Revision as of 06:00, 6 July 2018

Text

Transcript of Entergy Operations, Inc., River Bend Station, Unit 1, Oral Argument, November 30, 2017, Pages 1-100
	ML17339A264
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	12/05/2017
From:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
	SECY RAS
References
	50-458-LR, ASLBP 17-956-01-LR-BD01, NRC-3410, RAS 54077
	Download: ML17339A264 (101)
	v • d • e

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station Unit 1

Oral ArgumentDocket Number:50-458-LRASLBP Number:17-956-01-LR-BD01 Location:teleconference Date:Thursday, November 30, 2017Work Order No.:NRC-3410Pages 1-100 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4+ + + + +5 HEARING 6---------------------x 7 In the Matter of: : Docket No.

8 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, : 50-458-LR 9INC. : ASLBP No.

10 (River Bend Station, : 17-956-01-LR-BD01 11Unit 1) :

12---------------------x 13 Thursday, November 30, 2017 14 15 Teleconference 16 17 BEFORE: 18 E. ROY HAWKENS, Chairman 19 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 20 RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 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 2 APPEARANCES:

1 Counsel for the Applicant, Entergy Operations, 2 Inc.: 3 STEPHEN BURDICK, ESQ.

4 KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.

5of:Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 6 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 7 Washington, D.C. 20004 8 (202) 739-3000 9 stephen.burdick@morganlewis.com 10 kathryn.sutton@morganlewis.com 11 12 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

13 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.

14 DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.

15 JOE I. GILLESPIE, ESQ.

16of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Office of the General Counsel 18 Mail Stop O-15D21 19 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 20 (301) 415-4126 21 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 22 david.roth@nrc.gov 23 joe.gillespie@nrc.gov 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 3 On Behalf of the Sierra Club

1 WALLACE L. TAYLOR, ESQ.

2of:Wallace L. Taylor Law Firm 3 118 3rd Avenue SE 4 Suite 326 5 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 6 (202) 547-1141 7 wtaylorlaw@aol.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4 CONTENTS 1 Introductory Comments by Judge Hawkens.....5 2 Oral Argument by Sierra Club..........7 3 Oral Argument by Entergy............43 4 Oral Argument by NRC Staff...........73 5 Rebuttal by Sierra Club.............95 6 Adjourn....................100 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 (2:00 p.m.)

2JUDGE HAWKENS: We are conducting an oral 3argument by telephone in a case entitled Entergy 4 Operations, Incorporated, River Bend Station, Unit 1, 5 Docket Number 50-458-LR.

6 My name is Roy Hawkens. I'm Chairman of 7this Licensing Board. I am joined in NRC headquarters 8by Judge Mike Kennedy and Judge Rich Wardwell. Judge 9 Kennedy has his doctorate in nuclear engineering.

10 Judge Wardwell has his doctorate in civil engineering.

11 Today's argument is in response to a 12 petition to intervene filed by the Sierra Club. The 13 petition challenges requests by Entergy Operations to 14 renew the operating lic ense for the River Bend 15 Station, Unit 1 nuclear reactor, which is located near 16 St. Francisville, Louisiana.

17 For the petition to be granted, Sierra 18Club must demonstrate standing. It must show at least 19 one admissible contention as measured by the NRC's 20 six-factor contention admissibility standard.

21 Would counsel for the parties please 22 introduce themselves for the record, starting with the 23 Sierra Club?

24MR. TAYLOR: I'm Wallace Taylor from Cedar 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6 Rapids, Iowa.

1 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. Entergy?

2MR. BURDICK: Good afternoon. My name is 3Stephen Burdick. I'm a partner with the law firm 4Morgan Lewis and counsel to Entergy for this 5proceeding. I am joined by my colleague, Kathryn 6Sutton, a partner from Morgan Lewis. And we are 7 joined by in-house counsel and license renewal 8 personnel from Entergy who will be able to help us 9 respond to any of the Board's questions today, if 10 necessary.

11JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. And I 12 understand that you, Mr. Burdick, will be presenting 13 arguing; is that correct?

14 MR. BURDICK: That is correct.

15JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. Counsel for 16 NRC staff, please introduce yourselves.

17MR. TURK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My 18name is Sherwin Turk. I am one of the three co-19counsel for the NRC staff in this proceeding. With me 20 in the room today are David Roth and Joseph Gillespie, 21 who are joining me as co-counsel in this proceeding.

22 We also have a number of NRC staff 23 technical members with us, the most senior of which 24are Mr. Joseph Donohue and Mr. Benjamin Beasley. 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 7 I'll provide spellings to the court reporter later.

1JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.

2 And I understand Mr. Roth will be presenting argument 3 on Contentions 1 and 2, and Mr. Gillespie on 4 Contention 3; is that correct?

5 MR. TURK: That's correct, Your Honor.

6JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you. As 7 indicated in the Board's scheduling order, we will 8 hear first from Sierra Club, then from Entergy, and 9 then from the NRC staff. Sierra Club has been allotted 10 60 minutes of argument time, and it may reserve up to 1115 minutes for rebuttal. Entergy and the NRC staff 12 each is allotted 30 minutes of argument time.

13 Mr. Taylor, I understand you'd like to 14 reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal; is that correct?

15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

16JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Mr. Taylor, 17 you may proceed.

18 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. This contention 19-- or this petition actually presents three 20 contentions. I thought at first it might be well to 21 review the admissibility standards for contentions 22 that inform the standards that you laid out earlier in 23 2.309.24JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Taylor, this is Judge 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8 Hawkens. I think that's a good approach once we get 1to the contentions. Although nobody challenges 2 standing here, the Board does have an obligation to 3evaluate it and assess standing. And before the 4 petition may be granted, I have to affirmatively 5 conclude that standing does exist.

6 To your knowledge, has the Commission ever 7 held that the 50-mile proximity presumption applies in 8 a license renewal case?

9MR. TAYLOR: That's my understanding, yes.

10 I don't have any cases in front of me, but I have --

11 I have researched that, and I believe that's correct.

12 JUDGE HAWKENS: No. That the Commission 13 has directly held?

14MR. TAYLOR: The 50-mile radius is a 15presumption. And unless that presumption is rebutted, 16 I believe it stands.

17JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, if the Commission 18 precedent, case law holds that it applies in certain 19 cases, not all cases, generally it does not apply in 20license amendment cases. And this, although it's a 21 license renewal case, I believe it's characterized as 22 a license amendment case, and I'm just -- although I'm 23 familiar with Board decisions applying to 50-mile 24 presumption, I was not aware of any Commission case 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9law which makes that holding. And I guess you're not 1 aware of any either; is that correct?

2 MR. TAYLOR: No, I'm not.

3JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.

4 You can proceed, then, to your contentions.

5MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. Contention 1 was 6 that the environm ental report that was filed by 7Entergy does not properly and adequately state a 8 purpose and need for the relicensing of the River Bend 9 Station. The purpose and need is set out in Section 10 1.0 of the environmental report, or the ER, and we 11 have cited to that in our -- in our petition.

12 And that section references a guidance 13 document that essentially says, as I see it, that the 14 purpose and need of the project or the action is to 15relicense River Bend. Even though the guidance 16 document talks about the relicensing being an option, 17 there really is no other option that's being offered 18 because it says the proposed action is to relicense 19 the River Bend plant. So the --

20JUDGE HAWKENS: Can I interrupt? This is 21 Judge --22 MR. TAYLOR: You bet.

23 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- Hawkens again.

24 MR. TAYLOR: You bet.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10JUDGE HAWKENS: I am looking at that, the 1 purpose and need statement, and as I read it it says 2 that the purpose and need is to provide an option that 3 allows for baseload power generation capability beyond 4the term of the current nuclear power plant. So it's 5 to provide that option.

6 That's not the only option, though, and 7 that's revealed by -- I think Entergy represented that 8 at least 18 alternatives to that option were 9identified. So I find it difficult to understand your 10 assertion that this is the only option contemplated by 11 the purpose and need statement, much less by the ER.

12MR. TAYLOR: As I read the ER, the -- they 13looked at other alternatives. But if you look at the 14 purpose and need statement, it refers to simply 15 relicensing the River Bend Station. And in fact, in 16 the staff answer at page 18 and 19, it says that the 17 purpose and need is to preserve continued operation of 18 the reactor. That means relicensing the reactor.

19 JUDGE HAWKENS: What did you just cite?

20MR. TAYLOR: The answer that was filed by 21 the NRC staff.

22JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'm not really 23interested in the answer right now. For present 24 purposes, I'm looking at the purpose and need for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11action. The action is the proposed renewal of the 1plant. The purpose and need, though, by the expressed 2 language as I read it is to provide an option that 3 allows for baseload power generation beyond the term 4 of the current nuclear plant.

5MR. TAYLOR: Well, then, I guess -- I 6 don't want to repeat myself necessarily, but the --

7they talk about an option, but it's in terms of 8 preserving the operation of River Bend to provide the 9 power that River Bend has been providing.

10JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, the proposed action 11would preserve that option. But the purpose and need 12 just identifies that as an option, and then the 13 alternatives analysis look at a number of other 14 alternatives.

15MR. TAYLOR: But it seems to me looking at 16 the purpose and need statement that it really doesn't 17preserve any other options other than renewing the 18license. I mean, the language talks about preserving 19 other options, but it doesn't -- it still talks in 20 terms of renewing the license in order to preserve 21 that -- River Bend continuing to operate and provide 22 power.23JUDGE HAWKENS: Your principle concern 24 with this purpose and need statement is that it's so 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12 narrow it doesn't -- it doesn't allow for sufficient 1 consideration of alternatives?

2 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

3 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. So this is really 4-- it seems to me maybe it's best to go into the 5 consideration of alternatives, because I -- by the 6 plain language, it's difficult for me to understand 7 your interpretation that this only contemplates one 8 alternative, given the number of alternatives that 9 were in fact considered.

10 I have another question also regarding 11your advocation argument. You made an advocation 12argument in your opening pleading. You did not renew 13 it in your reply, and I'm wondering, are you 14preserving that argument? Or are you abandoning that?

15 And if you are preserving it, I'd like a further 16 explanation of it.

17 MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, Judge. I didn't 18 understand what allegation it was you were referring 19 to.20JUDGE HAWKENS: You said the NRC is 21 advocating its duty under NEPA by deferring to 22 decisions by other decisionmakers on energy planning.

23 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Again, that goes to 24 the guidance document that I cited, and they are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13 saying that the purpose and need will depend on 1 decisions by other decisionmakers, other agencies, 2 other decisionmakers.

3 And my point was that the purpose and need 4 has to be based on what the NRC finds to be -- and 5 this Board finds to be the proper purpose and need for 6 River Bend relicensing, and that the -- when the NRC 7 was providing the guidance that Entergy says they are 8 relying on, deferred to other agencies, at least in 9 some sense or to some extent to other agencies.

10JUDGE HAWKENS: So are you saying that 11 NEPA imposes a statutory obligation on the NRC to make 12 engineering -- excuse me, energy planning decisions 13 for purposes of the EIS?

14MR. TAYLOR: I think that the -- it 15 imposes on the NRC, and in looking at this 16 environmental report, to look at the purpose and need 17 in terms of whether or not it allows the NRC to make 18 that decision as to what the purpose and need is 19 rather than deferring to other agencies.

20 And by deferring to other agencies, the 21 NRC is not carrying out its duty to this particular 22 instance with this particular plant to properly 23 examine the purpose and need, whether it's too narrow, 24 whether it allows for reasonable examination 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 14 alternatives.

1JUDGE HAWKENS: I think your answer to my 2question was yes. Let me pose it again and see --

3 I'll try to pose it in a way that you can answer yes 4 or no.5 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I'm sorry.

6JUDGE HAWKENS: Does NEPA impose a 7 statutory obligation in this instance on the NRC to 8 engage in energy planning decisions?

9 MR. TAYLOR: Well --

10JUDGE HAWKENS: That would be a yes or no.

11MR. TAYLOR: The way you've posed the 12 question, no, I don't think that is the issue.

13 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, if it hasn't, then 14 to the extent the NRC has not second-guessed any 15 energy planning decisions here, it has not advocated 16 its responsibilities under NEPA; is that correct?

17MR. TAYLOR: I think it has, because we're 18 not talking about energy planning decisions; we're 19 talking -- at least I'm not.

20JUDGE HAWKENS: What are you -- what 21 responsibility did the NRC advocate then?

22MR. TAYLOR: It advocated the 23 responsibility to look at the purpose and need in 24 terms of whether or not the relicensing of River Bend 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15 is needed in terms of providing the power that is 1necessary in terms of looking at the alternatives. I 2 don't think it's requiring the NRC to engage in the 3 types of decisions that you were referring to.

4 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay.

5MR. TAYLOR: But we were talking about the 6 purpose and need for the relicensing of River Bend, 7 and I think that does require the NRC to take the 8 responsibility to determine whether there is a purpose 9 and need for the relicensing of River Bend.

10 JUDGE HAWKENS: Which, again, to me this 11 line of argument by you tends to merge into Contention 12 2 where you're challenging their alternatives 13 analysis.14MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I do think 15 Contentions 1 and 2 have some relationship, because 16the purpose and need dictates the range of 17 alternative.

18 JUDGE HAWKENS: If you have nothing more 19 to add on Contention 1, why don't you proceed to 20 Contention 2, please.

21MR. TAYLOR: Okay. We're contending here 22 that there was not an adequate discussion or analysis 23of the alternatives of renewable energy and energy 24efficiency. 40 CFR 1502.14 says that the agency must 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16 rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 1 alternatives.

2 We don't believe that renewable energy and 3 energy efficiency were given substantial treatment.

4This is a valid contention, I believe. Entergy's 5 argument is that these alternatives were considered, 6 but whether or not they were adequately considered is 7 a factual issue for the board to decide at an 8 adjudicatory hearing, and it's not an issue of the 9 admissibility of the contention.

10 And, in fact, renewable energy and energy 11 efficiency were not even considered as reasonable 12 alternatives and --

13JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, that statement, 14 you're saying they weren't considered in combination 15 or they weren't considered at all?

16MR. TAYLOR: The ER itself says that 17 renewable energy and energy efficiency, or they call 18 it demand-side control, were not considered as 19reasonable alternatives. So they were -- they were 20 mentioned, but they were discounted as reasonable 21 alternatives, and I think there were two reasons for 22 that that are not supported, and the first is that, as 23 you just indicated, they were discussed in isolation.

24Wind was discussed as to whether it, by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17 itself, would be a reasonable alternative at the 1relicensing of River Bend. Solar was discussed by 2 itself, as to whether it would be a reasonable 3alternative. And then energy efficiency or demand-4side management would, by itself, be a reasonable 5 alternative.

6 But I want to be clear on our petition 7that you have to take all of these in combination, 8 together with an adequate transmission grid, to really 9 determine whether or not renewable energy and energy 10efficiency are reasonable alternatives. And they 11 didn't do that.

12 And as I read the ER, the main reason, at 13 least for the renewable energy alternatives -- wind 14 and solar -- for discounting those was that there is 15no current technology for storing the energy. But, 16again, the factual basis that we have cited 17 extensively in our petition is that you don't need 18 storage if you have a robust system of renewable 19 energy and transmission.

20 And so I think for those two reasons that 21the discussion was not sufficient, was not the 22 rigorous discussion that is required by NEPA regarding 23 alternatives. And --

24 JUDGE HAWKENS: Are you --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18 MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Go ahead if you 1 have a question.

2JUDGE HAWKENS: Yes. Are you familiar 3 with the Commission decisions in the Davis-Besse case 4 and the Seabrook case dealing with energy 5 alternatives?

6 MR. TAYLOR: I believe so.

7JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. In those 8cases, the Commission said the following. "For an 9 alternate energy source to be considered reasonable, 10 the alternative should be commercially viable and 11 technically capable of producing the requisite amount 12of baseload power in the region of interest by the 13 time the license expires." In this case, that would 14 be 2025.15 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Yes.

16JUDGE HAWKENS: And it also indicated the 17 burden is on the petitioner to lay a foundation for 18 the petitioner's claim that these energy alternatives 19 could satisfy baseload demand in the region of 20 interest by the time the license expired.

21 Now, you have cited quite a number of 22 sources that indicate wind and solar have the 23 potential of producing energy in certain locations.

24 But can you point to me, say, which particular sources 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19 are most availing to you to satisfy the b urden you 1 have of demonstrating that wind and solar and energy 2 efficiency could satisfy the baseload demand in the 3 region of interest by 2025?

4MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Starting on page 10 of 5 our petition, the studies that were done by Mark 6 Jacobson and others do talk about the availability of 7 supplying the necessary power in the next few years, 8 and that was back in 2007.

9JUDGE HAWKENS: I'm looking at page 10, 10 and which one are you talking -- the Jacobson, is this 11 the first full paragraph? Or is it --

12 MR. TAYLOR: Well, the --

13JUDGE HAWKENS: -- the report from 2007 14 and 2009?15MR. TAYLOR: 2007 and 2009, and then on 16 page 11 there is a 2011 report. All of those were 17 done with the finding that renewable energy would be 18 able to supply sufficient power in the next few years.

19JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Well, I -- my 20 reading of Davis-Besse and Seabrook is it has to be 21more specific than that. It has to -- has to provide 22 some support that it will be commercially viable in 23 the region of interest to supply the required baseload 24 demand by 2025.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 20 And looking at the sites on page 10 and 111, I don't see that specificity. I don't see that 2region of interest. I don't see 2025, and I don't see 3 anything about the baseload capability. It supports 4 the conclusion that there is a possibility, but the 5 Commission in Davis-Besse expressly said that the mere 6 possibility of a combination providing baseload in the 7region of interest is insufficient. You have to 8 demonstrate the commercial viability to provide that 9 about a power.

10MR. TAYLOR: Those reports do indicate 11 that at the time they were issued that they would be 12-- that it could be viable within the next few years.

13JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, again, that's a mere 14possibility. Do they talk about the region of 15 interest? Do they talk about Louisiana?

16MR. TAYLOR: Not specifically. That's why 17 I put in later on the information from the Louisiana 18 Department of Natural Resources or whatever they call 19 their agency there.

20 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Let's -- I'd like 21 you to turn to that, please. Can you --

22 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. Just a minute.

23 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- turn the Board to the 24 page we should be looking at with you?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 21MR. TAYLOR: You bet. It starts on 1page 29 of my petition. A 2004 study of offshore wind 2--3JUDGE HAWKENS: What -- this is a study by 4 Bryan Crouch?

5MR. TAYLOR: Yes. And then there's 6 another study also by Crouch and another man named 7Spreche, I guess it is, S-P-R-E-C-H-E. And it 8indicates the progress Louisiana is making on both 9 wind and solar.

10JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'm looking at 11 those, and actually I'm -- I'm looking at the first 12 study right now by Bryan Crouch.

13 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

14 JUDGE HAWKENS: And you do indicate that 15 it talks about the potential for offshore wind 16 projects in Louisiana. But I note on page 2 of that 17 study it identifies drawbacks about high capital 18 costs, intermittency of wind, aesthetics, and bird 19fatalities. And on page 3 of that study it says 20 Louisiana's offshore wind resource is to date still 21somewhat unknown. And at the end of the day, it 22 simply doesn't address whether it's commercially 23 viable for offshore wind to provide baseload power in 24 Louisiana by 2025.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 22MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think that, you know, 1 looking at the statements that are in there and the 2 progress that Louisiana has made, I think that if the 3 license to River Bend were not renewed that, you know, 4that would ramp up the continued progress toward 5 renewable energy in Louisiana.

6 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, you talk about the 7progress Louisiana has made. But on 29 -- page 29 of 8 your petition, you say, "Louisiana has not thus far 9 been a leader in developing renewable energy and 10 energy efficiency." 11 MR. TAYLOR: Right.

12JUDGE HAWKENS: So it has not made very 13 much progress thus far, and I don't see anything in 14 the 2004 Bryan Crouch study that would support the 15 conclusion that offshore wind projects could support 16 this baseload power that would be needed by 2025.

17That's my reading. Correct me if I'm 18 wrong.19MR. TAYLOR: No. And the Crouch studies, 20 you know, don't say we will have sufficient power by 21 2025, but they do indicate the progress Louisiana is 22making. And my point is that if River Bend is not --

23 license is not renewed, that would be an impetus for 24 Louisiana to continue its progress on a more rigorous 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 23 scale.1 So that's why I believe that it -- it does 2 at least present the issue in a way that provides 3admissibility. And then at a hearing then we could 4 flesh out the details more.

5 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, it's difficult for 6 me to see that that -- the Crouch 2004 study provides 7an adequate foundation. It's more in the realm of 8 hypotheticals and possibilities, and, in fact, it 9talks as much about the drawbacks as it does the 10 possibilities.

11 Does the 2005 report help you any more 12 than the 2004?

13MR. TAYLOR: I think it just indicates the 14 further ability of Louisiana and the further progress 15of Louisiana. And I think it does provide a more firm 16 basis than what you've indicated for the 2004 study.

17It says, "Wind turbine capacity will become less 18 expensive as turbine efficiencies improve, and turbine 19prices will come down. As these happen, windfarms may 20 become viable in less-than-classified wind sources --

21 wind resources," which means places like Louisiana.

22So I think that that does provide some 23 more optimism that Louisiana can, with renewable 24 energy and energy efficiency, substitute for the power 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 24 being provided by River Bend.

1JUDGE HAWKENS: Are you aware the economic 2 analysis you're citing here was for a 50-megawatt 3 offshore windfarm?

4 MR. TAYLOR: It was offshore, yes.

5JUDGE HAWKENS: Which is nowhere near the 6 baseload, the 967-megawatt baseload that Entergy would 7 be required to replace if the River Bend plant was not 8 renewed?9MR. TAYLOR: Right. That was what that 10 study was about, but it indicates that, you know, 11 certainly that can be expanded.

12 JUDGE HAWKENS: Were you aware that that 13 report also conceded that the economics of offshore 14 wind power is not well-established because the 15 offshore wind regime is still an unknown?

16MR. TAYLOR: Yes. There are some 17 uncertainties, but certainly it seems to me that both 18 of those reports indicate optimistically that 19 Louisiana is making progress and can continue to make 20progress toward renewable energy. That was the point 21 of those reports being entered.

22JUDGE HAWKENS: Are those the reports you 23 would rely on most heavily? Are those the best 24 sources for you endeavoring to lay a foundation for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 25 this contention?

1 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. At this point, yes.

2JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Wallace, this is Judge 3Kennedy. I'm just curious, in the studies you have 4 been discussing with Judge Hawk ens, is there any 5 projections in there of megawatt capacities from wind 6 in the timeframe we're talking about, any cost 7 estimates to replace the baseload power from River 8 Bend Station?

9MR. TAYLOR: I don't believe so. I'd have 10 to look at the reports again, but --

11JUDGE KENNEDY: So what would you offer up 12 to challenge Entergy's -- or the environmental 13report's assessment of this option? I mean, this 14sounds speculative to me. If I was an electricity 15 customer in the State of Louisiana, I'd want more 16 confidence than this. But, I mean, I'll give you an 17 opportunity to offer up what gives you the confidence 18 that this can happen.

19MR. TAYLOR: Well, because it has been 20 done other places.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: In this capacity?

22MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I'm from Iowa, 23 and we have very vigorously installed wind power here, 24and solar is becoming a bigger share. But beyond 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 26 that, the studies I have presented were presented 1because they show both that renewable energy and 2 energy efficiency can, in a very short time, be the 3 supplier of all the energy we need.

4And that's why I went into such great 5 detail and tried to present as many studies as I could 6 find to support the factual basis for this contention.

7 And, you know, nobody can say for sure how quickly 8 Louisiana will ramp up their energy renewal and energy 9 efficiency.

10 But if they know that the license for 11 River Bend will not be renewed, that is an incentive 12 to vigorously pursue renewable energy and energy 13efficiency as a replacement. And the purpose of my 14 references that I put in the petition are to show that 15 it can be done.

16JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Do you have 17 anything more on Contention 2?

18MR. TAYLOR: I don't believe so, unless 19 you have some more questions.

20JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Let's proceed 21 to Contention 3, please.

22MR. TAYLOR: Okay. This has to do with 23 alkali-silica reaction that causes deterioration of 24the concrete structures in the reactor. And there is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 27 no dispute, I don't believe, that alkali-silica 1 reaction, or ASR, is something that must be adequately 2 addressed in the license renewal application.

3 Now, Entergy claims that they did address 4 that, but if you look at it in terms of that 5 Information Notice that was sent out by the NRC 6 regarding ASR after they found a problem at Seabrook, 7 the ER in this case does not address the specific 8 concerns that were set out in that Information Notice.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.

10 Could you briefly summarize what those concerns were 11 and what the recommendations were of that Information 12 Notice?13 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, just a minute. Let me 14pull it out here. Yes. What the notice says is that 15 ASTM has several standards for testing aggregates 16 during construction, but ASTM issued updated standards 17 and it lists the standards. It provided guidance in 18 the appendices of two other standards. The cautions 19 that the tests described in the standards that had 20 been used may not accurately predict aggregate 21 reactivity, microcrystalline -- or reactivity when 22 dealing with late or slow, expanding aggregates 23 containing strained quartz or microcrystalline quartz.

24 Therefore, licensees that tested using 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 28ASTM C227 and ASTM C289 could have concrete that is 1acceptable to ASR-induced degradation. And so they're 2 recommending that there be more individual inspection 3 and that it be done pursuant to updated standards.

4 And it looks to me like from reading the ER, as near 5 as you could tell, I mean, it was a very -- it seemed 6 to me a very brief discussion, and it simply referred 7 to a manage ment plan without, you know, really 8 describing that plan.

9 And so it wasn't clear that River Bend is 10 going to comply with the recommendations in this 11 Information Notice.

12JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you read those 13recommendations? Not a summary of what took place 14 necessarily with the updated standards or the activity 15 that took place or concerns developed during Seabrook, 16 but just what the final recommendations are, and the 17page number on the Information Notice where it 18 occurred.19MR. TAYLOR: This would be on page 4, 20first full paragraph. I believe that would be it. It 21 says, "Once visual indications of ASR-induced concrete 22 degradation have been identified, additional actions 23 to evaluate and monitor the condition, as recommended 24 in the Federal Highway Administration report, may 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 29 include confirming the presence of ASR through 1 microscopic examination of concrete cores, verifying 2 the mechanical properties through testing of concrete 3 cores, and in situ monitoring of the concrete over 4 time, such as crack mapping and monitoring of concrete 5 relative humidity.

6"Nuclear power plant licensees may 7 consider these actions to determine the remaining 8 potential reactivity and the rate of ASR progression, 9 because safety-related structures and non-safety-10 related structures whose failure could affect safety-11 related structures are within the scope of the 12 maintenance rule.

13"Licensees are required to monitor the 14 condition of the structures against licensee-15 established goals to provide reasonable assurance that 16 the structures are capable of fulfilling their 17intended functions. If ASR-induced degradation is 18 identified in these structures, this condition 19 monitoring would include determining the extent and 20 rate of the degradation." 21JUDGE WARDWELL: In several of those 22 statements, I heard the word "may" a lot, and that is 23also what I read. And it seemed to me, as I read 24 that, that those were merely statements of potential 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 30 activity or potential results or potential actions 1rather than any firm recommendation. Is my reading of 2 that correct, or do you have a different reading that 3 you would like to propose?

4MR. TAYLOR: Well, it isn't requiring 5 other plants or other reactors to do this, but it 6 certainly seems to me that they are recommending it.

7 I mean, it could have been stronger, but it seems to 8 me they are certainly recommending it, and that any 9 other nuclear plant operator would be well-advised to 10 follow these suggestions.

11JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, in fact, that's the 12 word I was going to use. Aren't they, at best, just 13a suggestion? Because as soon as you read a "may," 14that also implies there is a may not. Isn't that 15 correct?16MR. TAYLOR: Well, I'm not sure in this 17context there is. The "may not" I suppose would be 18 that, just as I said, it's not a requirement, but 19 there is a strong suggestion that they do this.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

21JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Wallace, this is Judge 22Kennedy. You started your opening -- you started the 23 initial remarks on this topic with saying that the 24 Information Notice I guess -- I don't know what the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 31 right -- loss of words, but you were criticizing the 1 use of visual inspection I believe in terms of 2 detecting ASR-induced degradation.

3 MR. TAYLOR: Right.

4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that what you said in 5the beginning? And then we got into this more 6 specific concern.

7MR. TAYLOR: As I read this Information 8 Notice, it's saying that a visual inspection is not 9 necessarily enough, that you're going to need to do 10 some further testing.

11JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens.

12 Can you point in the Information Notice where it said 13that? Because my reading is that once a visual 14 inspection detests -- detects ASR degradation, then 15 these further actions may be considered, should be 16taken. But in the initial instance, all I see is that 17 visual inspections are required.

18MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Visual inspections 19 would be the first line of defense, so to speak.

20JUDGE HAWKENS: And then it's not until 21 it's detected by visual inspection that anything else 22 may be required or would be advised to be taken. Am 23I reading that wrong? And if I am, please point it 24 out in the Information Notice where I'm reading it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 32 wrong.1MR. TAYLOR: Well, no, you're not 2necessarily reading it wrong. It says visual 3 inspections of concrete can identify the unique map or 4 pattern cracking. Additional information will be --

5okay. And then it says that then further testing 6 would be appropriate.

7JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. And do you have --

8do you have any problem with that approach? Do you 9 believe that it's sufficient to wait until it's 10 observed as cracking rather than do any preemptive 11 testing beforehand that might indicate conditions that 12 are conducive for ASR?

13MR. TAYLOR: Based on this Information 14 Notice, I have no reason to think that additional 15 testing would be required prior to visual inspection.

16 What struck me was that the Information Notice talks 17 about some standards that may have been used that this 18 Information Notice indicates would not be appropriate 19 any longer, that the situation seemed to have called 20 those into question.

21 And that was my concern about the ER in 22 this case, that there is no indication as to what 23standards they are using or -- at least as far as I 24 could see, no -- no indication of what standards they 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 33 are using in terms of the standards that are mentioned 1 in this Information Notice.

2JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens 3 again. On page 1 of your petition --

4 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

5JUDGE HAWKENS: -- you say the Information 6 Notice makes clear that ASR-induced degradation must 7 be considered in the context for license renewal.

8 Now, can you direct me to the page and the paragraph 9 where the Information Notice imposes that requirement?

10MR. TAYLOR: The notice doesn't impose 11that requirement. My intent on making that statement 12 was that the Information Notice indicates that in 13 terms of an ER I be lieve that that notice suggests 14 that in order for the ER to be adequate it must 15 address the concerns and the points expressed in that 16 notice.17JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Taylor, this is Judge 18 Kennedy. I mean, I guess I have a different read of 19 this. I mean, it's clear to me from the application 20that River Bend did not use these standards. So is 21 that part of the nub of your concern in this 22 contention, that they did not use these specific 23 standards?

24MR. TAYLOR: That's part of it, yes. 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 34 also that the -- the issue was not discussed in the 1terms of this notice. I mean, he doesn't necessarily 2 have to mention this notice, but it wasn't discussed 3 in the context of this notice or the concerns 4expressed in this notice. And it -- that would be our 5-- it just referred to an aging monitoring plan that 6 wasn't really described in any detail.

7JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you have -- this is 8 Judge Kennedy again. I guess my read of the 9 Information Notice on page 3 is pointing to non-10 reactive aggregates are present, so that these are 11 potentially standards that could have eliminated the 12potential for ASR degradation. Is that what you think 13 this Information Notice is stating, or do you have a 14 different read of it?

15 MR. TAYLOR: Not necessarily, and I will 16 admit that, as we go to the hearing, this is going to 17 have to be fleshed out a little more. But all I had 18 was this Information Notice in front of me.

19 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess what I'm looking 20 at is the first sentence on page 3 under Discussion, 21 and I can't remember if you -- if you had identified 22that sentence. And it carries on through the ASTM 23 standard.24MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, that's what I read 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 35 earlier. Yes.

1JUDGE KENNEDY: It points out that this 2 verified that only non-reactive aggregates are 3present. And I don't -- I mean, I don't see where 4 Entergy is asserting that they don't have reactive 5aggregates in their plant. So I'm not surprised, but 6 I am sensing that you're surprised that these aren't 7 identified there.

8 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm trying to understand 10 if this is one of the specific concerns --

11 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.

12JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that you're addressing.

13 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: That you're identifying.

15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

16JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell 17again. Getting back to the initial inspection, do you 18 agree that Entergy's aging management plan now is --

19 for these is -- for this aspect is now part of the --

20 or incorporated within the structure's monitoring 21 program, presented really in B.1.41 of license renewal 22 application?

23 MR. TAYLOR: They say they have an aging 24 management program. My concern was that, insofar as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 36 I could see from the application, the contours of that 1 program and specifically in the context of the 2 concerns about the ASR were not set out in -- so it 3 was hard to know, you know, if they were really 4 addressing the concerns expressed in this notice.

5JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, didn't -- isn't the 6 first step in the structure's monitoring program a 7visual inspection? In fact, that's what the heart of 8it is; is it not? And that's what you were advocating 9 as the first step in this, and future steps would fall 10 from that; would it not?

11MR. TAYLOR: Yes. But I think those 12 future steps ought to be laid out, too.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I -- this is Judge 15 Kennedy, Mr. Taylor. I take this discussion to mean 16that Sierra Club is no longer concerned that ASR is 17 not being discussed in the license renewal 18 application, but rather that it is not adequately 19 being discussed?

20 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Right. Yes.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.

22JUDGE HAWKENS: And this is Judge Hawkens.

23I want to be clear: the burden is on you to identify 24with specificity the deficiency. Please tell me what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 37 the deficiency is again?

1MR. TAYLOR: The deficiency is that the 2 application does not discuss ASR in the terms that are 3 in this Information Notice, specifically with regard 4 to the standards that we have talked about, and that 5 there is nothing in the application, at least nothing 6 I could see, that indicated that the aging management 7 plan would take into consideration the concerns that 8 were expressed in that notice.

9JUDGE HAWKENS: And those -- again, I want 10 to make sure, when you say it doesn't include the 11 standards, it doesn't include the steps Entergy should 12 take once it visually identifies ASR cracking?

13MR. TAYLOR: No. I'm talking about the 14 ASTM standards that were mentioned on page 3 of the 15report. As I read the report, there are some 16 standards that had been used that the Commission 17 thought were no longer adequate.

18JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy.

19 Did you look in the River Bend license renewal 20 application to see what standard Entergy has 21 identified for these materials in their station?

22MR. TAYLOR: I looked and tried to find 23 some, but I didn't see it.

24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I would 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 38 you I didn't see these standards in there, but they 1have identified other standards. Again, the plan was 2 constructed I would guess at least 30 years ago. So 3 I think they have come right out and stated that they 4 did not use these standards, not in the same terms 5 that we're talking about here, but they identified a 6different set of standards. And I guess I'm trying to 7 understand what the problem with that is.

8MR. TAYLOR: Well, for license renewal, I 9 think they have to comply with current appropriate 10 standards.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I mean, the plant 12 was constructed before this was ever discovered.

13 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.

14JUDGE KENNEDY: That's one concern I have.

15 The other is, my read of the Informat ion Notice is 16 that these standards are a pathway to eliminating the 17 need to be concerned with the aging effect that could 18 come from ASR-induced degradation.

19 And Entergy, from what I can tell, and you 20 can -- you have an opportunity here to tell me I'm 21 wrong -- has identified in their application that they 22will manage this -- aging effects due to this aging 23 mechanism at River Bend Station.

24 So I'm at a loss to understand why there 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 39is a significance to these standards not being 1 specifically called out in the River Bend application.

2 So I'm not sure why this is material.

3MR. TAYLOR: As I read the Information 4 Notice, information was saying that reactors should 5 use these newer standards and base their management 6 programs on those.

7JUDGE WARDWELL: What do you think -- this 8is Judge Wardwell again. What do you think these 9standards say? Are they standards in regards to 10 constructing the concrete, or are these standards of 11 what you should be doing to test to look for ASR?

12 What's your understanding of these standards?

13 MR. TAYLOR: It looks to me like they're 14 designed to predict aggregate reactivity when dealing 15 with late or slow-expanding aggregates containing 16 strained quartz or microcrystalline quartz. So they 17 are standards that are used, as I understand it -- and 18 I'm not an engineer -- to predict, you know, whether 19 or not there is a problem with ASR.

20JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens. I 21 think you're correct, but look at the first sentence.

22 These are standards for testing during construction.

23 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.

24JUDGE HAWKENS: That was over 20 years 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 40ago. We're well beyond that. So it seems to me those 1 standards can't be applied at this point, and Entergy 2 has recognized that, and, therefore, they have 3 included in their aging management plan visual 4 inspections to identify this problem if it occurs.

5MR. TAYLOR: But Seabrook had been 6 constructed, too, and they're still, it looks like, 7 applying it to Seabrook, as I am understanding it.

8JUDGE HAWKENS:

And show me in the 9 Information Notice where you're drawing that 10 conclusion.

11MR. TAYLOR: Well, this Information Notice 12 arose because of the finding of ASR at Seabrook, and 13 that's what was the impetus for this notice in the 14 first place.

15JUDGE HAWKENS: But that paragraph that 16 you provided us with the block quote of says these are 17 standards which should be used or have been used 18during construction. Based on what occurred at 19 Seabrook, we have determined that certain of these 20standards should no longer be used. And if they have 21 been used, then the plant operators should be aware 22that ASR degradation can occur. That's how I read 23 that block paragraph.

24JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy. If 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 41 you go to the top of the page, it discusses 1 specifically that Seabrook Station have tested their 2 concrete using ASTM C289, which is one of the ones 3 that is being called out here that needs to be 4 updated. So I think this whole thing sort of, in my 5 mind, knits together -- and I'm looking for the 6 problem here.

7 Seabrook used the wrong standard when they 8tested their concrete. So they didn't expect this 9degradation and it occurred. As I read it, River Bend 10 Station is acknowledging they didn't test to this 11 current standard, and so they are going to continue to 12 look for ASR degradation using visual inspection and 13 the aging management program in the application.

14 So I'm really struggling with trying to 15 understand where Sierra Club sees the issue here, what 16 the specific concern is of why it's important to bring 17 it up to the staff.

18MR. TAYLOR: Well, just to say again I 19guess that I was concerned that the license 20 application in this case for River Bend did not 21 address ASR as suggested by this Information Notice.

22 And I didn't see in the application that there was 23anything in the aging management plan that would 24 address the process, I guess you'd call it, that is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 42 being suggested in this notice.

1JUDGE KENNEDY: Do your concerns extend 2beyond these ASTM standards? Or is that the specific 3 issue that Sierra Club is concerned with?

4 MR. TAYLOR: Well, the specific issue is 5 that I didn't see any indication of how we were going 6 to address the issue of ASR in the aging management 7 plan.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Beyond visual inspection.

9 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. And I just felt that 10 these -- these standards at least were something that 11 should at least be alluded to in the application as to 12 how they were going to further test.

13JUDGE KENNEDY: But the plant has been 14 constructed. These are --

15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

16JUDGE KENNEDY: -- construction testing 17 methods.18 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I understand.

19JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, if they used those 20 standards, they could acknowledge that. But my read 21 is they are -- they are telling us straight up they 22 didn't use them.

23Okay. I mean, I guess -- I guess we came 24 back around to the circle.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 43JUDGE HAWKENS: Any final comments on 1 Contention 3, Mr. Taylor?

2 MR. TAYLOR: No, thank you.

3JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. You've 4 actually exceeded the 45 minutes and the additional 5 rebuttal time, but we will provide you with some 6 modest amount of rebuttal time.

7 MR. TAYLOR: All right.

8JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, you may 9 proceed.10MR. BURDICK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'd 11 like to first address one overarching issue that cuts 12 across all three contentions, and then if possible, I 13 will try to address a few of the arguments that we 14 just heard.

15 The Sierra Club's hearing request must be 16 rejected because -- for not including an admissible 17 contention. Each of Sierra Club's three contentions 18 is inadmissible for multiple independent failures to 19 comply with the Commission's contention admissibility 20 requirements in Section 2.309(f).

21 But one significant deficiency that does 22cut across all three contentions was Sierra Club 23 ignoring information in the application that addresses 24 the very issues raised in the contentions.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 44 Contention 1 claimed that the statement of 1 purpose and need was so narrow that only the proposed 2 action would satisfy it, but that ignores the detailed 3 information in the environmental report that 4 identifies 18 energy alternatives that were 5 considered, including four determined to be reasonable 6 alternatives.

7 Indeed, even wind and solar, although 8 concluded to not be reasonable, they were examined in 9 detail as if they were reasonable with a comparison of 10 their environmental impacts against proposed action.

11 Contention 2 claimed to challenge the 12 consideration of renewable energy and energy 13 efficiency as alternatives, but that ignored the 14 relevant portions of the environmental report that 15 addressed consideration of alternatives, including 16 environmental report Section 2.6, Chapter 7 and 17 Chapter 8.

18 Those sections considered wind, solar, and 19 energy efficiency, and also a combination of 20 alternatives that included a renewable energy source 21 and demand-side management, which includes energy 22 efficiency.

23 Contention 3 claimed that the application 24 did not address alkali-silica reaction degradation.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 45JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 1here. The ER did not consider renewables in 2 combination; did not?

3MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. In 4 environmental report Section 7.1.1.4, the combination 5of alternatives is presented. That combination 6includes three different energy sources. It includes 7 demand-side management of 105 megawatts, which 8includes energy efficiency. But it also includes 9 biomass units which are considered renewable.

10 Although they're not wind and solar, they are a 11 renewable source, and that's even considered renewable 12 in the State of Louisiana for Entergy's integrated 13 resource plan. And the remainder of that is natural 14 gas to ensure that it can provide baseload power here.

15JUDGE HAWKENS: It did not, though, 16 consider solar and wind in combination; did it?

17MR. BURDICK: It did not in the Section 187.1.1.4 combination of alternatives. And the National 19 Energy Policy Act -- National Environmental Policy 20Act, or NEPA, it only requires us to look at 21 reasonable alternatives, and here Entergy, you know, 22 under the rule of reason established, you know, one 23 combination of alternatives that was reasonable.

24 And I think what's important here is if 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 46 wind or solar or wind and solar were combined or were 1 put into this combination of alternatives, it would 2not have a different outcome. The biomass units 3 themselves, assuming a sufficient fuel source, can 4function as a baseload power unit. If we were to 5 replace that with wind and solar, then that would not 6 necessarily provide baseload power, and so you would 7 have to increase the amount of natural gas.

8 And as the Board alluded to earlier, there 9 is Commission case law that specifically allows for 10 the consideration of baseload power when determining 11 reasonable alternatives.

12 The point I wanted to make that's 13 overarching here with Contention 3, it's the same 14 thing as test omission. As we've pointed out and it 15 has been discussed, there is information in the 16 application. And for all three of these contentions 17 they just missed information in the application.

18 And the Commission has made it very clear 19 that contentions that do not address the contents of 20 an application on a challenge topic are inadmissible.

21 And even Section 2.209(f)(1)(6) likewise states the 22 contention "must include references to specific 23 portions of the application, including the applicant's 24 environmental report and safety report, that the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 47 Petitioner disputes and its supporting reasons for 1 each dispute." 2 That has not been done here, and so our 3view is, because they failed to do that, all the 4 previous contentions are inadmissible at the outset.

5 Let me turn to Contention 1 and just 6 address a couple of points I heard in the earlier 7 discussions.

8JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 9 here again. Before you --

10 MR. BURDICK: Sure.

11 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- contention, can we go 12 back to standing? And I know you're not challenging 13 standing in this case, correct?

14MR. BURDICK: That's correct, Your Honor.

15JUDGE HAWKENS: You can see that standing 16 does exist.

17MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. We do not 18 oppose standing here.

19JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. And is my research 20 correct that the Commission has not yet squarely held 21 that the 50-mile proximity presumption does apply in 22 license renewal cases?

23MR. BURDICK: To the best of my knowledge, 24the Commission has never ruled directly on that. 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 48 as you noted earlier, licensing boards have taken that 1 position.2 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Thank you.

3MR. BURDICK: So just briefly on 4 Contention 1, this relates to the statement of purpose 5and need. I think there has been some confusion on 6 exactly how the statement of purpose and need should 7 be interpreted here, and hopefully I can help to 8clarify that. As stated in environmental report 9 Section 1.0, the purpose and need for the proposed 10 action is to provide an option that allows for 11 baseload power generation capability beyond the term 12 of the current nuclear power plant operating license 13 to meet future system generating needs.

14What I heard in the discussion is some 15 confusion about the phrase "the term of the current 16nuclear power plant operating license." That does not 17 mean that only nuclear power can satisfy the statement 18of purpose and need. That's a timing issue that we 19 are talking about whether the generating needs will be 20available when the River Bend operating license is 21 done, which here it's in 2025, if the license is not 22 renewed.23 So hopefully that provides some 24clarification. But as the Board had discussed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 49 earlier, you know, certainly our environmental report 1doesn't identify only one reasonable alternative. We 2 identify many more than that.

3 Turning I guess to Contention 2 --

4JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 5here again. Can you address Sierra Club's argument 6 regarding advocation of the NRC's duty under NEPA?

7 MR. BURDICK: Certainly. I think that's 8 also a misreading of the statement of purpose and need 9and is an unsupported statement. There has been no 10advocation here. As I just read, and I won't read it 11 again, you know, certainly the statement of purpose 12and need is to provide this option. It's not an 13 advocation.

14 What is retained for other energy planning 15 decisionmakers is what the actual energy source will 16 be that is constructed or continued in the region.

17 And that, as we point out in our answer, is 18 appropriate for other agencies or other bodies.

19 That's not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.

20And we point to some of the rulemaking 21 history when the NRC revised Part 51 to address NEPA, 22 and they certainly -- the statements in that 23 rulemaking uphold this issue that it's not within the 24 jurisdiction of the NRC to make these decisions about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 50 exactly what should be constructed.

1 And I think, importantly, you know, NEPA 2and the implementing regulations do not impose that 3requirement. And here we have a very interesting 4 situation with the statement of purpose and need 5 because it's not one that Entergy just formulated on 6its own. As the Petitioner notes, this comes from 7 guidance, but it's not just the guidance. It also 8 comes from the rulemaking history.

9 And as we point out in our answer, this 10 concept of preserving the option for future energy 11 planning decisionmakers is actually codified in the 12 rules themselves, and we identify a few of those 13sections. And so it's really the Commission's 14 statement of purpose and need of what must be done 15here. And for them to challenge it here is an 16 improper challenge to the rule, contrary to 10 CFR 17 Section 2.335.

18 The other issue that came up was the 19 concept of baseload power. And, you know, our view, 20 as we do discuss in our answer some, but I think some 21 of this also responds to the newer reply arguments, is 22 the Sierra Club has not provided any support that the 23 renewable sources that they are discussing in 24 Contention 2 can provide baseload power.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 51 There are only two places in their 1 proposed contentions in which they identify or mention 2baseload. The first I will mention is on pages 21 and 3 22 of Contention 2, and there the Petitioner is not 4stating that they have demonstrated that wind and 5 solar can provide baseload. Instead, they are 6 complaining about using the standard of baseload in 7these energy alternatives. So they are actually 8almost competing here, that wind and solar don't 9 provide that.

10The other place they mention it is on 11page 10 of their Contention 2. And this is in a 12 simple statement that is introducing this report from 13 Christina Archer and Mark Jacobson, which was already 14 discussed here.

15 But that document also does not support 16baseload power from wind and solar. In fact, as we 17 pointed out in our answer, the Commission had 18 evaluated this exact report in the Davis-Besse 19 proceeding and rejected it as providing a basis for 20wind and solar providing baseload power. And so that 21 certainly can't support baseload.

22 This report also is -- doesn't demonstrate 23 that it's technically feasible or commercially 24 available. In fact, the Commission explained in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 52 Davis-Besse decision that this document refers to it 1as an idea to use interconnected windfarms. And so 2 it's not even a solid plan here.

3 Additionally, the report itself does not 4 appear to even increase the capacity factor very high, 5 and so it's arguably not even baseload. I think the 6 report -- still, the maximum is less than 50 percent.

7 And for a lot of the reports that identified in 8 Contention 2, these are not discreet opportunities to 9replace River Bend. Instead, they are overarching 10 changes to the energy infrastructure and to energy 11 policy that are simply not a reasonable alternative 12 here.13 We also pointed out that some of this --

14 much of proposed Contention 2 is copied from a Turkey 15Point new reactor proceeding. That, in and of itself, 16 could be okay, but here it was not. It brings a lot 17 of arguments that are simply irrelevant or outside 18scope. And combining that action with the failure to 19actually address what is in the environment report 20 itself, simply there is no genuine dispute here.

21 And, again, these are full of policy 22arguments rather than technical arguments. Most don't 23 address baseload sources, and they are never tied to 24 River Bend or Louisiana, and some don't even discuss 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 53nuclear. And, in fact, some of these sources even 1 discuss changes that would not be implemented until 2 after the period of extended -- period of extended 3operation. I believe one report talks about 2050, so 4 that's even past the renewed period.

5JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 6here. Can you address the two reports, the studies on 7 pages 29 and 30 of the opening petition? Those were 8 related specifically to Louisiana and Sierra Club.

9You seem to have placed a high reliance on them, 10saying that they were -- should be given weight and 11 laying a foundation for finding that renewables and 12 energy efficiency are a reasonable alternative.

13MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. We 14 reviewed these studies, and they certainly don't 15support that conclusion. They are older studies.

16They don't mention baseload. They are focused on just 17 the potential for wind and solar, but certainly not 18 only a scale that could replace River Bend.

19 They are speculating about what could be 20done in the future. I believe I heard counsel for 21 Sierra Club talk about how no one can say whether wind 22 and solar can be done in this manner, and it's really 23just a lot of speculation. And I also would point out 24 that we actually have more detailed information in our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 54 environmental report.

1 And environmental report Section 7.1.2.2.1 2 for wind power, and Section 7.1.2.2.2 for solar power, 3have more recent data and fully evaluate this. And so 4 there is really no genuine dispute here, and this 5 information in these sections I just mentioned has not 6 been challenged by the Petitioner and certainly not in 7 the original contention.

8 And these walk through wind and solar in 9great detail. And as I mentioned earlier, I think 10 what is really important about these two sections is 11 not only do they look at wind and whether it's viable 12 and whether they are sufficient, they also look at 13 energy storage. And they conclude that there is not 14 a basis for these to be reasonable alternatives.

15 But the last paragraph in each of these 16sections is very clear. For example, in Section 17 7.1.1.2.1, it says, "Nonetheless, even if wind were 18 considered to be reasonable, the impacts discussed 19 above show that the impacts from winds -- from wind, 20 with or without compressor energy source, would be 21 higher than the impacts for renewal of the River Bend 22 license, and so forth.

23 So in those sections, they look at some of 24 the environmental impacts; for example, the high land 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 55 use for wind that would be on the scale to replace 1River Bend, and some with solar. And so they have 2 actually, in a sense, conservatively considered that 3 they -- if they were reasonable, here is the 4evaluation. And so Entergy has gone well beyond what 5 was required.

6 And, in fact, the section on wind even 7 talks about offshore wind, which is in some of these 8 Louisiana documents, and says that the NRC determined 9 Louisiana's offshore areas had the lowest 10 classification for potential wind energy development, 11and that's also in the generic environmental impact 12 statement.

13 Your Honor, I guess turning to 14 Contention 3, then, I did want to make a clarification 15here. The discussion -- the information we agree 16 with, the Information Notice is not a requirement.

17It's not even a recommendation. As stated on the 18 first page, it's suggestions. And licensees do take 19 these seriously. They evaluate them.

20 River Bend has evaluated the Information 21 Notice, and that has led to -- to what is in the 22 license renewal application. The discussion I think 23is important. The Information Notice does not require 24 that River Bend put a lot of details as to what would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 56 happen if there is ASR degradation, but the 1 Information Notice on page 2 of 5 talks about that ASR 2 can be identified as the likely cause of degradation 3 during visual inspection.

4 And then, also on page 4 of 5, as was 5 already read here, once visual indications of ASR-6 induced concrete degradations have been identified, 7 those visual indications, consistent with the 8 Information Notice, which is the only support that has 9 been identified by the Petitioner, you first start 10 with visual inspections, and that is exactly what 11 Entergy has done in the license renewal application.

12 It points to the discussion, and Section 3.5 points to 13 the structures monitoring program, and that requires 14 visual inspections.

15JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Burdick, this is 16Judge Wardwell. Is there anything in your aging 17 management plan for what to do if, in fact, you do 18 observe cracking associating with ASR?

19MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, under the 20 structures monitoring program, the aging effects of 21cracking are identified. Then Entergy would put that 22 information into their corrective action program, and 23 then would have to evaluate it and take actions, and 24 certainly they would consider things such as what has 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 57 been presented in the Information Notice or suggested 1 in the Information Notice.

2JUDGE WARDWELL: And has this -- could you 3point us to where that is stated? And where is the 4 applicability or the relevance to the ASR phenomena?

5 Especially as identified in Seabrook.

6MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, if I understood 7 correctly, you're asking about the structures 8 monitoring program and the corrective action?

9JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah. Where in that 10 construction -- where in the structures monitoring 11 plan -- and are we speaking of B-1.41, pages 146 to 12140 -- well, it may go further than that. I don't 13 know exact page numbers.

14MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. That is 15 the correct structures monitoring program.

16JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you look at that, 17 where in there does it say anything in what to do 18 after you observe cracking associated specifically 19 with ASR in order to address that particular issue and 20 the impacts on the operation of the plant?

21MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. So at that 22 point, the structures monitoring program specifies, 23 you know, on page B-1.45, the visual inspection, and -

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 58JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me while we get 1that. Hang on just a second. What number did you say 2 again?3MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, just at the 4 beginning, so page B-145. I'm just pointing -- that 5 talks about the visual inspection, but I'm getting a 6 citation for you for the reference to the corrective 7 action program.

8JUDGE WARDWELL: This structures 9 monitoring, is this program -- B-1.41, as I read this 10 from your license renewal application, wasn't -- where 11 does it include specific stuff associated with the 12 ASR, not just general -- generic information relating 13 to concrete structures?

14MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, the specific 15 structures monitoring program does not call out ASR 16specifically. Where the connection is is in 17 Section 3.5 of the license renewal application, and so 18 the structures monitoring program is broader and 19 covers not just ASR but covers other -- you know, 20 managing other aging effects.

21JUDGE WARDWELL: And where do we see that, 22 then, in 3.5?

23 MR. BURDICK: That's correct.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: No. I said point us to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 59 where in 3.5 --

1MR. BURDICK: I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

2JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in your submittals 3 that you talk about 3.5.2.2.1.8 and you've talked 4 about 3.5.2.2.1, Item 2, and you've also referenced 53.5.2.2.3, Item 2. Could you direct me into those 6 sections on where there is some specificity related to 7 ASR types of actions that have been generated as a 8 result of the Seabrook concerns?

9MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. So in the 10 three sections that you have just identified, and each 11 of those sections covers a different type of concrete 12 structure, but all of them deal with reaction with 13 aggregates, as we explain, includes alkali-silica 14reactions. Those secti ons, then, point to the 15 structures monitoring program.

16JUDGE WARDWELL: Where is it -- well, now 17we're coming full circle I thought. Give me some 18 paragraphs within those sections where you're saying 19where that is pointing and how that is doing it 20 regards to addressing this concern.

21MR. BURDICK: Okay. Your Honor, I am 22 starting on Section 3.5.2.2.1.8.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

24MR. BURDICK: And this is on page 3.5-11.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 60 And so this section entitled Cracking Due to Expansion 1 with Reaction for Aggregate, and towards the bottom of 2 the first paragraph it says, "Based on ongoing 3 industry operating experience," which would include 4things such as the Information Notice and what 5 occurred at Seabrook, "the structures monitoring 6 program manages cracking" --

7JUDGE WARDWELL: Wait a minute. Your 8 pause there wasn't -- was your comment, right? It 9 wasn't -- that's not written here, correct?

10MR. BURDICK: That's correct. I was 11 explaining what the industry operating experience was.

12 Let me start over without the commentary. So this 13 sentence says, "Based on ongoing industry operating 14 experience, the structures monitoring program manages 15 cracking due to expansion from reaction with aggregate 16 in accessible concrete areas for the RBS concrete base 17 foundation." 18 So for that structure, this points to the 19 structures monitoring program, and then that's when we 20 would turn to Appendix B. And what we had discussed 21 there, the beginning of Appendix B, the beginning of 22-- so now I'm in Section B.1.41. In paragraph 2, for 23 example, there is a statement that the structure and 24 structural components are inspected by qualified 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 61personnel. And then concrete structures are inspected 1 for indications of deterioration and distress." 2 And so now we are in the structures 3monitoring program that includes the inspections. And 4 if any indications that could be alkali-silica 5 reaction are identified, consistent with what is 6 discussed in the Information Notice, then that 7 identification would be placed into Entergy's 8 corrective action program, and that would determine 9 what the next steps are through evaluation.

10JUDGE WARDWELL: Have these -- well, never 11 mind. Strike my thought, okay?

12 MR. BURDICK: Okay.

13JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy. Is 14 there criteria based -- so you do the inspections, and 15 then there is -- must be criteria that guides these 16inspections. And does the failure of -- if the 17 inspection detects something out of the bounds of the 18 criteria, is that how you get to the corrective action 19 program? I'm trying to -- I guess I'm picking up on 20 Judge Wardwell's thoughts of how the dots get 21 connected.

22MR. BURDICK: Yes. So the inspectors 23 would be trained for -- to perform these inspections, 24 and their procedures would have some indications 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 62 you know, if you see this type of cracking, which is 1 discussed in the Information Notice, then they would 2 put in the corrective action to determine it further.

3JUDGE KENNEDY: But none of that is stated 4 in the aging management program.

5MR. BURDICK: That's correct. That level 6of detail is not in here. And I think part of the 7 reason is the structures monitoring program is not 8 just for alkali-silica reaction; it's for these 9 inspections of all types of potential cracking. And 10 under the license renewal --

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Can I 12interrupt there? Just because I don't want to lose 13that thought. So you're saying that there is no 14 specificity here in this structures monitoring report 15 related to ASR reactions.

16 MR. BURDICK: Well, I would say there is 17 adequate specificity in the structures monitoring 18program. And, you know, under the license renewal 19process, the licensees, they inspect for the aging 20effects. And so it's not necessarily looking at 21specific mechanisms. It's looking at the effects that 22 could have various mechanisms.

23 And then it is only if -- if you identify 24 those aging effects, then you determine what the next 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 63 steps are, and that would be in more detailed 1 procedures.

2JUDGE WARDWELL: But some of these, the 3 cracking that you are going to observe due to the 4structures monitoring, they might not -- it might be 5 observed by the structures monitoring, can occur from 6 a number of processes, not just ASR, as you have 7 mentioned. But ASR does have a distinctive pattern; 8 is that not correct?

9 MR. BURDICK: Yes. We took --

10JUDGE WARDWELL: You would suspect that it 11 is ASR that is causing this; is that correct?

12MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. You know, 13 based on -- as explained in the Information Notice, 14 there is certain patterns of cracking, and so that 15 could give an indication of --

16JUDGE WARDWELL: Then that would lead you 17 down a different path of corrective actions, wouldn't 18 it, than if this cracking looked like it came from 19 free saw, for instance?

20 MR. BURDICK: Yes, that's correct.

21JUDGE WARDWELL: And so where is that laid 22out in your program that tells someone, oh, yeah, I 23see where there -- I see how this is managed? I mean, 24 because that --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 64 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor.

1JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is not adequately 2 described as an ASR program to manage it. And so if 3 that's where it's going to go once it's observed, 4 where do we see that in your aging management program?

5 MR. BURDICK: So, Your Honor, going back 6to -- I think cuts across some of these questions. As 7 we said, the aging management program is in B-141, and 8 that aging management program, as discussed, is 9 consistent with the generic aging lessons learned or 10GALL report. And that is on page B-146. And so there 11 are more details in the GALL reports that are part of 12 this program that are incorporated here.

13JUDGE WARDWELL: Which version of GALL are 14 you referring to?

15MR. BURDICK: So I'm in NUREG-1801, 16 Revision 2.

17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And wasn't that 18 written before Seabrook even came into concern --

19MR. BURDICK: Yes, it was from December 20 2010.21JUDGE WARDWELL: Or, at that point, any of 22 the lessons learned or information that has been 23 gathered or generated from Seabrook investigations and 24 information; is that correct?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 65 MR. BURDICK: One second, Your Honor.

1 (Pause.)2 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, so in the GALL 3 report, and the reference here in NUREG-1801 Rev 2 is 4 to Section -- it's Roman eleven F6 for structures 5monitoring. That includes I think two provisions that 6 I want to --

7JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me while I get 8 it. Okay. I am with you. You are on S2?

9 MR. BURDICK: On -- so I'm on page Roman 10 eleven. F6-4 is the page.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

12MR. BURDICK: So this -- the aging 13 management program is consistent with the GALL and 14 incorporates these aspects of the GALL.

15So two points. Item 7 is corrective 16 actions, and that discusses evaluation performed for 17 any inspection results that do not satisfy the 18established criteria. Corrective actions are 19 initiated according to the --

20JUDGE WARDWELL: You said established 21 criteria.22 MR. BURDICK: -- if the results indicate 23 there is a need for repair or replacement.

24 And so the second point, though, is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 66Item 10 on operating experience. And that does 1 require licensees to continue to review operating 2 experience as part of that program, and that would 3 include things like Seabrook and this Information 4 Notice.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Burdick, I'm not sure 6 you heard one of Judge Wardwell's questions, and that 7 was, where are the acceptance criteria for the 8 inspection?

9JUDGE WARDWELL: Under the corrective 10 actions, you say, "Evaluations are performed for any 11 inspection results that do not satisfy established 12criteria." Where is the criteria when you see 13 cracking due to ASR?

14MR. BURDICK: Yes. So here the acceptance 15 criteria would be in the detailed procedures, and then 16 that would -- you know, if those procedures determined 17 there was, you know, some level of cracking, then that 18 would go to this Item 7, corrective actions, put in 19 the corrective action program where it would be 20 evaluated for the next steps.

21JUDGE WARDWELL: And, again, both 7 and 10 22 were written without any knowledge of Seabrook 23 existence, correct?

24MR. BURDICK: Yeah. But the -- yes, Your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 67Honor. Item 10, though, deals with operating 1 experience, and that continues and requires an ongoing 2 review of that operating experience, which would 3 include things like Seabrook, and so -- or going into 4the future. And so, you know, the fact that the GALL 5 report was from December 2010 before Seabrook doesn't 6 matter.7 So this is a living document, and we 8 believe the structures monitoring program, 9 particularly here --

10JUDGE WARDWELL: I would argue it's a dead 11 document because it's so generic it just applies to 12 anything, and you could take this same thing and apply 13 it to any other structure that wasn't even a power 14plant. And it's so general, it just tells you how 15 just basic, good engineering and monitoring of 16 engineering facilities might be handled with no 17 specificity.

18 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I respectfully 19 disagree. This item here on operating experience is 20taken very seriously. In fact, the Information Notice 21 that we're talking about was put into the corrective 22 action plan and was evaluated as operating experience 23 not just for license renewal but for the continued 24 operation of plants for their inspections under the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 68 maintenance rule, and this really continues those 1 activities.

2 And this operating experience item is a 3 key part of license renewal and makes this a living 4 program.5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.

6MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I wanted to just 7 correct one thing on the record. We've had a lot of 8 discussion about the standards, and it was correctly 9 pointed out that the standards that are discussed in 10 the Information Notice are standards that were used at 11the time of construction. So they're not actively 12 used right now.

13 But similar to other plants that were 14 constructed during that time period, River Bend did 15 use some of these standards, including C289 and C295.

16 Again, as explained in the Information Notice, that 17 doesn't mean there is a concern here, doesn't mean 18there is alkali-silica reaction. It just means for 19 this one type of late or still-expanding alkali-silica 20 reaction it may not have been picked up by that test.

21 So per the Information Notice, as we have 22 been talking about, we are doing these visual 23 inspections to address any aging effects of alkali-24 silica reactions.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 69JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Burdick, I just have 1 two quick follow-up questions, just more of a 2curiosity in reviewing the material. In the aging 3 management program structures monitoring, it calls out 4a number of enhancements. Are any of those 5 enhancements related to ASR-induced degradation that 6 you're aware of?

7MR. BURDICK: Not that we're aware of, 8 Your Honor.

9JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fair. And just 10one other sort of curiosity question. In those 3.5 11 sections that your answer refers to, I think the 12 category of structures, of inaccessible concrete 13 structures, and I guess I'm curious, what are 14inaccessible concrete structures? And then how do you 15 do visual inspections if they are inaccessible?

16MR. BURDICK: Some of the inaccessible 17 areas could be, if it's a high radiation area, or if 18 it's below grade, you know, so those are some 19 examples.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So how are you 21 going to inspect if it's below grade?

22MR. BURDICK: The structures monitoring 23 program is similar to the maintenance rule that's used 24 at all the plants. If it's an accessible area, then 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 70 it's inspected at a specific periodicity. For 1 inaccessible areas, there are opportunistic 2 inspections, and also evaluations to try to consider, 3 you know, what the impact of inspections on accessible 4 areas mean for inaccessible areas.

5 JUDGE HAWKENS: Judge Hawkens here. Mr.

6Burdick, do you have anything else? Your time has 7 expired.8MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, just to 9 reiterate the first point that the original hearing 10 request missed much information in the application, 11 and that alone should be enough to reject these 12contentions. But even if the information is 13 considered, they don't satisfy the conditions in the 14 Commission's contention as to builder requirements.

15 Thank you.

16 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.

17 NRC staff, we'll be hearing from you next.

18 If nobody objects, I propose we take a five-minute 19break and return at quarter 'til. Any objection, 20 Sierra Club?

21 MR. TAYLOR: No.

22 JUDGE HAWKENS: Entergy?

23 MR. BURDICK: No objection.

24 JUDGE HAWKENS: 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 71 MR. TURK: No objection, Your Honor.

1 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'll put you 2 all on hold, and we will resume at quarter 'til.

3 Thank you.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 5 off the record at 3:39 p.m. and resumed at 3:47 p.m.)

6JUDGE HAWKENS: Let's go back on the 7record. Let me confirm that our other players are 8 still on the line. Sierra Club?

9 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

10 JUDGE HAWKENS: Entergy?

11 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE HAWKENS: And NRC staff?

13 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor.

14JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Mr. Turk, I 15 think you indicated you wanted to make a brief 16 introduction before turning it over to Mr. Roth?

17MR. TURK: Yes. That's correct, Your 18 Honor.19 JUDGE HAWKENS: Please proceed.

20MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor, and 21Judges Kennedy and Wardwell. My name is Sherwin Turk.

22 I have had the pleasure of appearing before two of you 23 in the past, in the Indian Point proceeding in 24 particular.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 72 I'll be very brief because I know the 1 questions that you have pertain primarily to the 2contentions. The staff does not contest standing for 3the Sierra Club. We state so in our brief 4 excessively.

5 And, Your Honor, I'd like to address the 6 question that you've asked other parties about the --

7 whether the Commission has ruled directly on the 8 question of proximity presumption of fines in a 9license renewal proceeding. The only case that we 10 could find was the decision that we cited at page 5 of 11 our response to petition. That's the Calvert Cliffs 12 decision in which the Commission took note of a board 13 decision in which the proximity presumption had been 14 applied in license renewal.

15 So we could find no case in which the 16 Commission has explicitly ruled itself. We do 17 believe, however, that the Commission's citation of 18that case was a citation with approval. So we are led 19 to believe that the Commission has at least implicitly 20 endorsed that concept.

21 Your Honor, we do not oppose standing, but 22 we do oppose the admission of the contentions for the 23 principal reason that the petition to intervene did 24 not contain the specificity that is required under the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 73Commission's regulations. And as stated in our brief, 1 the Commission's regulations governing the 2 admissibility of contentions are strict, and they are 3 strict by design.

4 I won't address the specifics of each 5 contention, but I would note that the rules governing 6 contention admissibility would lead us to conclude 7 that the contentions must be rejected for failing to 8 meet the criteria of 2.309(f).

9 And, Your Honor, with that, I will turn 10 over the podium to Mr. Roth, who will speak on the 11 environmental contentions, and he will be followed by 12 Mr. Gillespie on Contention 3 dealing with the safety 13 issues.14 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you, Mr. Turk.

15 Please proceed, Mr. Roth.

16 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors. Very 17 briefly, concerning Contention 1, as the staff 18 discussed in its written pleadings, this appears to be 19 a challenge to the Commission's rules governing 20licensing renewal application. I would like to point 21 out the specific rule is that the staff document, 22 because it's to the ER, that the staff's final 23 document is a supplemental environment --

24 environmental impact statement supplementing the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 74 guidance.1 The guidance already has the specific 2 relief to develop through rulemaking. And the staff 3 supplement is not going to use an alternative purpose.

4 This could be confirmed through both looking at the 5 staff's environmental standard review plan, as well as 6 the ESRP NUREG-1555 Supplement 1, Section 1.0, purpose 7 of reactions, this is tabbed evaluation findings, 8 noting that the findings -- the purpose and need 9 should be that purpose and need that is in Section 1.3 10 of the guidance.

11 In terms of guidance on how the ER should 12 be drafted, the standard format with preparation of 13 environmental report for nuclear power plant license 14 renewal applications, which is Regulatory Guide 4.2 15Supplement 1. Likewise, echoes what the ER should say 16 within the guidance.

17 Turning to the issue of what the 18 Intervenor would need to challenge these rules, this 19 again is explained as written, stating this is 20developed through rulemaking. The Intervenor would 21 have needed to do a petition for waiver under 2.235, 22 the full balance and special circumstances with 23 respect to the subject matter of a particular 24 proceeding are such that the application for renewal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 75 regulation did not give a purpose for which the 1renewal regulation was adopted. The Intervenor has 2 not done that.

3 One last point on the quote, the purpose 4 and need argument, the one of the cases that the 5 Intervenor in its submissions was citing, and we'd 6like to cite this case. The case is Burlington v.

7Lucy. In the Intervenor's petition, on page --

8 staff's page 7, they cite the case in staff's answer 9 to the case where the staff is discussing the 10 Commission's views on -- the Commission's views with 11 respect to Seabrook and Davis-Besse proceedings.

12 And the particular spot on page 29 where 13 the staff is discussing how the Commission does not 14 adopt baseload items and discusses then that 15 alternatives must be alternatives that are capable of 16 meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action.

17 And within that forwarding footnote, once 18again, it is citing Burlington v. Lucy. Getting to 19 the point of this discussion, within that case, the 20 report in part claims that it should be a general rule 21rather than specific rules. And in particular, 938 22 F.2d page 199, the Court wrote that Congress did 23 expect agencies to consider an applicant's blunt to 24 the agency's redaction. Congress did not expect the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 76 agency to determine for the applicant what the goal 1 for the applicant supposedly should be.

2 Here again, our view is that it's a 3challenge to the scope. It's a challenge to 4 rulemaking. They haven't tied a waiver to it. It's 5 not seem to conform to admissible contentions.

6 Hearing no questions on that, may I move 7 on to Contention 2?

8 JUDGE HAWKENS: Please go ahead.

9MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors. Within 10 Contention 2, and as you have previously heard, the 11 petition does not address the contents of the ER with 12 any specificity. Within their petition, they have a 13 substantial number of documents they cite, there has 14 already been discussion about the contents of the 15 documents as to what they say and what they don't say.

16 Fundamentally missing is any discussion of the ER 17 itself and any demonstration of any errors or 18 omissions within the ER.

19 In particular, the environmental report 20 discusses in Section 2.6.2, which is page 2-34, how 21Entergy's 2015 integrated review plan, which is a 22 long-term strategy for meeting the customers' power 23needs, exists. The ER in multiple places describes 24 how it uses the integrated review plan and the basis 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 77 to decide which alternatives warrant further 1 investigation and which alternative does not.

2 An item of note, turning to the integrated 3 review plan -- and this is a document that you all 4 read through in 2015 -- Sierra Club actually commented 5on the integrated review plan. At multiple places in 6 the document, there are responses that Entergy's 7providing to Sierra Club's comments. The Sierra Club 8 acknowledges the document that was used by the 9 applicant in determining which alternatives were going 10 to be considered further and which ones were not.

11 But the contention, as written, definitely 12 doesn't discuss any reasons why the discussions and 13 voluminous IRP, which is around 99 pages in total, for 14 the ER have any particular errors or omissions that 15 warrant further investigation and eventually a 16 hearing.17 (Pause.)18 JUDGE HAWKENS: Hello?

19 MR. ROTH: Hearing no further discussion 20 on that, would Your Honors like us to continue to 21 Contention 3?

22JUDGE HAWKENS: I have -- this is Judge 23Hawkens. I have -- the same question that I posed to 24Mr. Burdick I'd like to pose to you. Namely, could 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 78 you address the two studies that Sierra Club said were 1 its best source of support for laying a foundation for 2this contention? And those were the two studies 3 dealing with -- specifically with Louisiana, pages 29 4 and 30 of their petition.

5 MR. ROTH: That workforce, without going 6 into any technical detail as to the studies, the 7 studies do not seem to demonstrate that the wind 8 resource in fact will be a viable, commercially 9 available source of energy sufficient to replace the 10 power of River Bend.

11 Notably, for instance, since letting 12 onshore wind resources, the 2004 study on the second-13 to -- or the third-to-the-last page -- no, second-to-14 the-last page, within the section marked Wind 15 Resource, it states Louisiana's onshore wind resource 16 has virtually no potential for wind power development.

17 So the very study itself was just for onshore, they 18 need further information. There's nothing that says 19 it's going to be commercially viable within the 20 studies. And if we were to study looking at smaller 21 capacity, not the same capacity as River Bend anyway.

22 But more significantly, again, turning to 23 the facts of the contention, I'd like to reiterate 24 that within the IRP wind was discussed available, the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 79 role of it was discussed, within the ER referencing 1the IRPs, the same thing with stress. And the 2 Intervenor's reliance on the December 2004 and the 3 2005 studies simply don't demonstrate that there is an 4 error or omission in the application or that the 5 particular study shows that, in fact, the wind wasn't 6 viable by itself or placement hours for within.

7JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you, Mr.

8 Roth. We have no further questions on Contentions 1 9 or 2 at this time.

10 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors.

11MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. Your Honors, thank 12you. My name is Joe Gillespie. I'm representing the 13 staff with respect to Contention 3.

14 The issue here today on Contention 3 is 15 simply whether the petition included sufficient 16 information in the original petition to meet the 17standards of 2.09(F)(1)(5) and (6). And there the 18 Commission has repeatedly held that the admissibility 19requirements are strict by design. The contention 20 language itself may have included adequacy.

21 The only defect that was identified in the 22 original petition with respect to the application 23 under review was that the license renewal application 24does not address the degradation of the concrete 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 80 drywall due to ASR.

1 And F(1)(6) explicitly requires that when 2 a petitioner believes the application fails to contain 3 required information in the petition, must identify 4 each failure and the supporting reasons for their 5belief. And for a contention of omission, that means 6 that it is the Petitioner's burden to show the facts 7 necessary to establish that the application omits 8 information that should have been included.

9 The petition -- given petition facts 10 demonstrating that omission, and based on an erroneous 11 factual predicate, categorically it bases 12 admissibility on the erroneous assumption.

13 Categorically, degradation due to ASR is not addressed 14 anywhere in the application.

15 The Commission has stated that it is the 16 Petitioner's burden or responsibility to fully read 17 and understand the application and demonstrate how the 18application is lacking. And a misunderstanding of the 19 contents can affect the basis of the admission.

20 As discussed in the applicant's motion to 21 strike and our answer to that motion, their reply 22 impermissibly adds new material to the adjudication, 23 along with some of the new arguments that are added 24 today with respect to the details of the structures 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 81 monitoring program.

1 And by changing the basis from contention 2 of omission to one of inadequacy with respect to this 3 discussion, it vitiates that the timing and the 4 requirements that are associated with the petition.

5 The Petitioner did not include any of the good cause 6 requirements under 2.09(c) that would be needed to 7 permit new or admitted contentions.

8 And so for these reasons, the Board should 9 find that the Contention 3 is inadmissible because it 10 fails to provide sufficient information showing that 11 the required information is omitted, and it fails to 12 show that it didn't -- fails to demonstrate that the 13 materials --

14JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Could I 15interrupt quickly, Mr. Gillespie? This is Judge 16 Wardwell.17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.

18JUDGE WARDWELL: Where in your original 19petition -- where in your answer did you claim this 20 was a contention of omission?

21 I also -- on page 29, you state that the 22 petition argues that the applicant fails to properly 23 consider concrete degradation as a result of ASR.

24 That seems to imply that you not only didn't claim it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 82 was a contention of omission, but now you are saying 1 that it's not adequate, if you will.

2MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, while the term 3"contention of omission" may not have been included on 4 page 29 or 30 --

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry?

6 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. Could you --

7I didn't -- oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. While it may not 8 have included anything specifically on page 29 or 30 9 that said the words "contention of omission," the 10 issue that we took with the petition itself and why we 11 claim it's inadmissible is because of the statement 12 that the application does not include any discussions 13 of ASR-induced degradation.

14JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, where was that 15statement made in their petition? Wasn't that made 16 under facts? It wasn't made under the contention or 17 under the basis for contention; isn't that correct?

18MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. Could you 19repeat that, Your Honor? Your Honor, could you repeat 20your question? I would like to make sure I'm 21 addressing it properly.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I don't know what 23 my question was. But I'm asking --

24 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 83JUDGE WARDWELL: When you -- you know, my 1 last question was you brought up the quote from Sierra 2 Club saying that there wasn't any discussion in the 3 ASR. And I asked you what section of their petition 4 did that come from, and I believe that came from the 5 part that talks about the facts and not dealing with 6the contention itself or the basis. What does the 7 contention say?

8MR. GILLESPIE: The contention itself, 9 Your Honor, states that the LRA does not undertake an 10 adequate aging management review.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

12 MR. GILLESPIE: The only fact that --

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Your initial --

14 MR. GILLESPIE: -- with the application.

15 I'm sorry. Go ahead.

16JUDGE WARDWELL: Your initial -- sorry to 17 interrupt you, but --

18 MR. GILLESPIE: No, no, no.

19JUDGE WARDWELL: -- I want to make sure 20 we're not running out of your time here, if it's 21 nothing that I need, or if you're going down a path I 22don't think I need. Your initial petition didn't 23 claim it wasn't a contention of omission.

24 In fact, you raise other arguments, 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 84 they're fine, but one of them was not that it was a 1contention of omission. And, in fact, you implied 2 that it was a contention of adequacy when you talked 3 about properly considering; isn't that correct?

4 That's a yes or no.

5 MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: And why not? Where did 7I -- where did I misquote you? Or where in your 8 initial petition have you claimed it's an error of 9 omission where in fact you claimed it was not properly 10 addressed on page -- I believe it was 29, if I 11 remember correctly. Yes.

12MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if I could 13 please take a moment to confer with my co-counsel?

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure.

15 (Pause.)16 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the petition 17 itself included both an adequacy claim -- adequacy --

18 the petition itself was unclear as to whether it was 19-- it used both arguments adequacy and omission. In 20 the first sentence of the contention, it raised an 21adequacy argument. But in the bases for the 22 contention, the only issue identified is an omission.

23 And in our response on page 29, we 24 identified that the application -- or the 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 85 that the application does not include any discussion.

1 We underline the word "any." On page 30, in the top 2 paragraph we identify it as an omission -- or that the 3 argument from the petition is that it omits 4discussions. And, again, on page 32, that the LRA 5 omits the discussion.

6 But we felt it was needed to address it 7 from an omission standpoint and from an adequacy 8 standpoint.

9JUDGE WARDWELL: It's always prudent to 10 provide alternative arguments, Mr. Gillespie.

11 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Your Honor.

12JUDGE WARDWELL: While I've got your 13 attention here, if I can find my -- here we go.

14 Rather than wait for any other discussion, just by 15 looking at the time, I thought I would get into a 16 question I've got, so that I can then bow out probably 17 in a little bit and have my answers.

18 But on page 32, you say that "The 19 applicant further states that the enhancements 20 described in the application to its current structures 21 monitoring program will make the program consistent 22with GALL." And then you cite to the license renewal 23 application for that.

24 Does that imply that if those enhancements 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 86 aren't there, and if in fact there are no enhancements 1 related to the ASR, that the program won't be 2 consistent with GALL?

3MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the 4 application itself, also in Appendix B-141.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is this Mr. Gillespie?

6 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, it is.

7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. I just want to 8 make sure.

9MR. GILLESPIE: And B-141 also submits 10 that it will be consistent with the GALL, aside from 11the enhancements. That the application on page B-146 12 through B-147 identifies a number of enhancements that 13 are made --

14JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's -- yeah, B-141 15 on pages 146 and 147?

16 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.

17JUDGE WARDWELL: That is the cite? Which 18 is of those relate to ASR? Or if we want to use the 19term "the reaction with aggregates." It doesn't 20 matter. Either way.

21MR. GILLESPIE: With respect to the terms 22of the enhancements themselves do not state words 23"alkali-silica reaction," but the enhancements 24 themselves still confirm the preventive action, 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 87 the parameters that are monitored all generally relate 1 to, for example, in Element 4, would include visual 2 inspection.

3JUDGE WARDWELL: You're saying they don't 4 apply to ASR; is that correct?

5 MR. GILLESPIE: No. Your Honor, they do 6apply to ASR. They apply to all structures in the 7 structures monitoring program. And, again, with the 8 commitment to the GALL, the items identified in the 9 GALL in Section F(5), F(6), the 10 elements there, 10 including the detection of aging effects, monitoring 11 and trending, corrective action consistent with 12 50 Appendix B, are -- all would be included, and could 13 be inspected in the future.

14JUDGE WARDWELL: So, but none of these are 15 specifically related to ASR as -- I'm just -- I'm 16 trying to clarify a misreading that I had of what you 17 said on page 32, because when I read the sentence "The 18 applicant further states that the enhancements 19 described in the applications to its current 20 structures monitoring program will make the program 21 consistent with GALL," that implied to me that these 22 enhancements were related to ASR because that's what 23 you were talking about throughout your petition --

24 your answer, I should say.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 88 And I was wondering which of those are 1 specifically related to ASR concerns as addressed in 2Seabrook. And I gather none are specifically related 3to that; is that correct? That they're just generally 4 related to ASR like they are everything else dealing 5 with the structures monitoring plan for any concrete 6 structure.

7MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor. I would 8 say these are generally related to the ASR as part of 9the structures monitoring plan. So this is consistent 10 with the guidance -- with the recommendation in the 11 GALL to place -- that is a facility that is accessible 12 to place these structures into the structures 13 monitoring program.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.

15JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Gillespie, let's stay 16 on the structures monitoring program for just a 17 second. This is Judge Kennedy. Sorry.

18 Entergy has stated that they are committed 19to GALL Rev 2. Does the NRC recommend that that 20 version of GALL manages ASR-induced aging effects for 21 concrete structures?

22 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.

23JUDGE KENNEDY: So GALL Rev 2, structures 24 monitoring program, is what would be recommended for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 89 managing that aging effect.

1 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.

2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Is there anything 3missing? I guess I'm reading that there is nothing 4 missing that should be included as an enhancement, 5then? For ASR. Sorry. Yes, everything needed to 6 manage ASR is in GALL Rev 2.

7MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. If I could 8 take one moment to confer.

9 (Pause.)10MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, unless they 11 had -- unless the particular facility had operating 12 experience that would place them outside the bounds of 13 the background of the GALL, the GALL would be bounding 14 for this issue.

15JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.

16 Just, again, one follow-up question about GALL Rev 2.

17 It's something that has bothered us since we got 18involved in this. This is Judge Kennedy again. GALL 19 Rev 2 was issued at about the same time that the 20 Seabrook ASR concerns were identified, and before the 21 Information Notice 2011-20 was issued.

22 So we continue to struggle as how it would 23 contain the required attributes to manage cracking due 24to alkali-silica reaction. I'm curious as to your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 90 reaction to that.

1MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, specifically, 2 GALL Rev 2 identifies in the definition of reaction --

3 alkali-silica reaction, some of the standards 4 identified in the structures monitoring program in 5 GALL Rev 2 are the same as those referenced in the 6 Information Notice.

7 And more specifically with respect to 8 Seabrook Station, that facility, because they had 9 operating experience and had a condition that was 10 found onsite, it would require that additional plant-11 specific programs -- as I mentioned just a little bit 12 ago, if operating experience onsite would -- if there 13 was an identified issue onsite, that may require 14additional action. But as River Bend identified an 15 application, there is no indication of onsite 16 operating experience or ASR that has been identified 17 at this point.

18 And so the recommendation in the GALL 19 placed on the structures monitoring program which 20 primarily uses as the first would be to do an 21 inspection.

22JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm -- this is 23 Judge Kennedy again -- trying to turn it around a 24 different way. So the information that is contained 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 91 in the Information Notice 2011-20, and any subsequent 1 information that came out of the Seabrook 2 investigation of their ASR concerns, does not need to 3 inform the GALL Rev 2 aging management program that 4 the --5MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the GALL 6 Rev 2, Item 10, and the structures monitoring program 7identifies operating experience. And operating 8 experience does need to be taken into account in the 9structures monitoring program. So operating 10 experience like that from Seabrook that was 11 transmitted to licensees in the Information Notice 12 would be taken into account as part of that program.

13JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll give you that one.

14 What about the first six attributes of the aging 15 management program?

16 MR. GILLESPIE: The operating experience 17 would inform -- would inform how the actions are taken 18 onsite.19JUDGE KENNEDY: I think I -- I guess what 20 I'm -- I'm really trying to get at the base level 21here. I am concerned that GALL Rev 2 came out before 22 the issue was identified and the concerns were 23addressed at Seabrook. I'm struggling with 24 understanding how that relevant information as regard 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 92 to detection criteria is contained in GALL Rev 2.

1MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the staff's 2 position at this point is that GALL Rev 2 is 3 sufficient, and there has not been a need to update 4the GALL. It validates the conclusions that were made 5 in it, based on the Information Notice that was sent 6 out.7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And just one last 8 follow-up question that's going to get to the same 9 point. At the closure of the Information Notice, it 10 states that Seabrook was the first plant to address 11 ASR-induced concrete degradation as part of license 12renewal. When the notice was issued, Seabrook was 13 developing aging management programs to manage the 14 effects of aging from ASR-induced degradation.

15 Has anything been provided by Seabrook to 16 manage its aging effect that goes beyond what is 17 currently provided in GALL Rev 2, structures 18 monitoring program?

19 MR. GILLESPIE: If we can take a moment, 20 Your Honor?

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Sure.

22 (Pause.)23MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, because of the 24 operating experience at Seabrook, Seabrook is beyond 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 93 the GALL where they are taking into account Item 10 of 1 the structures monitoring program with the GALL, and 2 have included a plant-specific program that would 3 address that issue consistent with the GALL.

4JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah. And I guess I'm 5 trying to take it a little further. So does that --

6 is there nothing there that needs to be communicated 7 generically to the industry related to an update to 8 GALL?9MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, there is no 10 intent from the staff to submit further communication 11 on that.12JUDGE KENNEDY: Do I read that to mean 13 there is nothing significant there that needs to be 14 communicated to the industry?

15MR. GILLESPIE: I think that it will not.

16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

17MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, in the past 18 when the initiatives under GALL, the practice has been 19 to issue interim staff guidance on an issue, and there 20 is no plans at this point to issue any interim staff 21 guidance.22 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. That's good.

23 Thank you.

24JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. This is Judge 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 94 Wardwell again. I've got -- just some clarification 1here because I got a little confused. But on page 31 2 of your original answer -- of your answer, you state, 3 and I quote, "The LRA does not discuss this ASR --

4 does discuss this ASR potential degradation mechanism 5 in multiple portions of the application, most 6 thoroughly in Subsection 3.5.2.2.2.1, Item 2, cracking 7 due to expansion, reaction with aggregates, and below-8 grade accessibility." 9 Then you cite at the end of that the 10license renewal application at 3.5.1-43. And I assume 11 by that cite you mean that's the item number, correct, 12 that's on page 3.5-35 of the license application?

13 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.

14JUDGE WARDWELL: And are you implying that 15 this 3.5.1-43 is the thorough discussion of potential 16degradation mechanisms? Because as I turn to that, 17 all I see is a table with the item number, component, 18 it says all groups except group 6, then says aging 19effects, cracking due to expansion. That's what we've 20 been talking about. Aging management programs. One 21sentence, further evaluation, not much. I mean, is 22 that what you mean by "thorough"?

23MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor. The 24 thorough discussion in 3.5.2.2.1, Item 2, is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 95 referenced in Footnote 108 immediately after the 1identification of the title of the section. And 2 that's on page 3.5.1-43.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: What was the purpose of 4 citing 3.5.1-43?

5MR. GILLESPIE: These other tables and 6 sections of the application are also other areas where 7 reaction of aggregates is discussed.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

9JUDGE HAWKENS: Do you have anything else, 10 Mr. Gillespie?

11 MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.

13 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.

14 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Taylor?

15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

16JUDGE HAWKENS: In your initial 17 presentation, you exceeded the allotted hour, but we, 18 nevertheless, want to give you a modest amount of time 19 for rebuttal. You may proceed.

20 MR. TAYLOR: Well, it was thanks to your 21 questions, and I appreciate that.

22 The first point I want to make is Mr.

23 Burdick, I believe, cited Section 7.1.1.4 of the ER 24 alleging that Entergy analyzed a combination 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 96 alternatives in response to a question I think from 1 Judge Hawkens.

2 And in looking at that section of the ER, 3 the combination of alternatives were two 400-megawatt 4natural gas combined cycle units. The next one was 5four 50-megawatt biomass units. And then the third 6 one was demand-side management programs.

7 You know, again, there is no discussion of 8 a combination of renewable energy and energy 9 efficiency or demand-side management, whatever you 10want to call it. And that I think is the real crux of 11 why the ER doesn't adequately address the 12 reasonableness of renewable energy and energy 13 efficiency as an alternative.

14JUDGE HAWKENS: But, Mr. Taylor, do you 15 understand it's your burden, under binding Commission 16 case law, to lay a foundation for your claim that 17 renewables and energy efficiency in some combination 18 can satisfy baseload in the region of interest by 19 2025?20 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

21JUDGE HAWKENS: Is there a sentence in 22 your petition where you say a particular source 23 satisfies that condition precedent?

24MR. TAYLOR: Just what we discussed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 97 before, that those studies that I have cited indicate 1 that renewable energy and energy efficiency, 2 especially in combination, can in a very short time 3 produce all the power we need.

4JUDGE HAWKENS: And it's your position 5 that the two most probative studies are those ones 6 that are specific to Louisiana?

7 MR. TAYLOR: I wouldn't say that, no.

8 JUDGE HAWKENS: I thought you said that.

9 MR. TAYLOR: No. I put those in just to 10 show what's going on in Louisiana and that Louisiana 11 could provide renewable energy in time to be online 12 before the River Bend license expires.

13 Those other studies, although they are not 14 Louisiana-specific, certainly indicate how any state, 15 Louisiana or the country as a whole, can get to 16 formulating renewable energy and energy efficiency by 17 a short time period within the time before 2025.

18 So --19JUDGE HAWKENS: I'm going to give you the 20 opportunity again to -- earlier you did say that 21Louisiana was probative. Are there any only extremely 22 probative sources you want to bring to our attention?

23MR. TAYLOR: I think those -- the Jacobson 24 studies, in terms of renewables, and then also we had 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 98 several studies on energy efficiency, that -- it 1starts on page 14 of our petition. And, again, you 2 have to take it all together. You can't take it and 3 separate out each one and say, "Well, that's not going 4to work." You have to take them all together. So 5 that was my point.

6 The other point I wanted to make was about 7baseload. And it's our contention that what these 8 studies say is that taking the Seventh Circuit 9 definition of "baseload" that was cited in I think 10 Entergy's answer, that it's energy intended to 11 continuously produce electricity at or near full 12 capacity with high availability.

13 But that, you know, defines what we're 14 saying that renewable energy and energy efficiency 15taken together can do. It doesn't require a 16stationary physical plant to be able to provide 17baseload. So I think the baseload argument is made in 18 our petition.

19 And, finally, I'd just point the Board to 20 our discussion of the standards for admissibility of 21 contentions in our petition. I'm not sure the Board 22 is aware, but just to emphasize those, I think that 23 Entergy and the Board staff are trying to make the 24 standards too strict, and that we have complied 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 99 the requirements for admissibility.

1 And that's all I have.

2 JUDGE HAWKENS: Judge Hawkens here. Mr.

3 Taylor, I have a question for you --

4 MR. TAYLOR: Sure.

5JUDGE HAWKENS: -- regarding Contention 3.

6 On its face, it looks like an adequacy contention.

7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

8 JUDGE HAWKENS: But I think both Entergy 9 and the staff make rather strong arguments that in 10 your discussion both in the basis section and the 11 factual section you seem to limit it to a contention 12of omission. In particular, in the basis section, you 13 say the license renewal application "does not address 14 the degradation of the concrete drywell due to ASR." 15 And then in the factual section you say, 16"The LRA for River Bend does not include any 17discussion of ASR-induced degradation." And the fact 18 that you don't point to any portion of the license 19 renewal application identifying a deficiency would 20 seem to confirm that at least in your petition you 21intended it to be a contention of omission. Was that 22 your intention?

23 Now, it looks like in your reply it did 24 appear to morph into a contention of deficiency.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 100MR. TAYLOR: Well, it didn't morph. I was 1 trying to clarify what I was arguing in the petition.

2 But as you know, the contention itself clearly is an 3 adequacy contention, and it's -- you know, if that was 4 not clear in the basis and the factual recitation, 5 that's why I clarify that in the reply.

6JUDGE HAWKENS: So it is a challenge to 7 the adequacy of the aging management program rather 8 than a challenge to the failure, the absolute failure 9 to address reaction with aggregates or ASR cracking.

10 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

11JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Do you have 12 anything else, Mr. Taylor?

13 MR. TAYLOR: No. Thank you.

14JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. The case is 15 submitted. Mr. Taylor, I thank you.

16 Mr. Burdick, Mr. Turk, Mr. Roth, and Mr.

17 Gillespie, thank you for the arguments. And I would 18 ask you to stay online for a few minutes to give 19 Jasmine the opportunity to get any additional 20 information from you.

21With that, we are adjourned. Please stay 22 on the line.

23 (Whereupon, the abo ve-entitled matter went 24 off the record at 4:32 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

ML17339A264: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:00, 6 July 2018

Text

Navigation menu

ML17339A264: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:00, 6 July 2018

Text

Navigation menu

Search