ML14080A113
| ML14080A113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2014 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, RAS 25710 | |
| Download: ML14080A113 (31) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2: Pre-Hearing ConferenceDocket Number:50-275-LR and 50-323-LRALSBP Number:10-900-01-LR-BD01 Location:teleconference Date:Wednesday, March 19, 2014Work Order No.:NRC-664Pages 630-659 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 630 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4+ + + + +5 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE CALL 6----------------------x 7 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
8 PACIFIC GAS & : 50-275-LR 9 ELECTRIC COMPANY : 50-323-LR 10 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear: ASLBP No.
11 Power Plant, Units 1 : 10-900-01-LR-BD01 12 and 2) :
13----------------------x 14 Wednesday, March 19, 2014 15 16 Teleconference 17 18 BEFORE: 19 ALEX S. KARLIN, Chair 20 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 21 DR. PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 631 APPEARANCES:
1 2 Counsel for the Applicant 3 DAVID REPKA, ESQ.
4 TYSON R. SMITH, ESQ.
5of:Winston & Strawn, LLP 6 1700 K Street, NW 7 Washington, DC 20006-3817 8 202-282-5726 9 10 JENNIFER K. POST, ESQ.
11of:Pacific Gas and Electric Company 12 77 Beale Street, B30A 13 San Francisco, CA 94105 14 415-973-9809 15 16 17 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
19 CATHERINE KANATAS, ESQ.
20of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Office of the General Counsel 22 Mail Stop O-15D21 23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 24 301-415-4126 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 632 On Behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 1 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
2of:Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg 3 1726 M Street, N.W.
4 Suite 600 5 Washington, DC 20036 6 202-328-3500 7 8 Also Present 9 ONIKA WILLIAMS, Law Clerk 10 TWANA ELLIS, Program Analyst 11 ELAINE KEEGAN, Project Manager 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 633 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 1:34 p.m.2 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. We are on the 3 record, and the operator has, I believe, opened the 4 lines to members of the public who are in a listen-5 only mode. And I understand that there may be several 6 of them, and perhaps someone from the media.
7 This is a pre-hearing conference call in 8 the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 9 application to renew its licenses for the two nuclear 10 reactors located in San Luis Obispo, California. The 11 docket number of this case for the record is 50-275-LR 12 and 50-323-LR, and the ASLBP number is 10-900-01-LR-13 BD01.14 This pre-hearing conference call is being 15 held pursuant that we -- or a notice, actually, that 16 we issued on February 5 th of this year. And today's 17 date is March 19 th , 2014.18 First, I'm going to just go into the 19 introductions of the Board and then the parties can 20 introduce themselves. For the Board there's me, Alex 21 Karlin, and we also have Nick Trikouros, Judge 22 Trikouros who's here in the room with me in Rockville, 23 Maryland, and Dr. Paul Abramson is on the line and 24 participating telephonically.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 634 Judge Abramson, are you there?
1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I am, indeed.
2 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, great. We also have 3 Onika Williams with us in the conference room here.
4 She is a lawyer and law clerk working on this case, 5 and Twana Ellis is our administrative assistant and is 6 handling all the administrative issues here.
7 With that, I'd like to ask the parties to 8 introduce themselves, the representatives of the 9 parties. May we start with Ms. Curran for San Luis 10 Obispo Mothers for Peace.
11 MS. CURRAN: Good afternoon. My name is 12 Diane Curran with the firm of Harmon, Curran, 13 Spielberg and Eisenberg, and I represent the San Luis 14 Obispo Mothers for Peace.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Great. Thank you, Ms.
16 Curran. Mr. Repka for Pacific Gas and Electric 17 Company, could you introduce yourself and your team?
18 MR. REPKA: Yes, Judge Karlin. This is 19 David Repka. I'm with the law firm of Winston and 20 Strawn based in Washington, D.C., and I represent 21 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Also on the call are 22 my partner at Winston and Strawn in San Francisco, 23 Tyson Smith, and also Jennifer Post from Pacific Gas 24 and Electric Company. And I'll let each of those just 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 635 acknowledge that they're there so we know we have 1 them.2 MS. POST: Yes, hello. This is Jennifer 3 Post for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in-house 4 law department.
5 JUDGE KARLIN: Welcome.
6 MS. POST: Thank you.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Mr. Smith, are you there?
8 MR. SMITH: Yes, Tyson Smith is here.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, great. Now, I think 10 we'll turn to the Staff. Ms. Uttal, maybe you could 11 introduce the Staff participants today.
12 MS. UTTAL: Yes. This is Susan Uttal 13 representing the Staff. With me is Catherine Kanatas, 14 also a member of OGC, and Elaine Keegan who is Project 15 Manager.16 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, welcome. All right.
17 I'm not going to go into the very long background of 18 this case. We've been pending for a few years. I guess 19 we first admitted some Contentions in August of 2010, 20 and at this point there's one Contention, EC1 I'll 21 just call it, that is still pending and that survives.
22 I believe there's also a Waste Confidence Rule-related 23 Contention that's being held -- that's been held in 24 abeyance without being admitted or denied, either way.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 636 But, in any event, our last status conference call was 1 September 19 th, 2012, so when we originally started 2 this case we thought we'd have status conferences 3 about every six months. Actually, our last status 4 conference was exactly 18 months ago, so we missed 5 that, but I think it appears to have been relatively 6 quiet vis a vis the adjudicatory process at any rate.
7 But we did think it was the appropriate time at this 8 moment to have a pre-hearing status conference.
9 Now, the purpose of this call, this 10 conference is to -- case management, to try to manage 11 this case as efficiently, and proactively, and fairly 12 as we can. We've been in a waiting mode for a goodly 13 amount of time because, as I understand it, Pacific 14 Gas and Electric has been working on their seismic 15 study and report, and they've been giving us monthly 16 reports on that. Meanwhile, the Staff will be working 17 on its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 18 Statement and safety analyses, as well. So, in 19 preparation for the hearing we want to sort of focus 20 on some critical path items that would help us handle 21 this efficiently.
22We have as an agenda thoughts for this 23 call just a few things. First, item on the agenda 24 would be to ask PG&E to just review and confirm its 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 637 schedule as you reported to us most recently on March 1 11 th of this year. And then also to turn to the Staff 2-- second agenda item to ask the Staff to confirm and 3 adjust their schedule. Third is to talk about 4 something we think would help in the management of 5 this case which is the management of dispositive 6 motions and new contentions that may arise from the 7 seismic report and the DEIS that are coming down the 8 pike in the next six to nine months. So, that's one 9 thing we do want to talk about.
10 This is, obviously, not the place or time 11for any of the parties to argue about the February 12 27 th , 2014 petition to suspend the proceeding that Ms.
13 Curran filed in this case, and that was filed in other 14 cases. That's, as I understand it, pending before the 15 Commissioners, and it is not something that this Board 16 will be focusing on, certainly not today, anyway.
17 Is there anything else that any of the 18 other -- any of the parties have, or would suggest, or 19 think we need to talk -- add to the agenda here today?
20 (No response.)
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, I hear none. Is there 22 anything else from Judge Trikouros or Judge Abramson?
23 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 638 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, fine. Then let's go 1 with that. Item number one, Mr. Repka, perhaps you 2 could just review with us the schedule. PG&E reported 3 on March 11 th that you expect to submit the final 4 seismic study report in June of 2004, '14, I'm sorry.
5 I presume that's still a good estimate.
6 MR. REPKA: This is Mr. Repka. That is 7 still the schedule.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Can you tell us what 9 function do you expect the seismic report to serve? Is 10 it going to be something that is in the nature of a 11 supplement to the Environmental Report, is it in the 12 nature of a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis 13 Report, is it a safety document, environmental 14 document, both, neither? You're going to submit it to 15 NRC. What function, or why are you doing that?
16 MR. REPKA: Well, let me start by saying 17 that it is not something that's directly linked to 18 license renewal. It's something that the company is 19doing to respond to some California legislation to 20 conduct the seismic studies. And the decision to defer 21 license renewal pending the outcome of the studies was 22 a voluntary one. There's not under NRC rules 23 necessarily a link.
24 I think subsequent to all of that, of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 639 course, we've had the NRC's requirements on seismic 1 hazard analyses post-Fukushima, and I think that 2 primarily the report responds to the California 3 legislation, number one. And number two, is something 4 that will be used and incorporated into the company's 5response to the 5054(f) for seismic hazard analysis 6 post-Fukushima; which, again, is an ongoing safety 7 analysis that the NRC has required as a current 8 licensing basis, current operational issue. So, I 9 think that that information will, ultimately, be 10 incorporated into that effort.
11 In terms of does it have an environmental 12 characteristic, I think I would defer to the NRC Staff 13 as to how they would -- if at all they would use that 14 information as part of their environmental review of 15license renewal and incorporate it into the Draft 16 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on license 17 renewal.18 Certainly, that's something that the 19company, once the report is submitted, would be 20 prepared to discuss with the NRC Staff, and really 21 discuss the completely separate issue as to license 22 renewal, the license renewal review, and when that 23 will be restarted, and what might be required from the 24 company or the NRC Staff.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 640 So, I know that's a long answer but it's 1 not directly linked to either the safety or the 2 environmental review. At this p oint I think it's 3 really best described as part of an ongoing effort 4 that will be incorporated into the post-Fukushima 5 5054(f) response.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, thank you. Well, I 7 think that covers that item. We can just turn to the 8 Staff at this point, if I could, Ms. Uttal, to tell 9us. Your last status report was February 20 th , and I 10 guess one is due -- the next one is due tomorrow, but 11 your reports indicate the Draft EIS is likely to come 12 out in September of this year?
13 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: And the final in April of 15 2015?16 MS. UTTAL: As far as I know, nothing has 17 changed.18 JUDGE KARLIN: No change on that. And the 19 FSER is the same, April of 2015. Right?
20 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. What does the Staff 22-- can you address the question I asked Mr. Repka, 23 which is does the Staff see the seismic report as 24 safety -- we're going to take that into consideration 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 641 for safety issues, or for environmental issues, or for 1 both, or for neither, or what?
2 MS. UTTAL: I don't know if I have an 3 answer to that question. I think the Staff anticipates 4 seeing what comes out of it and probably -- and that's 5 why they're holding up on the DSEIS just to make sure, 6 to see if there's something that relevant to the 7 environmental in that report, to make sure that the 8 report is complete when they publish it.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. That seemed to be 10what was at least part of the thinking because, as 11 your reports would indicate, your issuance of the 12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement has always been 13 sort of connected to the Applicant's submission of its 14 seismic report, so there may be a relationship there.
15 MS. UTTAL: Right. And the same would go on 16 the safety side. If there's something there that 17 necessitates updating something on the safety side, 18 then the Staff would have to decide whether to do a 19 supplemental SER.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Right. Okay. All 21 right, that's helpful. And I think that's kind of what 22 we thought and expected. And let us now turn to the 23 third item on the agenda, which is really our desire 24 to manage the filings that are going to be associated, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 642 may be associated I hasten to say, with e ither the 1PG&E seismic report or the NRC Draft Supplemental 2 Environmental Impact Statement. I mean, the seismic 3 report is due let's just say, or is expected in June 4of this year. The DEIS is expected in September of 5 this year. I mean, those dates may not be perfect but 6 they're a best estimate at the moment.
7 Now, here's what we're concerned about. In 8 a typical scenario, especially with regard to 9 environmental matters, what we sometimes see is a two-10 round -- going through two iterations of pleadings and 11 litigation. The first round might come when the 12 seismic report is issued in September -- in June of 13 this year, and that could trigger the Intervenor 14 attempting to file new contentions based upon some 15 alleged inadequacies in the environmental portion of 16 the seismic report, and the Applicant or licensee 17 filing Summary Disposition Motions or Motions to 18 Dismiss based upon the contents of the seismic report, 19 and everyone filing answers, and then perhaps even 20 replies with regard to the new contentions, proposed 21 new contentions, and the Board issuing a decision. And 22 the Board ends up issuing a decision on all those 23things probably around September of 2014, at which 24 moment the DEIS comes out and we go through the whole 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 643 thing again with regard to environmental contentions.
1 And new contentions may be filed, Motions to Dismiss 2 may be filed, briefed, and then again decided, and we 3 think that that's kind of a waste of time and money 4 for everyone, for PG&E, for the Intervenors, for the 5 Staff, for this Board. So, we want to just make it one 6 iteration. And we plan to issue a short order, maybe 7a couple of pages max that would revise the Revised 8 Scheduling Order. The RSO was issued on November 19 th , 9 2012, and we want to revise that to provide all -- to 10 reduce the wastage in the litigation in the next nine 11 months. So, here's what we'll probably do, and we want 12-- we'll let you talk about this, let you know we're 13 going to do this, and hear you out if you have any 14 concerns.15 On the environmental side we will amend 16 the RSO,Section II(f)(2). We're going to amend the 17 promptness deadlines for filing of any new or amended 18 contentions, environmental contentions based on any 19 allegedly new information in PG&E's seismic report.
20 And the deadline for filing new or amended contentions 21 based on new information in PG&E's seismic report will 22 be 30 days after the Draft Supplemental Environmental 23 Impact Statement is issued.
24 Likewise, we're going to amend the Revised 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 644 Scheduling Order Section II(i)(2), the promptness 1 deadline for filing any dispositive motions based on 2 PG&E's seismic report. And that deadline will be 30 3 days after the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 4 Statement is issued. So, we're moving both of those 5 deadlines to 30 days after the Draft Supplemental 6 Environmental Statement is issued by the NRC. And by 7 that we hope to avoid a double filing. We don't need 8 to see those motions filed in June or July, and then 9 simply to be repeated or mooted out in let's say 10 October, so there's going to be one deadline and it's 11 30 days after the DEIS. And that's in the 12 environmental context. And the reason that's in the 13 environmental context is because we anticipate, as 14normal, the Staff will issue a Draft Environmental 15 Impact Statement.
16 On the non-environmental side, safety side 17 we're not going to change the promptness deadlines set 18 forth in the Revised Scheduling Order. The rationale 19is the environmental side, to the extent PG&E's 20seismic report is an environmental document, as a 21 legal matter it will essentially be trumped and mooted 22 by the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 23Statement. So, let's just focus on the Draft 24 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 645 If you've got complaints about the --
1 environmental complaints about the seismic report, 2 fine, file a contention, but file that contention 30 3 days after the Draft SEIS is out.
4 But on the safety side, there's not going 5 to be a Draft SEIS, so if you've got complaints about 6 the seismic report, the same old deadlines are going 7 to apply, and I guess your safety contentions, if any, 8 would need to be filed 30 days after the seismic 9 report becomes available if there's new information in 10 that report which warrants such new contentions.
11 Do we have any -- I think that's just an 12 efficient way to handle this. I know just hitting you 13 with this, you know, sort of cold, but are there any 14 suggestions or comments? Mr. Repka, do you have any 15 concerns about that approach?
16 MR. REPKA: I do not. Obviously, I have not 17 consulted with my colleagues, but I would say that I 18 don't have any objection to that approach.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, it's certainly 20 subject to your need to consult with Ms. Post, and 21 your clients, and your colleagues, but okay, that's 22 just an initial reaction. I'll take it as such, we can 23 take it as such.
24 NRC Staff, any concerns, issues with this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 646 approach? Comments?
1 MS. UTTAL: I personally have no concerns, 2 but I haven't consulted with my management.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Okay. And, Ms.
4 Curran, anything from the Intervenor on this approach?
5 MS. CURRAN: Yes, Judge Karlin, thank you.
6 This makes a lot of sense to us, and we appreciate the 7 increased efficiency of doing a process this way, 8 because it really does help us to conserve our 9 resources and focus on what's important. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, that's what our 11 intent is, and I hope that will be a benefit both to 12 the Intervenor and to Pacific Gas and Electric, Ms.
13 Post, and her legal budget that she has.
14 Okay. We also may end up needing to modify 15 one other provision in the Revised Scheduling Order, 16 and that is we have in that, and we're going to keep 17 in that a deadline, an ultimate deadline for the 18 filing of any and all dispositive motions, Motions for 19 Summary Disposition, Motions to Dismiss, et cetera.
20 And in the Revised Scheduling Order,Section II(i)(5), 21 the ultimate deadline for all dispositive motions is 22 now set at 30 days after the issuance of the Draft 23 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
24 The original logic of that was we don't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 647 want Motions for Summary Disposition being filed after 1the FEIS comes out. Any Motions for Summary 2 Disposition should be filed and disposed of before the 3 FEIS comes out, but maybe 30 days after the Draft SEIS 4 is a little too early, so we may end up adjusting that 5 and postponing that deadline a little bit to give 6 everyone a little bit more time.
7 Probably what we'll do, we'll think about 8doing at any rate, is have an ultimate deadline for 9 any Motion for Summary Disposition on any new 10 contentions that are filed or admitted would be 30 11 days after those new contentions are admitted, if you 12 follow, at least in the environmental side. So we're 13 going to focus on that, so the order will reflect the 14 change, probably reflect a change in that deadline, as 15 well.16 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 17 Curran. 18 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes?
19 MS. CURRAN: I have a question about the 20 deadline for Summary Disposition being after the Draft 21 SEIS. Theoretically, there's a comment period after a 22 Draft EIS comes out, and members of the public put in 23 comments, and the Staff may change its mind after 24 receiving public comment on different issues. And I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 648 guess I hate to see, and I think there would be a 1 problem with NEPA short-circuiting that process.
2 I know that the NRC has a basic policy 3 that once the NRC Staff comes to a final position, 4 that it's not necessary to have the final document in 5 hand, but I would just urge you to set a schedule in 6 a way that the process of taking comment, considering 7 comment can work.
8 You know, for the Mothers for Peace, I 9 know that when the Draft SEIS comes out, we're going 10 to be doing a couple of things. We're going to be 11 looking at whether we have new contentions to file, 12 and we're also going to be preparing comments. And 13 we'd like to have sufficient time to do that.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Does anyone else have 15 any thoughts or comments on that?
16 MR. REPKA: This is Dave Repka for PG&E. I 17 would say that the 30 days to file after the DSEIS to 18 file the dispositive motions, I don't think that will 19 short-circuit the NEPA comment period, and I think 20 that's a little bit of an overstatement.
21 I don't have any objection if we want to 22 make that a little -- that period for filing the 23motion a little longer than 30 days, but if the 24 Mothers for Peace have an objection to something in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 649 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement they 1 certainly can (a) make the comment through the NEPA 2 process on the draft; and (b), if it relates to the 3 contention that's subject to a dispositive motion, 4 will still have the opportunity to respond to the 5 dispositive motion and raise that same objection. And 6 I think that from a time period, if the motion is 7 filed 30 days or 45 days after the Draft Environmental 8 Impact Statement comes out, and then there's another 9 period of time to respond to that, you know, you're 10 looking at over, at least over two months to marshal 11 resources, make comments on the draft, and prepare our 12 response to the specific issue being addressed in the 13 Summary Disposition Motion. So, I don't see the short-14 circuit, but I do think that if you wanted to add a 15 little bit more time into that, I wouldn't have any 16 objection to that.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Ms. Uttal, the 18 Staff, any thoughts or suggestions?
19 MS. UTTAL: No, I have nothing to add.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
21 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 22 Curran. I just want to clarify that we are going to be 23 potentially commenting on more than the issues we've 24 raised in litigation in the Draft EIS. And, you know, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 650 this is a pretty major juncture in NRC licensing 1 proceeding, the issuance of a Draft EIS and, you know, 2 maybe people are tired at this point because the case 3 has gone on for a long time, but that's really not 4 Mothers for Peace's fault. And we want to make sure 5 that we've given adequate time to participate in the 6 way that NEPA envisions in this NEPA process. And that 7 includes litigation on contested issues, but it also 8 includes commenting on a whole range of issues that 9 are raised by a Draft EIS.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Right. Well, okay, I 11 guess we can -- we'll have to take that into 12 consideration and try to figure out --
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Karlin.
14 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes?
15 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
16 Ms. Curran, let me just get clear that we don't have 17 any interest at all in curtailing your rights, or your 18 ability, or your efforts to comment on the DSEIS under 19 NEPA. What we are trying to do is to get a handle on 20 Motions for Summary Disposition because, generally, 21 they don't serve a lot of purpose in our hearings, so 22 we're not going to do it in a way to affect your 23 efforts.24 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, I think -- I agree with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 651 that, and the idea is the Draft SEIS will come out 1 when it comes out, let's say September 30 th of 2014.2 The Intervenors, the public, members of the public 3 will have an opportunity, obviously, to comment and 4 file comments with the NRC in the normal licensing 5 process, and we don't want to interfere with that, but 6 certainly you want to do that.
7At the same time, you may think, decide 8 that there is something in the Draft EIS that is 9inadequate in some way. If you want to file new 10 contentions based upon the inadequacies of new 11 information in the Draft EIS, certainly you, the 12Mothers for Peace, are entitled to do so. And under 13 our current Scheduling Order, those need to be filed 14 within 30 days of the Draft Supplemental Environmental 15 Impact Statement coming out. So, the current schedule 16 is you can file new contentions.
17 There's no -- that's a promptness 18 deadline. There's no ultimate deadline on new 19 contentions. You can file new contentions at any time 20 after the DEIS, after the FEIS, et cetera, et cetera, 21 so we're not going to inhibit your right to file new 22 contentions if some genuinely new information comes 23 out that you find, your clients find problematic, or 24 not in compliance with the law.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 652 We are, I think, going to try to handle 1 this in a similar way to what we tried to do in the 2 Progress Levy case, if you will remember, in that we 3 tried to use the migration tenet, and we may end up 4 trying to manage this case so that you don't have to 5 file new contentions when the FEIS comes out that 6 precisely duplicates your contentions on the Draft 7 EIS. That's just a whole other second layer of waste 8 of time. And we will address that later in this 9 process six, eight months from now. But, in any event, 10 we're trying to do a somewhat similar thing here, so 11 Motions for Summary Disposition will be cut off at 12 some point before the FEIS so that it does not 13 interfere with us getting to our evidentiary hearing 14promptly after the FEIS is issued. If you file new 15 contentions based on the FEIS that are genuinely new, 16 so be it. File them, and we will take a look at them 17 at that point.
18 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 19 Curran. I understand what you're saying, and I had not 20 been thinking that we needed to amend contentions to 21 say the same thing. If the Final EIS is the same as 22 the Draft EIS, we'd just go with whatever we have. But 23 I still am -- I guess I'm kind of puzzled by the idea 24 that the Staff after the Draft EIS comes out and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 653 before it has received our has time to review comments 1 on the Draft EIS, if the Staff would be in a position 2 to take an ultimate position on a contention. To me, 3 that kind of undermines -- it definitely undermines 4 NEPA. The idea is that the Agency is going to keep its 5 mind open until it had an opportunity to review all 6 the comments on an EIS. So, I'm just -- I'm a little 7-- I'm concerned about whether the Summary Disposition 8 process can really be carried out in a fair way before 9 the Final EIS comes out.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, I guess we will 11 take that under consideration. I guess I see what 12 you're seeing in that if we force the Staff to file a 13 Motion for Summary Disposition on -- well, you'll have 14 to have an admitted contention that they then 15 challenge. And we've got to think about that a little 16 bit because right now you've got one admitted 17 contention. That contention is the ER is inadequate 18 because X, let's say.
19Well, when the DEIS comes out, I think 20 most people on the line would probably say contention 21 challenge on the ER is probably moot, and you now have 22 to turn to whether the DEIS is adequate or not. So, 23 there probably will be -- the only motion for Summary 24 Disposition that might come in is to say the original 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 654 Contention EC1 is moot, and that's the only thing that 1 will happen. Other Motions for Summary Disposition 2with regard to any newly admitted contentions will 3 probably not be available until the new contentions 4 are admitted, which will be significantly later in the 5 process. 6 MS. CURRAN: What if
-- this is Diane 7 Curran, again. What if the DEIS says exactly the same 8 thing as the Environmental Report, and what if a 9 number of groups, the number of experts write in 10 comments to the NRC to say we think you really made a 11 mistake, how does that get considered if the Staff is 12 being asked to take the final, its final position on 13 Summary Disposition? I'm not saying that's going to 14 happen, I'm just saying that's what the process, I 15 think, tries to make room for.
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Curran, this is Judge 17 Abramson. We understand your point. We're not going to 18 let that happen.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, I agree. Okay. I think 20 that's -- I think we understand the concerns. We'll 21 try to address them. Our goal here is to avoid 22 unnecessary iterations of the same contention, or the 23 same Motions for Summary Disposition, so we will issue 24 a short order which revises the deadlines as we've 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 655 discussed. We'll try to think about the issues that 1 Ms. Curran has raised and see what we can do.
2 I mean, one thing to keep in mind, if the 3 Draft EIS comes out and it is identical with regard to 4 the ER -- I mean, the one admitted contention in this 5 case is that the ER is inadequate because it fails to 6 adequately take into consideration or perform the 3D 7 seismic study that needs to be done vis a vis, and 8 should be done, and that should be included in the ER.
9 That's an attempt to synopsize that one.
10 I think that given what's coming down the 11pike in the next six months, that contention is not 12 likely to survive exactly in tact. There will be a 13 reported submitted, it may not be a 3D one, there will 14 be a Draft EIS that comes out, and I think it would be 15 strange to conceive by -- I'm not going to say any 16 more, but I think there will be Motions for Summary 17 Disposition filed with regard to EC1. And I think 18 there may be new contentions filed. I don't know. It's 19 up to you, it's up to the parties.
20 Anything from Judge Trikouros?
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, Ms. Curran, this is 22 Judge Trikouros. I think you also need to consider the 23 fact that once you start moving 30 days beyond the 24 FSEIS, you're starting to move into hearing territory 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 656 and, you know, Motions for Summary Disposition really 1 don't have a lot of value, in my opinion, at that 2 point when we're fairly close to a hearing.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. With that, I think 4 unless someone has anything that's essential or come 5 up, we're going to adjourn the meeting, and appreciate 6 your attention. I think we will issue in the next 7 week, or five days, or so a short order. And I do 8 believe that we will probably be needing to have 9 another pre-hearing conference call sometime perhaps 10 after the -- in six months, or after the DEIS is 11 issued to plan further activities in this case. Judge 12 Trikouros?
13 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I'm sorry. I just 14 have one question that I forgot to ask earlier to the 15 Applicant. This seismic work was being done as a 16result of State of California requirement. Is there 17 any -- what is the State of California going to do 18 with this? Are they going to do reviews and issue any 19 kind of report, or is that -- they just take it and 20 that's it?
21 MR. REPKA: I'll turn to Jennifer Post to 22 try to answer that question.
23 MS. POST: This is Jennifer Post for PG&E.
24 As of right now, we will submit the final report on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 657 the information that we've collected under the studies 1 to both the California Public Utilities Commission and 2 to the California Energy Commission. The California 3 Energy Commission was the entity that recommended we 4 undertake these studies.
5 We've received a letter from the CPCU 6 indicating that they need to review that report in 7 order to adequately consider any application PG&E 8 makes to CPCU for cost recovery of the license renewal 9 process. PG&E does not have a pending application for 10 cost recovery from rate payers of this license renewal 11 process, but that's the indication that we've gotten, 12 that the CPCU feels that this information is important 13 to its consideration of whether or not it will give us 14 cost recovery from rate payers to go through the 15 process of obtaining, or seeking the new license for 16 Diablo Canyon.
17 For more information about what the CEC 18 and/or CPCU intends to do with the results of the 19 report, I would have to refer you to them because we 20 don't have really any insight on that. What we plan to 21 do with the information that will be in the report is 22 roll the additional data we've obtained into the 23 5054(f) seismic hazard reevaluation that we are 24 undertaking for the NRC.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 658 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
2 Did either of these California agencies that are 3 saying they'd like you guys to do this study have 4 anything to say about the Coastal Commission saying 5 now we can't do it?
6 MS. POST: Well, the Coastal Commission 7 rejected the permit for just one piece of the seismic 8 study. They actually -- we actually were able to 9 undertake a bunch of studies that we did get 10 permitted. The Coastal Commission declined our permit 11 to do offshore three-dimensional seismic studies, but 12 the recommendation from the California Energy 13 Commission was that we perform studies using advanced 14 technologies, including three-dimensional seismic 15 mapping. And we actually did do onshore three-16 dimensional seismic studies, and we also did two-17 dimensional seismic studies, so they have not weighed 18 in on the Coastal Commission's denial of our permit 19 for the offshore 3D studies. They also have not yet 20 weighed in on whether or not they might suggest 21 additional studies be done.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So, you were only 23 partially foiled by one California agency.
24 MS. POST: Yes, only partially foiled, but 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 659 not really. Actually, we weren't ultimately foiled 1 because the data we were able to collect is 2 sufficient, at least under our preliminary analysis it 3 looks like we were -- the data we were able to collect 4 using the studies that we were able to get permitted 5 is sufficient.
6JUDGE KARLIN: I suspect that will be an 7 issue that might be, you know -- there might be an 8 issue on that, but certainly we understand that that's 9 the position of PG&E.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This reminds me of a 11 situation we all face where there was a law passed 12 that said you have to have a permanent geologic 13 repository for spent fuel. And the site chosen was 14 neither permanent nor geologic.
15 (Laughter.)
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, exactly. Thank you.
17 I think on that note, we will adjourn, and 18 I'll look forward -- we will be issuing an order, and 19 we'll probably have another pre-hearing conference 20 call sometimes after the DEIS is issued. So, I 21 appreciate your attention and participation, and we 22 will adjourn the meeting at this point. Thank you.
23 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 24 record at 2:16 p.m.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433