ML15194A134

Transcript of Wednesday, July 8, 2015 Teleconference

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

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Entergy Nuclear Operations Palisades Nuclear PlantDocket Number:50-255-LA-2 ASLBP No.15-939-04-LA-BD01 Location:teleconference Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2015Work Order No.:NRC-1728Pages 1-19 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +

3ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4+ + + + +

5HEARING6----------------------x 7In the Matter of:  : Docket No.

8ENTERGY NUCLEAR  : 50-255-LA-2 9OPERATIONS, INC.  : ASLBP No.

10(Palisades Nuclear  : 15-939-04-LA-BD01 11Plant)  :

12----------------------x 13Wednesday, July 8, 2015 1415Teleconference 1617BEFORE:18RONALD M. SPRITZER, Chair 19GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge 20THOMAS J. HIRONS, Administrative Judge 2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 2APPEARANCES:

12Counsel for the Applicant 3Paul Bessette, Esq.

4Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.

5of:Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 61111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

7Washington, DC 20004 8pbessette@morganlewis.com 9rkuyler@morganlewis.com 10(202) 739-5796 1112On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13Anita Ghosh, Esq.

14Joseph Lindell, Esq.

15of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16Office of the General Counsel 17Mail Stop O-15D21 18Washington, DC 20555-0001 19(301) 415-4126 20anita.ghosh@nrc.gov 21joseph.lindell@nrc.gov 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 3On Behalf of the Petitioners

1Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

2316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 3Toledo, OH 43604-5627 4(419) 255-7552 5terry@beyondnuclear.org 67 8

910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4P R O C E E D I N G S 12:01 p.m.

2CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, I think we are 3now ready to go on the record, Mr. Court Reporter. We 4are here in the matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, 5Inc. This is Palisades Nuclear Plant, NRC Docket 6number 50-255-LA-2. This is the License Amendment Two 7request, and we're here pursuant to the Board's order 8of June 26, scheduling this conference call to review 9scheduling issues. Why don't we go around again and 10identify everyone who is on the call, I'm going with 11start with the Intervenors.

12MR. LODGE: Terry Lodge, counsel for the 13Intervenors.

14MR. KAMPS: And this is Kevin Kamps with 15Beyond Nuclear.

16CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, and for 17Entergy?18MR. BESSETTE: Yes, Your Honor, this is 19Paul Bessette from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 20representing Entergy, and I have my colleague, Ray 21Kuyler with me.

22CHAIR SPRITZER: And for the NRC Staff?

23MS. GHOSH: Hi Your Honor, this is Anita 24Ghosh for the NRC Staff, with me as co-counsel Joseph 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5Lindell. I also have a member of the NRC technical 1staff, Kimberly Green.

2CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, and I believe 3that should do it, but if anybody else is on the line 4and planning to participate, please speak now. All 5right, hearing no takers, with me of course I 6mentioned are Judge Hirons and Judge Arnold, also our 7law clerk, Nicole Pepperl and Sachin Desai, who is 8technically a law clerk on the other Palisades case, 9but is also listening in on this case.

10So, let's go over the issues that we're 11going to talk about today. With respect to the 12deferral motion, the Motion to Defer the Mandatory 13Disclosure, we of course just got the response from 14the Intervenors today. We'll rule on that as soon as 15possible. In fact, we probably should have an order 16out by tomorrow. But I think we know the parties' 17positions, so I don't know if there's anything more we 18need to hear on that issue.

19So why don't we move ahead and talk about 20the--well, let me just start off with staff, and are 21you all--we saw the statement on Entergy's motion that 22you didn't--that the Staff does not oppose the motion.

23Is the Staff planning to file anything on that? This 24is the Motion to Defer the Due Date for Mandatory 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6Disclosures?

1MS. GHOSH: No, Your Honor.

2CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. So we're ready--

3it's ready for decision, then. Okay. On the joint 4proposal, first of all, we appreciate the parties' 5efforts at working out a joint proposal, and for the 6most part it seems acceptable to the Board with a few 7possible changes that we're interested in, and we'll 8give you the chance to offer your thoughts on.

9First, on the direct and rebuttal 10testimony, what we're thinking might shorten things a 11bit and also be of benefit to the Board would be to 12take what is a three-stage process and basically make 13it a two-stage process. The first stage would be all 14the written direct testimony and statements of 15positions, that is from all the parties, Intervenors, 16staff and Entergy would be submitted simultaneously, 17and then 45 days later, the rebuttal testimony from 18Intervenors, Entergy and staff would be submitted.

19So that would shorten that process from it 20looks like about 90 days to about 45 days, and from 21our point of view, it's often more helpful to get all 22of the direct testimony together and all the rebuttal 23testimony together. It certainly doesn't hurt. So 24let me ask if anyone wants to comment on that from the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7parties on the line?

1MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul 2Bessette, maybe I'll jump in. We certainly can do 3whatever the Board wishes to do. We can accommodate 4any pleading standard, any pleading schedule or 5process. I would note though that you know, we really 6do not at this point know many of Intervenor's 7arguments.

8We really haven't seen our case yet, all 9we have is an admitted contention. So it's often hard 10for applicants to prepare testimony when we don't full 11know what their arguments are. So it is often to I 12think everyone's benefit to understand the 13Petitioner's case.

14In fact, in the Petitioner's pleading from 15this morning, they note that they may be hiring a new 16expert, and we have no idea what that expert is going 17to say, because it says they have the potential need 18for Petitioner to identify one or more appropriate 19experts on metallurgical issues. So Entergy would 20have no way of addressing that expert testimony if we 21went in at the same time.

22CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay.

23ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, and that's--

24this is Judge Arnold -- that's what the rebuttals are 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8for. You would each have an equal opportunity to 1rebut the position of your opponents.

2MR. BESSETTE: I understand, and that's 3why we could accommodate any process, I just wanted to 4provide some, just some alternate thoughts there, Your 5Honor. We fully respect your discussion of that 6issue.7CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, does anybody 8else have any thoughts on that particular possible 9modification?

10MR. LODGE: Yes, Judge--go ahead.

11MS. GHOSH: Yes, the NRC Staff, I think we 12would echo the same sentiments. I think it would be 13easier--not easier, but it would--some of the claims 14that are written out in the Petitioner's case would 15be--I think it would help to narrow the scope of the 16proceeding, and it would provide for a more efficient 17process if the Intervenor were--if we were to do the 18staggered filing, but we would be amenable to either 19process.20CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, from the 21Intervenors, did you have any thoughts on this?

22MR. LODGE: Yes sir, this is Terry Lodge.

23You may recall in the 33 proceeding over which you 24presided, you also asked for the procedure that you're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9proposing today, and of course we'll comply with any 1orders that you might make. But in 33 as well as 2today, my view was that as proposed, the three-step 3process more tends to follow what federal civil 4practice utilizes, and I think that as the other 5parties have suggested, it may actually help narrow or 6frame the issues better.

7What occurs otherwise, and what happened 8in the 33 case, and it wasn't a terrible thing, but 9what it does requires that all parties essentially 10shotgun every conceivable position as opposed to 11providing a more targeted kind of expert opinion in 12response, and then ultimately on rebuttal.

13CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Well, those are 14some interesting points; we'll take them under 15advisement. If there's nothing else on that 16particular issue, I would assume that this is related 17to the filing of the direct and rebuttal testimony; 18the schedule I don't think specifically mentions 19exhibits, but I assume they would be filed--well let's 20see, for the Intervenors, they would be filed with 21your direct testimony, same thing for the Staff and 22Applicant. And whenever that happens to come, and any 23rebuttal exhibits would be filed with the rebuttal 24testimony. Did you have anything else in mind, or was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10it just--you just didn't mention exhibits in here?

1MR. BESSETTE: No, Your Honor. This is 2Paul Bessette again. We anticipated or envisioned 3filing the exhibits along with the testimony.

4CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay, I just wanted to be 5clear on that. Now, on the 60 versus 30 day issue, 6this is for the filing of your amended contentions, I 7guess our preliminary reaction is more in line of a 8general idea to move this case along that we go with 9the 30 days.

10Intervenors, you're not prohibited from 11asking for an extension, although you should do so 12promptly if you need it and give us a good reason why 13you need an extension, so you're not completely locked 14into 30 days. But in terms of what we're doing with 15the scheduling order, our inclination is to go with 16the 30 days. Any response on that?

17MR. BESSETTE: Essentially what you're 18saying is that, procedurally, if we believe it will 19take 60 days to articulate a new or amended 20contention, we can make a request within the first 30, 21and--22(Simultaneous speaking.)

23CHAIR SPRITZER: If you need more time, 24you could file a motion for extension of time. We're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11not guaranteeing you that we'll grant it, I'm just 1saying--or saying that necessarily 30 days should be 2the time you should ask for, only that we would put in 3our scheduling order 30 days; if there really are 4extenuating circumstances--if the staff's safety 5evaluation comes out at the end of November, you know, 6then you're going into the Christmas holidays, most 7people like to take at least a few days off in there, 8so you know that kind of thing is something we would 9take into account. I'm not giving you a guarantee 10that we will give you an extra 30 days; you should ask 11for the smallest amount of time that you would need in 12addition to 30 days, if you need any at all. All I'm 13saying is you have the option of asking for an 14extension if it's really necessary, but we'd prefer to 15keep 30 days as the goal and see if there's any 16justification or need for further time down the road.

17MR. BESSETTE: Well, we would prefer the 1860, but we will abide by whatever order the Board 19makes.20CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. With respect to 21summary disposition motions, right now the schedule 22has two deadlines for summary disposition motions; of 23course nobody's prohibited from filing earlier than 24the deadline. What we thought might make more sense 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12is to have one deadline geared to the due date for 1direct testimony, depending upon which schedule we're 2under, that is whether it's--whether new or amended 3contentions are filed or not filed, we would probably 4gear, you know, 30 days before direct testimony or 45 5days before the direct testimony is due.

6We haven't quite worked that out yet, but 7we try to have a deadline like that rather than two 8separate deadlines. I mean if Entergy files a motion 9for summary disposition after 30 days, 30 days after 10the safety evaluation comes out, but simultaneously 11new or amended contentions are filed could effectively 12make the summary disposition motion moot, so we 13thought rather than having more motions filed than we 14really need, it might make sense to defer the 15deadline.

16So were there any thoughts on that? Let 17me have Entergy first on that.

18MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, that sounds 19reasonable to us, thank you.

20CHAIR SPRITZER: Staff?

21MS. GHOSH: That sounds reasonable to us 22as well.23CHAIR SPRITZER: And Intervenor?

24MR. LODGE: Your Honor, that's a good 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13suggestion. Thank you.

1CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. If you look 2at--this is on page 2 of your joint proposal, 3paragraph number 6, imposition came up in the Fermi 2 4case which Mr. Lodge may remember. It's a little 5confusing because I think what's intended here is to 6say that--the first sentence says that if the staff is 7going to identify the documents, it's required to 8identify--I think what's intended in the second 9sentence is to say that the parties shall not 10otherwise be required to identify or produce docketed 11correspondence or other documents identified by the 12staff. 13If it's broader than that, then it would 14seem to be an inconsistency with paragraph 7, which 15does require identification of some documents that may 16or may not have been identified by the staff, namely 17ones that a party may rely on at the hearing. If we 18made that modification, would that be a problem that 19it's changing the paragraph--second sentence in 20paragraph 6 to say that the parties will not otherwise 21be required to identify or produce docketed 22correspondence or other documents identified by the 23staff?24MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 14Bessette from Entergy. We would concur with that 1change to the extent any documents are identified on 2ADAMS or not otherwise identified by the staff or on 3ADAMS, we had always intended to identify those with 4the appropriate accession number.

5CHAIR SPRITZER: Right. It just seemed--I 6assumed that was probably intended, but it seemed to 7be a potential inconsistency there. Does anyone else 8have any comment on that particular issue?

9MR. LODGE: It's fine with Intervenors.

10MS. GHOSH: It's fine with the NRC staff 11as well.12CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. Okay, that 13comes pretty much to the end of my list I think. Do 14any of my fellow judges have any--

15ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge 16Arnold. I--there's the staff technical person on the 17line; is that so?

18MS. GHOSH: Yes.

19ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Would you be able to 20answer a question such as the safety evaluation, is 21this going to be a 500-page document, a 50-page 22document, about how big is it going to be?

23MS. GHOSH: Can you give me one moment, 24Your Honor?

25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay.

1MS. GHOSH: Your Honor, the SE will 2probably be no longer than 30 pages.

3ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you very much.

4CHAIR SPRITZER: Well let me just ask 5then. Based on the joint proposal, I take it 6everyone's agreed though that we should wait--we 7shouldn't--the schedule should not--should wait until 8the safety evaluation is completed. Anybody feel 9differently? All right, hearing no takers, I assume 10that everyone's agreed on that point.

11And if the schedule, particularly if we 12follow the schedule that assumes that there will be 13new or amended contentions, we could get well into 142016 before we actually have the hearing. From 15Entergy's point of view, is that going to be a 16problem? It's my understanding that it looks like you 17need a decision certainly before December of 2016.

18MR. BESSETTE: A decision on the hearing, 19Your Honor?

20CHAIR SPRITZER: Well, a ruling, 21conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and the Board's 22initial decision. And I suppose also time to appeal 23to the--or whoever happens to be the losing party to 24appeal to the Commission. And that's based on the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16fact as I understand it there's at least one of the 1materials that will be approaching this limit, 2fracture toughness limit by December of 2016, but 3maybe I'm misinterpreting something.

4MR. BESSETTE: No Your Honor, I believe 5that's generally consistent with our understanding.

6We just, you know, we looked at this carefully. With 7regard to Your Honor's first point, we are not aware 8of even the ability to go to hearing without the SER, 9the staff's SER, because we really do need the 10staff's--we believe we need the staff's position on 11this. We would--perhaps we were hoping for the SER a 12bit earlier candidly, which would move this up a bit 13earlier.14CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. That would be 15good, that would help everybody I think.

16MR. BESSETTE: Yes.

17CHAIR SPRITZER: I mean, the other 18possibility of course is to shorten some of the other 19deadlines; we mentioned one possibility already in 20terms of the having two--a two-step process for 21submitting testimony rather than a three-step process.

2223Maybe the best thing to do is simply go 24ahead and issue the scheduling order based on what we 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17have now, and if it seems like you're pushing up 1against a deadline, and keeping in mind that I would 2assume both sides want to preserve the option of an 3appeal to the Commission, come back to us with some 4alternative proposal if it looks like you're running 5into a potential problem.

6MR. BESSETTE: Yes, Your Honor, that's 7entirely reasonable, and we would need to confer with 8the client on that.

9CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Just to let you 10know, we would certainly be open to--we understand 11that the issue around getting your decision within the 12time period that you need one.

13MR. BESSETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.

14CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Judge Hirons, did 15you want to make--

16ADMIN. JUDGE HIRONS: I just want to 17confirm with the staff that the date for the SER is 18the end of November, is that correct?

19MS. GHOSH: That's our current best 20estimate.

21ADMIN. JUDGE HIRONS: Thank you.

22CHAIR SPRITZER: Is it realistic that it 23might be earlier than that?

24MS. GHOSH: Possibly.

25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. All right, I think 1the judges, I've asked all my questions; my 2colleagues, I assume, have asked theirs. Are there any 3other procedural issues any of the parties want to 4bring up?

5MR. BESSETTE: None from Entergy, Your 6Honor.7MS. GHOSH: Nothing from the Staff.

8CHAIR SPRITZER: And Intervenors?

9MR. LODGE: Nothing from the Intervenors.

10MR. KAMPE: If I could just quickly, Your 11Honor. Maybe it's a bit premature, but the holding of 12the actual evidentiary hearing itself, I would hope 13that that would take place in West Michigan given the 14broad public interest. It would be difficult for 15folks to travel to Rockville for example.

16CHAIR SPRITZER: Right. I mean, that's 17our normal policy as you know from the Fermi 3 case, 18we did the hearing there in Michigan, so unless 19there's some compelling reason to do it here, that 20would be the normal Commission policy to hold the 21hearing in the vicinity of the plant.

22MR. KAMPS: I appreciate it.

23CHAIR SPRITZER: Does anybody--for the 24staff or Entergy, do you have any reason to think that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19we should do it in Washington in Rockville, Maryland?

1MR. BESSETTE: This is Entergy, no Your 2Honor, particularly because it's not in winter either, 3so.4CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Well, I think it 5was winter in Fermi 3, or close, it felt like winter.

6To the staff, any thoughts on that?

7MS. GHOSH: No, we wouldn't have any 8objection to having the hearing in Michigan.

9CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. All right, I think 10that's concludes our business. To the court reporter, 11do you need the parties to stay on the line?

12MR. JACKSON: No, I don't think so.

13CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. All right, 14that concludes our scheduling conference then. Thank 15you for your participation. As I said, we hope to get 16an order out on the mandatory disclosures by tomorrow.

17So the schedule probably Monday or Tuesday of next 18week.19MR. BESSETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.

20CHAIR SPRITZER: Very well, thank you.

21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 22concluded at 2:22 p.m.)

2324 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433