issue a renewed license21unless and until it finds that FENOC has met all22applicable requirements. Thank you.23JUDGE FROEHLICH: The Licensee.24MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Judge Froehlich. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 919FENOC appreciates this opportunity to address the1Board today. I'd like to recognize the zeal of the2Intervenors, the efforts on the part of the NRC staff,3staff counsel and also recognize the obvious effort of4the Board to dig into these issues so that we can have5this constructive discussion I think we had today.6As Judge Froehlich noted in his opening7remarks this morning, the only purpose for which we're8here this morning or today is to discuss the9timeliness and sufficiency of the Intervenors'10proposed contention. We touched on a lot of things,11but that's the only reason we're here.12As both the staff and FENOC explained in13their written briefs and discussed further today, the14Intervenors have not. The proposed contention should15not be admitted.16With respect to timeliness, the17Intervenors have not identified any materially18different, new information in FENOC's revised aging19management program or the full apparent cause20evaluation. FENOC has always been focused on21identification of any observable change in the laminar22cracks. The methods specified in the AMP worked. The23challenge is now to those inspection methods are24untimely.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 920Improvements practices in the AMP,1improvements in the AMP, do not open the entire AMP to2new attack as the Commission and the Board found in3the Oyster Creek proceeding.4With respect to sufficiency of the5proposed Contention 7, Intervenors also failed to meet6the requirements specified in 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1). 7Many of the topics contained in the contention fall8well outside the scope of the license renewal9proceeding.10Most of those we have not spent time on11today addressing safety culture or NRC disclosure12practices. But we did spend some time on current13licensing basis, again outside the scope of license14renewal. In fact, they're specifically excluded from15license renewal under the sections of regulation we16talked about today.17To the extent Intervenors do refer to18FENOC's aging management program at all, they fail to19satisfy the requirements of 309(f)(1). They never,20not in their initial contention, not in the amended21contention, not in the reply brief and not here today22identified any reason, any basis, to say why FENOC's23AMP is not adequate for its purpose.24They don't say why they believe monitoring25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 921of core bores is insufficient. Even in the face of1the demonstrated success, the identification of crack2propagation is why we're here today. They don't3identify any deficiency in the scope, method,4frequency, number or location of our inspections. 5They say they want all of these aspects6expanded, but do not say why the enhancements FENOC7has already submitted are not sufficient. When8pressed today, they identified none.9Of course, without having identified any10deficiency nor have they identified supporting basis,11either expert opinion or other technical authority,12again pressed today, they found none. They have not13demonstrated how their concerns or curiosities as they14characterized them impact any finding the staff must15make in order to issue a renewed license.16There's been some discussion today about17other concrete failure mechanisms such as freeze/thaw18or microcrack. Intervenors never challenged the19structures AMP. If they had, that too would have been20without basis and probably untimely, but they did not. 21This discussion today does not cure that deficiency.22The shield building monitoring AMP, there23was a couple of housekeeping issues I'd like to24address in this. The shield building monitoring AMP,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 922there was a question about limited to visual1inspection. And, Judge Trikouros, I think it was2yours. I think you'll see that it's not limited to3visual inspection. At page four of six, its visual4inspection supported by a nondestructive evaluation as5appropriate.6Similarly, the parallel program in the7current period took us to impulse response testing as8a nondestructive evaluation technique. So it is9certainly not -- FENOC is not constrained to visual10testing.11It does in fact refer indications to the12corrective action program. And the corrective action13program as the Commission recognized when14incorporating or continuing the current license basis15and the renewal term is sufficient for a monitoring16AMP.17FENOC has extent of condition evaluation,18extent of cause evaluation and its appropriate19developed correction actions under that appendix B20program. So there should be no concern about the21adequacy of the corrective action program to address22concerns, issues, technical changes should they be23identified.24There was also a reference today to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 923thermal conductivity of the shield building and1whether we should be concerned about the depth of2freezing. I think you'll see in the original root3cause that you discussed earlier today, Judge4Trikouros, at page 26, paragraph four they discuss the5properties of the concrete and conclude that the6thermal conductivity of the shield building was within7the acceptable range.8With respect to the proffered9environmental contention, whether we call it the SAMA10contention, the no alternative or other, that11contention failed for all the same reasons I addressed12related to safety basis. And I won't repeat them.13There have been some suggestions today14that FENOC doesn't understand the status of the shield15building without basis. But those statements fall16into a pattern of tax on FENOC, the men and women of17FENOC. It's not the three attorney sitting at the18table. There are hard-working people at FENOC who19study these issues who have evaluated the condition of20the shield building, have looked at the calculations,21have assessed the calculations, answered the NRC's22questions. They've been very open. They've been very23honest.24We're here today because of the hard work25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 924they did in identifying it, studying it and revising1the AMP. Those kinds of suggestions are without basis2and I wanted to bring that to the Board's attention. 3There are real people behind these allegations that4are thrown around.5To that point, Intervenors challenge a lot6of things. They make allegations about the shield7building AMP. They make allegations about FENOC8disclosing information. They make allegations about9the staff's review. They even seem to be making10allegations about the Board's earlier decisions.11One thing they haven't really looked at is12the sufficiency of their own contention and explain13today why it should be admitted. For the reasons,14we've discussed in our briefs and here today, the15proposed Contention 7 should be rejected in its16entirety. Again, we appreciate this opportunity to17address you.18JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you.19MR. LODGE: Thank you. Let's dispose of20the simple issues first. We timely filed. We timely21filed within 60 days. Actually, it was 62 days, but22that was because of the Labor Day holiday. I didn't23take Labor Day off.24The timeliness requirements were met. The25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 925new and material information. I guess there's no new1and material information if you ignore the damaging2revelation that coating the shield building worsened3the problem. That is new and material information.4The unanswered end of that, however, is5now what? What happens to the saturation status of6the outer 10 inches apparently 360 degrees around the7shield building? We've adequately supported in a8timely fashion with material new information our9contention.10And there is some very hard working people11no doubt at FirstEnergy. Intervenors question the12direction of those efforts. We still haven't heard13that there's been a comprehensive analysis of the14entire shield building.15And let me explain something. You heard a16little while ago the representations of FENOC's17counsel about ice wedging. "Ice wedging" -- and I'm18reading from the FACE analysis -- "requires the three19following conditions to occur: a preexisting crack,20water present in the crack at localized saturation, an21ice wedge cycle that contains a freezing condition." 22So explain for me how it could be that there was no23ice wedging until they coated the shield building.24You had at some point laminar cracking. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 926You had subsurface laminar cracking. So you had1preexisting cracks. And you had water. And you had2freezing and thawing. So how can it be that we're3sitting here haggling as lawyers making4representations to the Board as to engineering or5scientific conclusions that we kind of have no6business making instead of adjudicating this thing.7I almost wanted to slip notes to the8Licensing Board as to cross examination questions to9ask counsel just to inquire behind that conclusory10assurance that FirstEnergy is giving you that "Oh no. 11There's no ice wedging until we identified it from the122012-2013 debacle"13In fact, I appreciate, the Intervenors14appreciate, the intensive scrutiny that the Board has15applied to this issue and before today and in 2012. 16We're not trying to relitigate the findings that Board17rendered in 2012. We are simply trying to make sure18that the record contained the historic data, the FOIA19request of the facts. And the Board has certainly20reflected that it has gone back into the historic21filings and the historic facts which are quite22important and relevant to understanding things today.23PII has called the shield building24situation unique. And indeed when you think how could25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 927it possibly be that more than 35 years after the1building is constructed someone apparently looks at2old specs and realizing "Oh my God. We didn't coat3the shield building" and then has to reconstruct how4it came to be that there were laminar cracks. 5But the problem that follows upon that is6that FirstEnergy confined its investigation to laminar7and sublaminar cracking. The Intervenors did not8confine their analysis, their arguments and their9facts to merely laminar cracking. And we have been10proven, we've been vindicated, to some extent by what11has happened and the discoveries made with better12technology and the error made by FirstEnergy in13coating the shield building.14The ACI monitoring advice does not cover15the situation. I think that was pretty clearly shown.16And finally I often -- I've done a lot of17summary judgment and summary disposition litigation in18my career as have a lot of attorneys. And probably as19Judges, your eyes glass over as mine do when you read20the recitations of standards and what you may and may21not consider in the course of determining whether or22not to admit a contention.23And I found my admittedly rather24boilerplate discussion of contention admissibility25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 928requirements at the end of I think our reply that was1filed October 10th. But I think these words mean2something. We have gone way into this issue today. 3We have explored it through the helpful discussions,4arguments and points made by all of the attorneys5sometimes with the advice of experts.6But the threshold admissibility7requirements of a contention should not be turned into8a "fortress to deny intervention." And that's the9Power Authority of the State of New York was the most10recent recitation I could find of that from 2000 CLI-1100-22. But the principle has been elaborated and12applied since the mid '70s.13There's not a requirement on us, on the14Intervenors, on the Petitioners, today to have made15our substantial case at this stage. And very many16times during the course of the dialogue today, I've17had the distinct impression that we're being held to18this standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.19We have demonstrated from expert engineers20and perhaps other specialties in the employ of the NRC21and FirstEnergy a continuing history of -- I should22say a continuing saga that perhaps as I've said before23may not be concluded even now. We have three24different root causes. I agree and admit that there25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 929is synergistic effect probably among some of those1causal factors.2But today isn't the day when you as the3jurists in this proceeding weigh the evidence and4decide whether or not the Intervenors should be5rewarded by a chance to go to trial or punished by6being denied that opportunity. Today is simply the7opportunity the Board has made for us to articulate in8detail what our respective positions are.9We believe that we aren't called upon to10make our case. We're here to indicate what facts or11expert opinions that we're relying on and we have12articulated a contention that we believe must be13adjudicated. That contention is that there are safety14-- SER and NEPA implications which were spelled out15but at least explained and mentioned and referenced in16the contention wording itself. There are Atomic17Energy Act implications.18The problem with the shield building is19that it is being treated as though it's pristine. 20That despite incremental, damning evidence that there21is a deterioration going on notwithstanding the22warnings of engineers on the Commission's own staff23that there could be a crisis that there could be a24very serious problem, notwithstanding new cracking25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 930actually caused by the utility company itself, these1are surmountable obstacles that simply can be ignored2because right now that building is standing and it3looks like it's performing its function. Therefore4the aging management plan up to the this point has5been a success.6I appreciate that the aging management7plan has identified further problems. Our concern8however is that there is not an end to the9identification of the damage that is being done that10is on going nor what the future holds in terms of11identification of new causes that follow upon new12problems. We respectfully request that the panel13admit Contention 7 and that this matter be allowed to14go to trial. Thank you.15JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you. At this16point, the Board would like to thank all parties for17their arguments today. The answers that were given18will be helpful to the Board deciding the19admissibility of this contention. The Board will take20the transcript of this argument together with the21pleadings that have been filed in this docket and hope22that we show our decision before the end of the year.23I want to thank the ACRS for allowing us24to use the facilities while the ASLBP courtroom is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 931being refurbished. I want to thank our court reporter1for his work today.2If there is nothing further, thank you3all.4MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, transcript5corrections.6JUDGE FROEHLICH: Transcript corrections. 7We should have the transcript I believe within a week. 8I consider just a day or perhaps one week to peruse it9and submit any transcript corrections. Will that be10acceptable to the parties?11MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, that may be. I12would mention that Mr. Lodge and both Ms. Kanatas and13I have an argument next week at Fermi. So that might14impact our ability to turn that around very quickly15depending on what day that came out.16JUDGE FROEHLICH: Why don't we make it17seven days from when it comes out and Fermi is an18argument one day.19MS. KANATAS: The 20th.20JUDGE FROEHLICH: Next Thursday.21MS. KANATAS: Yes. We'll be traveling on22the 19th and returning on the 21st.23JUDGE FROEHLICH: Proposed date for24transcript corrections, counsel?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 932MS. KANATAS: Happy Thanksgiving. No. 1Your Honor, I'll leave it to you.2(Off microphone comments)3JUDGE FROEHLICH: What's the Monday after4Thanksgiving?5JUDGE TRIKOUROS: December 1st. Does that6work for everyone?7MR. LODGE: Sure.8MR. MATTHEWS: Fine.9JUDGE TRIKOUROS: For transcript10corrections. They're very controversial. December111st for transcript corrections.12MS. KANATAS: All right. Thank you.13JUDGE FROEHLICH: Thank you. We are14adjourned.15(Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the above-16entitled matter was concluded.)1718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433