ML17339A264
| 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) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
River Bend Station Unit 1 Oral Argument Docket Number: 50-458-LR ASLBP Number: 17-956-01-LR-BD01 Location: teleconference Date: Thursday, November 30, 2017 Work Order No.: NRC-3410 Pages 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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 ---------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket No.
9 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, : 50-458-LR 10 INC. : ASLBP No.
11 (River Bend Station, : 17-956-01-LR-BD01 12 Unit 1) :
13 ---------------------x 14 Thursday, November 30, 2017 15 16 Teleconference 17 18 BEFORE:
19 E. ROY HAWKENS, Chairman 20 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 21 RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 Counsel for the Applicant, Entergy Operations, 3 Inc.:
4 STEPHEN BURDICK, ESQ.
5 KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.
6 of: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 7 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 8 Washington, D.C. 20004 9 (202) 739-3000 10 stephen.burdick@morganlewis.com 11 kathryn.sutton@morganlewis.com 12 13 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
14 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
15 DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.
16 JOE I. GILLESPIE, ESQ.
17 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Office of the General Counsel 19 Mail Stop O-15D21 20 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 21 (301) 415-4126 22 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 23 david.roth@nrc.gov 24 joe.gillespie@nrc.gov 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 On Behalf of the Sierra Club:
2 WALLACE L. TAYLOR, ESQ.
3 of: Wallace L. Taylor Law Firm 4 118 3rd Avenue SE 5 Suite 326 6 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 7 (202) 547-1141 8 wtaylorlaw@aol.com 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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 CONTENTS 2 Introductory Comments by Judge Hawkens . . . . . 5 3 Oral Argument by Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Oral Argument by Entergy . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5 Oral Argument by NRC Staff . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6 Rebuttal by Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 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) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 JUDGE HAWKENS: We are conducting an oral 4 argument by telephone in a case entitled Entergy 5 Operations, Incorporated, River Bend Station, Unit 1, 6 Docket Number 50-458-LR.
7 My name is Roy Hawkens. I'm Chairman of 8 this Licensing Board. I am joined in NRC headquarters 9 by Judge Mike Kennedy and Judge Rich Wardwell. Judge 10 Kennedy has his doctorate in nuclear engineering.
11 Judge Wardwell has his doctorate in civil engineering.
12 Today's argument is in response to a 13 petition to intervene filed by the Sierra Club. The 14 petition challenges requests by Entergy Operations to 15 renew the operating license for the River Bend 16 Station, Unit 1 nuclear reactor, which is located near 17 St. Francisville, Louisiana.
18 For the petition to be granted, Sierra 19 Club must demonstrate standing. It must show at least 20 one admissible contention as measured by the NRC's 21 six-factor contention admissibility standard.
22 Would counsel for the parties please 23 introduce themselves for the record, starting with the 24 Sierra Club?
25 MR. TAYLOR: I'm Wallace Taylor from Cedar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 Rapids, Iowa.
2 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. Entergy?
3 MR. BURDICK: Good afternoon. My name is 4 Stephen Burdick. I'm a partner with the law firm 5 Morgan Lewis and counsel to Entergy for this 6 proceeding. I am joined by my colleague, Kathryn 7 Sutton, a partner from Morgan Lewis. And we are 8 joined by in-house counsel and license renewal 9 personnel from Entergy who will be able to help us 10 respond to any of the Board's questions today, if 11 necessary.
12 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. And I 13 understand that you, Mr. Burdick, will be presenting 14 arguing; is that correct?
15 MR. BURDICK: That is correct.
16 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you. Counsel for 17 NRC staff, please introduce yourselves.
18 MR. TURK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My 19 name is Sherwin Turk. I am one of the three co-20 counsel for the NRC staff in this proceeding. With me 21 in the room today are David Roth and Joseph Gillespie, 22 who are joining me as co-counsel in this proceeding.
23 We also have a number of NRC staff 24 technical members with us, the most senior of which 25 are Mr. Joseph Donohue and Mr. Benjamin Beasley. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 I'll provide spellings to the court reporter later.
2 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.
3 And I understand Mr. Roth will be presenting argument 4 on Contentions 1 and 2, and Mr. Gillespie on 5 Contention 3; is that correct?
6 MR. TURK: That's correct, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you. As 8 indicated in the Board's scheduling order, we will 9 hear first from Sierra Club, then from Entergy, and 10 then from the NRC staff. Sierra Club has been allotted 11 60 minutes of argument time, and it may reserve up to 12 15 minutes for rebuttal. Entergy and the NRC staff 13 each is allotted 30 minutes of argument time.
14 Mr. Taylor, I understand you'd like to 15 reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal; is that correct?
16 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Mr. Taylor, 18 you may proceed.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. This contention 20 -- or this petition actually presents three 21 contentions. I thought at first it might be well to 22 review the admissibility standards for contentions 23 that inform the standards that you laid out earlier in 24 2.309.
25 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Taylor, this is Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 Hawkens. I think that's a good approach once we get 2 to the contentions. Although nobody challenges 3 standing here, the Board does have an obligation to 4 evaluate it and assess standing. And before the 5 petition may be granted, I have to affirmatively 6 conclude that standing does exist.
7 To your knowledge, has the Commission ever 8 held that the 50-mile proximity presumption applies in 9 a license renewal case?
10 MR. TAYLOR: That's my understanding, yes.
11 I don't have any cases in front of me, but I have --
12 I have researched that, and I believe that's correct.
13 JUDGE HAWKENS: No. That the Commission 14 has directly held?
15 MR. TAYLOR: The 50-mile radius is a 16 presumption. And unless that presumption is rebutted, 17 I believe it stands.
18 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, if the Commission 19 precedent, case law holds that it applies in certain 20 cases, not all cases, generally it does not apply in 21 license amendment cases. And this, although it's a 22 license renewal case, I believe it's characterized as 23 a license amendment case, and I'm just -- although I'm 24 familiar with Board decisions applying to 50-mile 25 presumption, I was not aware of any Commission case NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 law which makes that holding. And I guess you're not 2 aware of any either; is that correct?
3 MR. TAYLOR: No, I'm not.
4 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.
5 You can proceed, then, to your contentions.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. Contention 1 was 7 that the environmental report that was filed by 8 Entergy does not properly and adequately state a 9 purpose and need for the relicensing of the River Bend 10 Station. The purpose and need is set out in Section 11 1.0 of the environmental report, or the ER, and we 12 have cited to that in our -- in our petition.
13 And that section references a guidance 14 document that essentially says, as I see it, that the 15 purpose and need of the project or the action is to 16 relicense River Bend. Even though the guidance 17 document talks about the relicensing being an option, 18 there really is no other option that's being offered 19 because it says the proposed action is to relicense 20 the River Bend plant. So the --
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: Can I interrupt? This is 22 Judge --
23 MR. TAYLOR: You bet.
24 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- Hawkens again.
25 MR. TAYLOR: You bet.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 JUDGE HAWKENS: I am looking at that, the 2 purpose and need statement, and as I read it it says 3 that the purpose and need is to provide an option that 4 allows for baseload power generation capability beyond 5 the term of the current nuclear power plant. So it's 6 to provide that option.
7 That's not the only option, though, and 8 that's revealed by -- I think Entergy represented that 9 at least 18 alternatives to that option were 10 identified. So I find it difficult to understand your 11 assertion that this is the only option contemplated by 12 the purpose and need statement, much less by the ER.
13 MR. TAYLOR: As I read the ER, the -- they 14 looked at other alternatives. But if you look at the 15 purpose and need statement, it refers to simply 16 relicensing the River Bend Station. And in fact, in 17 the staff answer at page 18 and 19, it says that the 18 purpose and need is to preserve continued operation of 19 the reactor. That means relicensing the reactor.
20 JUDGE HAWKENS: What did you just cite?
21 MR. TAYLOR: The answer that was filed by 22 the NRC staff.
23 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'm not really 24 interested in the answer right now. For present 25 purposes, I'm looking at the purpose and need for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 action. The action is the proposed renewal of the 2 plant. The purpose and need, though, by the expressed 3 language as I read it is to provide an option that 4 allows for baseload power generation beyond the term 5 of the current nuclear plant.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Well, then, I guess -- I 7 don't want to repeat myself necessarily, but the --
8 they talk about an option, but it's in terms of 9 preserving the operation of River Bend to provide the 10 power that River Bend has been providing.
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, the proposed action 12 would preserve that option. But the purpose and need 13 just identifies that as an option, and then the 14 alternatives analysis look at a number of other 15 alternatives.
16 MR. TAYLOR: But it seems to me looking at 17 the purpose and need statement that it really doesn't 18 preserve any other options other than renewing the 19 license. I mean, the language talks about preserving 20 other options, but it doesn't -- it still talks in 21 terms of renewing the license in order to preserve 22 that -- River Bend continuing to operate and provide 23 power.
24 JUDGE HAWKENS: Your principle concern 25 with this purpose and need statement is that it's so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 narrow it doesn't -- it doesn't allow for sufficient 2 consideration of alternatives?
3 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
4 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. So this is really 5 -- it seems to me maybe it's best to go into the 6 consideration of alternatives, because I -- by the 7 plain language, it's difficult for me to understand 8 your interpretation that this only contemplates one 9 alternative, given the number of alternatives that 10 were in fact considered.
11 I have another question also regarding 12 your advocation argument. You made an advocation 13 argument in your opening pleading. You did not renew 14 it in your reply, and I'm wondering, are you 15 preserving that argument? Or are you abandoning that?
16 And if you are preserving it, I'd like a further 17 explanation of it.
18 MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, Judge. I didn't 19 understand what allegation it was you were referring 20 to.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: You said the NRC is 22 advocating its duty under NEPA by deferring to 23 decisions by other decisionmakers on energy planning.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Again, that goes to 25 the guidance document that I cited, and they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 saying that the purpose and need will depend on 2 decisions by other decisionmakers, other agencies, 3 other decisionmakers.
4 And my point was that the purpose and need 5 has to be based on what the NRC finds to be -- and 6 this Board finds to be the proper purpose and need for 7 River Bend relicensing, and that the -- when the NRC 8 was providing the guidance that Entergy says they are 9 relying on, deferred to other agencies, at least in 10 some sense or to some extent to other agencies.
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: So are you saying that 12 NEPA imposes a statutory obligation on the NRC to make 13 engineering -- excuse me, energy planning decisions 14 for purposes of the EIS?
15 MR. TAYLOR: I think that the -- it 16 imposes on the NRC, and in looking at this 17 environmental report, to look at the purpose and need 18 in terms of whether or not it allows the NRC to make 19 that decision as to what the purpose and need is 20 rather than deferring to other agencies.
21 And by deferring to other agencies, the 22 NRC is not carrying out its duty to this particular 23 instance with this particular plant to properly 24 examine the purpose and need, whether it's too narrow, 25 whether it allows for reasonable examination of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 alternatives.
2 JUDGE HAWKENS: I think your answer to my 3 question was yes. Let me pose it again and see --
4 I'll try to pose it in a way that you can answer yes 5 or no.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE HAWKENS: Does NEPA impose a 8 statutory obligation in this instance on the NRC to 9 engage in energy planning decisions?
10 MR. TAYLOR: Well --
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: That would be a yes or no.
12 MR. TAYLOR: The way you've posed the 13 question, no, I don't think that is the issue.
14 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, if it hasn't, then 15 to the extent the NRC has not second-guessed any 16 energy planning decisions here, it has not advocated 17 its responsibilities under NEPA; is that correct?
18 MR. TAYLOR: I think it has, because we're 19 not talking about energy planning decisions; we're 20 talking -- at least I'm not.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: What are you -- what 22 responsibility did the NRC advocate then?
23 MR. TAYLOR: It advocated the 24 responsibility to look at the purpose and need in 25 terms of whether or not the relicensing of River Bend NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 is needed in terms of providing the power that is 2 necessary in terms of looking at the alternatives. I 3 don't think it's requiring the NRC to engage in the 4 types of decisions that you were referring to.
5 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay.
6 MR. TAYLOR: But we were talking about the 7 purpose and need for the relicensing of River Bend, 8 and I think that does require the NRC to take the 9 responsibility to determine whether there is a purpose 10 and need for the relicensing of River Bend.
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: Which, again, to me this 12 line of argument by you tends to merge into Contention 13 2 where you're challenging their alternatives 14 analysis.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I do think 16 Contentions 1 and 2 have some relationship, because 17 the purpose and need dictates the range of 18 alternative.
19 JUDGE HAWKENS: If you have nothing more 20 to add on Contention 1, why don't you proceed to 21 Contention 2, please.
22 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. We're contending here 23 that there was not an adequate discussion or analysis 24 of the alternatives of renewable energy and energy 25 efficiency. 40 CFR 1502.14 says that the agency must NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 2 alternatives.
3 We don't believe that renewable energy and 4 energy efficiency were given substantial treatment.
5 This is a valid contention, I believe. Entergy's 6 argument is that these alternatives were considered, 7 but whether or not they were adequately considered is 8 a factual issue for the board to decide at an 9 adjudicatory hearing, and it's not an issue of the 10 admissibility of the contention.
11 And, in fact, renewable energy and energy 12 efficiency were not even considered as reasonable 13 alternatives and --
14 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, that statement, 15 you're saying they weren't considered in combination 16 or they weren't considered at all?
17 MR. TAYLOR: The ER itself says that 18 renewable energy and energy efficiency, or they call 19 it demand-side control, were not considered as 20 reasonable alternatives. So they were -- they were 21 mentioned, but they were discounted as reasonable 22 alternatives, and I think there were two reasons for 23 that that are not supported, and the first is that, as 24 you just indicated, they were discussed in isolation.
25 Wind was discussed as to whether it, by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 itself, would be a reasonable alternative at the 2 relicensing of River Bend. Solar was discussed by 3 itself, as to whether it would be a reasonable 4 alternative. And then energy efficiency or demand-5 side management would, by itself, be a reasonable 6 alternative.
7 But I want to be clear on our petition 8 that you have to take all of these in combination, 9 together with an adequate transmission grid, to really 10 determine whether or not renewable energy and energy 11 efficiency are reasonable alternatives. And they 12 didn't do that.
13 And as I read the ER, the main reason, at 14 least for the renewable energy alternatives -- wind 15 and solar -- for discounting those was that there is 16 no current technology for storing the energy. But, 17 again, the factual basis that we have cited 18 extensively in our petition is that you don't need 19 storage if you have a robust system of renewable 20 energy and transmission.
21 And so I think for those two reasons that 22 the discussion was not sufficient, was not the 23 rigorous discussion that is required by NEPA regarding 24 alternatives. And --
25 JUDGE HAWKENS: Are you --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Go ahead if you 2 have a question.
3 JUDGE HAWKENS: Yes. Are you familiar 4 with the Commission decisions in the Davis-Besse case 5 and the Seabrook case dealing with energy 6 alternatives?
7 MR. TAYLOR: I believe so.
8 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. In those 9 cases, the Commission said the following. "For an 10 alternate energy source to be considered reasonable, 11 the alternative should be commercially viable and 12 technically capable of producing the requisite amount 13 of baseload power in the region of interest by the 14 time the license expires." In this case, that would 15 be 2025.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Yes.
17 JUDGE HAWKENS: And it also indicated the 18 burden is on the petitioner to lay a foundation for 19 the petitioner's claim that these energy alternatives 20 could satisfy baseload demand in the region of 21 interest by the time the license expired.
22 Now, you have cited quite a number of 23 sources that indicate wind and solar have the 24 potential of producing energy in certain locations.
25 But can you point to me, say, which particular sources NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 are most availing to you to satisfy the burden you 2 have of demonstrating that wind and solar and energy 3 efficiency could satisfy the baseload demand in the 4 region of interest by 2025?
5 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Starting on page 10 of 6 our petition, the studies that were done by Mark 7 Jacobson and others do talk about the availability of 8 supplying the necessary power in the next few years, 9 and that was back in 2007.
10 JUDGE HAWKENS: I'm looking at page 10, 11 and which one are you talking -- the Jacobson, is this 12 the first full paragraph? Or is it --
13 MR. TAYLOR: Well, the --
14 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- the report from 2007 15 and 2009?
16 MR. TAYLOR: 2007 and 2009, and then on 17 page 11 there is a 2011 report. All of those were 18 done with the finding that renewable energy would be 19 able to supply sufficient power in the next few years.
20 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Well, I -- my 21 reading of Davis-Besse and Seabrook is it has to be 22 more specific than that. It has to -- has to provide 23 some support that it will be commercially viable in 24 the region of interest to supply the required baseload 25 demand by 2025.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 And looking at the sites on page 10 and 2 11, I don't see that specificity. I don't see that 3 region of interest. I don't see 2025, and I don't see 4 anything about the baseload capability. It supports 5 the conclusion that there is a possibility, but the 6 Commission in Davis-Besse expressly said that the mere 7 possibility of a combination providing baseload in the 8 region of interest is insufficient. You have to 9 demonstrate the commercial viability to provide that 10 about a power.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Those reports do indicate 12 that at the time they were issued that they would be 13 -- that it could be viable within the next few years.
14 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, again, that's a mere 15 possibility. Do they talk about the region of 16 interest? Do they talk about Louisiana?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Not specifically. That's why 18 I put in later on the information from the Louisiana 19 Department of Natural Resources or whatever they call 20 their agency there.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Let's -- I'd like 22 you to turn to that, please. Can you --
23 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. Just a minute.
24 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- turn the Board to the 25 page we should be looking at with you?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 MR. TAYLOR: You bet. It starts on 2 page 29 of my petition. A 2004 study of offshore wind 3 --
4 JUDGE HAWKENS: What -- this is a study by 5 Bryan Crouch?
6 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. And then there's 7 another study also by Crouch and another man named 8 Spreche, I guess it is, S-P-R-E-C-H-E. And it 9 indicates the progress Louisiana is making on both 10 wind and solar.
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'm looking at 12 those, and actually I'm -- I'm looking at the first 13 study right now by Bryan Crouch.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: And you do indicate that 16 it talks about the potential for offshore wind 17 projects in Louisiana. But I note on page 2 of that 18 study it identifies drawbacks about high capital 19 costs, intermittency of wind, aesthetics, and bird 20 fatalities. And on page 3 of that study it says 21 Louisiana's offshore wind resource is to date still 22 somewhat unknown. And at the end of the day, it 23 simply doesn't address whether it's commercially 24 viable for offshore wind to provide baseload power in 25 Louisiana by 2025.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think that, you know, 2 looking at the statements that are in there and the 3 progress that Louisiana has made, I think that if the 4 license to River Bend were not renewed that, you know, 5 that would ramp up the continued progress toward 6 renewable energy in Louisiana.
7 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, you talk about the 8 progress Louisiana has made. But on 29 -- page 29 of 9 your petition, you say, "Louisiana has not thus far 10 been a leader in developing renewable energy and 11 energy efficiency."
12 MR. TAYLOR: Right.
13 JUDGE HAWKENS: So it has not made very 14 much progress thus far, and I don't see anything in 15 the 2004 Bryan Crouch study that would support the 16 conclusion that offshore wind projects could support 17 this baseload power that would be needed by 2025.
18 That's my reading. Correct me if I'm 19 wrong.
20 MR. TAYLOR: No. And the Crouch studies, 21 you know, don't say we will have sufficient power by 22 2025, but they do indicate the progress Louisiana is 23 making. And my point is that if River Bend is not --
24 license is not renewed, that would be an impetus for 25 Louisiana to continue its progress on a more rigorous NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 scale.
2 So that's why I believe that it -- it does 3 at least present the issue in a way that provides 4 admissibility. And then at a hearing then we could 5 flesh out the details more.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: Well, it's difficult for 7 me to see that that -- the Crouch 2004 study provides 8 an adequate foundation. It's more in the realm of 9 hypotheticals and possibilities, and, in fact, it 10 talks as much about the drawbacks as it does the 11 possibilities.
12 Does the 2005 report help you any more 13 than the 2004?
14 MR. TAYLOR: I think it just indicates the 15 further ability of Louisiana and the further progress 16 of Louisiana. And I think it does provide a more firm 17 basis than what you've indicated for the 2004 study.
18 It says, "Wind turbine capacity will become less 19 expensive as turbine efficiencies improve, and turbine 20 prices will come down. As these happen, windfarms may 21 become viable in less-than-classified wind sources --
22 wind resources," which means places like Louisiana.
23 So I think that that does provide some 24 more optimism that Louisiana can, with renewable 25 energy and energy efficiency, substitute for the power NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 being provided by River Bend.
2 JUDGE HAWKENS: Are you aware the economic 3 analysis you're citing here was for a 50-megawatt 4 offshore windfarm?
5 MR. TAYLOR: It was offshore, yes.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: Which is nowhere near the 7 baseload, the 967-megawatt baseload that Entergy would 8 be required to replace if the River Bend plant was not 9 renewed?
10 MR. TAYLOR: Right. That was what that 11 study was about, but it indicates that, you know, 12 certainly that can be expanded.
13 JUDGE HAWKENS: Were you aware that that 14 report also conceded that the economics of offshore 15 wind power is not well-established because the 16 offshore wind regime is still an unknown?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. There are some 18 uncertainties, but certainly it seems to me that both 19 of those reports indicate optimistically that 20 Louisiana is making progress and can continue to make 21 progress toward renewable energy. That was the point 22 of those reports being entered.
23 JUDGE HAWKENS: Are those the reports you 24 would rely on most heavily? Are those the best 25 sources for you endeavoring to lay a foundation for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 this contention?
2 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. At this point, yes.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Wallace, this is Judge 4 Kennedy. I'm just curious, in the studies you have 5 been discussing with Judge Hawkens, is there any 6 projections in there of megawatt capacities from wind 7 in the timeframe we're talking about, any cost 8 estimates to replace the baseload power from River 9 Bend Station?
10 MR. TAYLOR: I don't believe so. I'd have 11 to look at the reports again, but --
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: So what would you offer up 13 to challenge Entergy's -- or the environmental 14 report's assessment of this option? I mean, this 15 sounds speculative to me. If I was an electricity 16 customer in the State of Louisiana, I'd want more 17 confidence than this. But, I mean, I'll give you an 18 opportunity to offer up what gives you the confidence 19 that this can happen.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Well, because it has been 21 done other places.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: In this capacity?
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I'm from Iowa, 24 and we have very vigorously installed wind power here, 25 and solar is becoming a bigger share. But beyond NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 that, the studies I have presented were presented 2 because they show both that renewable energy and 3 energy efficiency can, in a very short time, be the 4 supplier of all the energy we need.
5 And that's why I went into such great 6 detail and tried to present as many studies as I could 7 find to support the factual basis for this contention.
8 And, you know, nobody can say for sure how quickly 9 Louisiana will ramp up their energy renewal and energy 10 efficiency.
11 But if they know that the license for 12 River Bend will not be renewed, that is an incentive 13 to vigorously pursue renewable energy and energy 14 efficiency as a replacement. And the purpose of my 15 references that I put in the petition are to show that 16 it can be done.
17 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Do you have 18 anything more on Contention 2?
19 MR. TAYLOR: I don't believe so, unless 20 you have some more questions.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Let's proceed 22 to Contention 3, please.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. This has to do with 24 alkali-silica reaction that causes deterioration of 25 the concrete structures in the reactor. And there is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 no dispute, I don't believe, that alkali-silica 2 reaction, or ASR, is something that must be adequately 3 addressed in the license renewal application.
4 Now, Entergy claims that they did address 5 that, but if you look at it in terms of that 6 Information Notice that was sent out by the NRC 7 regarding ASR after they found a problem at Seabrook, 8 the ER in this case does not address the specific 9 concerns that were set out in that Information Notice.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.
11 Could you briefly summarize what those concerns were 12 and what the recommendations were of that Information 13 Notice?
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, just a minute. Let me 15 pull it out here. Yes. What the notice says is that 16 ASTM has several standards for testing aggregates 17 during construction, but ASTM issued updated standards 18 and it lists the standards. It provided guidance in 19 the appendices of two other standards. The cautions 20 that the tests described in the standards that had 21 been used may not accurately predict aggregate 22 reactivity, microcrystalline -- or reactivity when 23 dealing with late or slow, expanding aggregates 24 containing strained quartz or microcrystalline quartz.
25 Therefore, licensees that tested using NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 ASTM C227 and ASTM C289 could have concrete that is 2 acceptable to ASR-induced degradation. And so they're 3 recommending that there be more individual inspection 4 and that it be done pursuant to updated standards.
5 And it looks to me like from reading the ER, as near 6 as you could tell, I mean, it was a very -- it seemed 7 to me a very brief discussion, and it simply referred 8 to a management plan without, you know, really 9 describing that plan.
10 And so it wasn't clear that River Bend is 11 going to comply with the recommendations in this 12 Information Notice.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you read those 14 recommendations? Not a summary of what took place 15 necessarily with the updated standards or the activity 16 that took place or concerns developed during Seabrook, 17 but just what the final recommendations are, and the 18 page number on the Information Notice where it 19 occurred.
20 MR. TAYLOR: This would be on page 4, 21 first full paragraph. I believe that would be it. It 22 says, "Once visual indications of ASR-induced concrete 23 degradation have been identified, additional actions 24 to evaluate and monitor the condition, as recommended 25 in the Federal Highway Administration report, may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 include confirming the presence of ASR through 2 microscopic examination of concrete cores, verifying 3 the mechanical properties through testing of concrete 4 cores, and in situ monitoring of the concrete over 5 time, such as crack mapping and monitoring of concrete 6 relative humidity.
7 "Nuclear power plant licensees may 8 consider these actions to determine the remaining 9 potential reactivity and the rate of ASR progression, 10 because safety-related structures and non-safety-11 related structures whose failure could affect safety-12 related structures are within the scope of the 13 maintenance rule.
14 "Licensees are required to monitor the 15 condition of the structures against licensee-16 established goals to provide reasonable assurance that 17 the structures are capable of fulfilling their 18 intended functions. If ASR-induced degradation is 19 identified in these structures, this condition 20 monitoring would include determining the extent and 21 rate of the degradation."
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: In several of those 23 statements, I heard the word "may" a lot, and that is 24 also what I read. And it seemed to me, as I read 25 that, that those were merely statements of potential NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 activity or potential results or potential actions 2 rather than any firm recommendation. Is my reading of 3 that correct, or do you have a different reading that 4 you would like to propose?
5 MR. TAYLOR: Well, it isn't requiring 6 other plants or other reactors to do this, but it 7 certainly seems to me that they are recommending it.
8 I mean, it could have been stronger, but it seems to 9 me they are certainly recommending it, and that any 10 other nuclear plant operator would be well-advised to 11 follow these suggestions.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, in fact, that's the 13 word I was going to use. Aren't they, at best, just 14 a suggestion? Because as soon as you read a "may,"
15 that also implies there is a may not. Isn't that 16 correct?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I'm not sure in this 18 context there is. The "may not" I suppose would be 19 that, just as I said, it's not a requirement, but 20 there is a strong suggestion that they do this.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Wallace, this is Judge 23 Kennedy. You started your opening -- you started the 24 initial remarks on this topic with saying that the 25 Information Notice I guess -- I don't know what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 right -- loss of words, but you were criticizing the 2 use of visual inspection I believe in terms of 3 detecting ASR-induced degradation.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Right.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that what you said in 6 the beginning? And then we got into this more 7 specific concern.
8 MR. TAYLOR: As I read this Information 9 Notice, it's saying that a visual inspection is not 10 necessarily enough, that you're going to need to do 11 some further testing.
12 JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens.
13 Can you point in the Information Notice where it said 14 that? Because my reading is that once a visual 15 inspection detests -- detects ASR degradation, then 16 these further actions may be considered, should be 17 taken. But in the initial instance, all I see is that 18 visual inspections are required.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Visual inspections 20 would be the first line of defense, so to speak.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: And then it's not until 22 it's detected by visual inspection that anything else 23 may be required or would be advised to be taken. Am 24 I reading that wrong? And if I am, please point it 25 out in the Information Notice where I'm reading it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 wrong.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Well, no, you're not 3 necessarily reading it wrong. It says visual 4 inspections of concrete can identify the unique map or 5 pattern cracking. Additional information will be --
6 okay. And then it says that then further testing 7 would be appropriate.
8 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. And do you have --
9 do you have any problem with that approach? Do you 10 believe that it's sufficient to wait until it's 11 observed as cracking rather than do any preemptive 12 testing beforehand that might indicate conditions that 13 are conducive for ASR?
14 MR. TAYLOR: Based on this Information 15 Notice, I have no reason to think that additional 16 testing would be required prior to visual inspection.
17 What struck me was that the Information Notice talks 18 about some standards that may have been used that this 19 Information Notice indicates would not be appropriate 20 any longer, that the situation seemed to have called 21 those into question.
22 And that was my concern about the ER in 23 this case, that there is no indication as to what 24 standards they are using or -- at least as far as I 25 could see, no -- no indication of what standards they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 are using in terms of the standards that are mentioned 2 in this Information Notice.
3 JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens 4 again. On page 1 of your petition --
5 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- you say the Information 7 Notice makes clear that ASR-induced degradation must 8 be considered in the context for license renewal.
9 Now, can you direct me to the page and the paragraph 10 where the Information Notice imposes that requirement?
11 MR. TAYLOR: The notice doesn't impose 12 that requirement. My intent on making that statement 13 was that the Information Notice indicates that in 14 terms of an ER I believe that that notice suggests 15 that in order for the ER to be adequate it must 16 address the concerns and the points expressed in that 17 notice.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Taylor, this is Judge 19 Kennedy. I mean, I guess I have a different read of 20 this. I mean, it's clear to me from the application 21 that River Bend did not use these standards. So is 22 that part of the nub of your concern in this 23 contention, that they did not use these specific 24 standards?
25 MR. TAYLOR: That's part of it, yes. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 also that the -- the issue was not discussed in the 2 terms of this notice. I mean, he doesn't necessarily 3 have to mention this notice, but it wasn't discussed 4 in the context of this notice or the concerns 5 expressed in this notice. And it -- that would be our 6 -- it just referred to an aging monitoring plan that 7 wasn't really described in any detail.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you have -- this is 9 Judge Kennedy again. I guess my read of the 10 Information Notice on page 3 is pointing to non-11 reactive aggregates are present, so that these are 12 potentially standards that could have eliminated the 13 potential for ASR degradation. Is that what you think 14 this Information Notice is stating, or do you have a 15 different read of it?
16 MR. TAYLOR: Not necessarily, and I will 17 admit that, as we go to the hearing, this is going to 18 have to be fleshed out a little more. But all I had 19 was this Information Notice in front of me.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess what I'm looking 21 at is the first sentence on page 3 under Discussion, 22 and I can't remember if you -- if you had identified 23 that sentence. And it carries on through the ASTM 24 standard.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, that's what I read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 earlier. Yes.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: It points out that this 3 verified that only non-reactive aggregates are 4 present. And I don't -- I mean, I don't see where 5 Entergy is asserting that they don't have reactive 6 aggregates in their plant. So I'm not surprised, but 7 I am sensing that you're surprised that these aren't 8 identified there.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm trying to understand 11 if this is one of the specific concerns --
12 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that you're addressing.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: That you're identifying.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell 18 again. Getting back to the initial inspection, do you 19 agree that Entergy's aging management plan now is --
20 for these is -- for this aspect is now part of the --
21 or incorporated within the structure's monitoring 22 program, presented really in B.1.41 of license renewal 23 application?
24 MR. TAYLOR: They say they have an aging 25 management program. My concern was that, insofar as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 I could see from the application, the contours of that 2 program and specifically in the context of the 3 concerns about the ASR were not set out in -- so it 4 was hard to know, you know, if they were really 5 addressing the concerns expressed in this notice.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, didn't -- isn't the 7 first step in the structure's monitoring program a 8 visual inspection? In fact, that's what the heart of 9 it is; is it not? And that's what you were advocating 10 as the first step in this, and future steps would fall 11 from that; would it not?
12 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. But I think those 13 future steps ought to be laid out, too.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I -- this is Judge 16 Kennedy, Mr. Taylor. I take this discussion to mean 17 that Sierra Club is no longer concerned that ASR is 18 not being discussed in the license renewal 19 application, but rather that it is not adequately 20 being discussed?
21 MR. TAYLOR: Right. Right. Yes.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
23 JUDGE HAWKENS: And this is Judge Hawkens.
24 I want to be clear: the burden is on you to identify 25 with specificity the deficiency. Please tell me what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 the deficiency is again?
2 MR. TAYLOR: The deficiency is that the 3 application does not discuss ASR in the terms that are 4 in this Information Notice, specifically with regard 5 to the standards that we have talked about, and that 6 there is nothing in the application, at least nothing 7 I could see, that indicated that the aging management 8 plan would take into consideration the concerns that 9 were expressed in that notice.
10 JUDGE HAWKENS: And those -- again, I want 11 to make sure, when you say it doesn't include the 12 standards, it doesn't include the steps Entergy should 13 take once it visually identifies ASR cracking?
14 MR. TAYLOR: No. I'm talking about the 15 ASTM standards that were mentioned on page 3 of the 16 report. As I read the report, there are some 17 standards that had been used that the Commission 18 thought were no longer adequate.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy.
20 Did you look in the River Bend license renewal 21 application to see what standard Entergy has 22 identified for these materials in their station?
23 MR. TAYLOR: I looked and tried to find 24 some, but I didn't see it.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I would agree with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 you I didn't see these standards in there, but they 2 have identified other standards. Again, the plan was 3 constructed I would guess at least 30 years ago. So 4 I think they have come right out and stated that they 5 did not use these standards, not in the same terms 6 that we're talking about here, but they identified a 7 different set of standards. And I guess I'm trying to 8 understand what the problem with that is.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Well, for license renewal, I 10 think they have to comply with current appropriate 11 standards.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I mean, the plant 13 was constructed before this was ever discovered.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: That's one concern I have.
16 The other is, my read of the Information Notice is 17 that these standards are a pathway to eliminating the 18 need to be concerned with the aging effect that could 19 come from ASR-induced degradation.
20 And Entergy, from what I can tell, and you 21 can -- you have an opportunity here to tell me I'm 22 wrong -- has identified in their application that they 23 will manage this -- aging effects due to this aging 24 mechanism at River Bend Station.
25 So I'm at a loss to understand why there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 is a significance to these standards not being 2 specifically called out in the River Bend application.
3 So I'm not sure why this is material.
4 MR. TAYLOR: As I read the Information 5 Notice, information was saying that reactors should 6 use these newer standards and base their management 7 programs on those.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: What do you think -- this 9 is Judge Wardwell again. What do you think these 10 standards say? Are they standards in regards to 11 constructing the concrete, or are these standards of 12 what you should be doing to test to look for ASR?
13 What's your understanding of these standards?
14 MR. TAYLOR: It looks to me like they're 15 designed to predict aggregate reactivity when dealing 16 with late or slow-expanding aggregates containing 17 strained quartz or microcrystalline quartz. So they 18 are standards that are used, as I understand it -- and 19 I'm not an engineer -- to predict, you know, whether 20 or not there is a problem with ASR.
21 JUDGE HAWKENS: This is Judge Hawkens. I 22 think you're correct, but look at the first sentence.
23 These are standards for testing during construction.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.
25 JUDGE HAWKENS: That was over 20 years NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 ago. We're well beyond that. So it seems to me those 2 standards can't be applied at this point, and Entergy 3 has recognized that, and, therefore, they have 4 included in their aging management plan visual 5 inspections to identify this problem if it occurs.
6 MR. TAYLOR: But Seabrook had been 7 constructed, too, and they're still, it looks like, 8 applying it to Seabrook, as I am understanding it.
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: And show me in the 10 Information Notice where you're drawing that 11 conclusion.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Well, this Information Notice 13 arose because of the finding of ASR at Seabrook, and 14 that's what was the impetus for this notice in the 15 first place.
16 JUDGE HAWKENS: But that paragraph that 17 you provided us with the block quote of says these are 18 standards which should be used or have been used 19 during construction. Based on what occurred at 20 Seabrook, we have determined that certain of these 21 standards should no longer be used. And if they have 22 been used, then the plant operators should be aware 23 that ASR degradation can occur. That's how I read 24 that block paragraph.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy. If NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 you go to the top of the page, it discusses 2 specifically that Seabrook Station have tested their 3 concrete using ASTM C289, which is one of the ones 4 that is being called out here that needs to be 5 updated. So I think this whole thing sort of, in my 6 mind, knits together -- and I'm looking for the 7 problem here.
8 Seabrook used the wrong standard when they 9 tested their concrete. So they didn't expect this 10 degradation and it occurred. As I read it, River Bend 11 Station is acknowledging they didn't test to this 12 current standard, and so they are going to continue to 13 look for ASR degradation using visual inspection and 14 the aging management program in the application.
15 So I'm really struggling with trying to 16 understand where Sierra Club sees the issue here, what 17 the specific concern is of why it's important to bring 18 it up to the staff.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Well, just to say again I 20 guess that I was concerned that the license 21 application in this case for River Bend did not 22 address ASR as suggested by this Information Notice.
23 And I didn't see in the application that there was 24 anything in the aging management plan that would 25 address the process, I guess you'd call it, that is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 being suggested in this notice.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do your concerns extend 3 beyond these ASTM standards? Or is that the specific 4 issue that Sierra Club is concerned with?
5 MR. TAYLOR: Well, the specific issue is 6 that I didn't see any indication of how we were going 7 to address the issue of ASR in the aging management 8 plan.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Beyond visual inspection.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. And I just felt that 11 these -- these standards at least were something that 12 should at least be alluded to in the application as to 13 how they were going to further test.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: But the plant has been 15 constructed. These are --
16 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- construction testing 18 methods.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I understand.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, if they used those 21 standards, they could acknowledge that. But my read 22 is they are -- they are telling us straight up they 23 didn't use them.
24 Okay. I mean, I guess -- I guess we came 25 back around to the circle.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 JUDGE HAWKENS: Any final comments on 2 Contention 3, Mr. Taylor?
3 MR. TAYLOR: No, thank you.
4 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. You've 5 actually exceeded the 45 minutes and the additional 6 rebuttal time, but we will provide you with some 7 modest amount of rebuttal time.
8 MR. TAYLOR: All right.
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, you may 10 proceed.
11 MR. BURDICK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'd 12 like to first address one overarching issue that cuts 13 across all three contentions, and then if possible, I 14 will try to address a few of the arguments that we 15 just heard.
16 The Sierra Club's hearing request must be 17 rejected because -- for not including an admissible 18 contention. Each of Sierra Club's three contentions 19 is inadmissible for multiple independent failures to 20 comply with the Commission's contention admissibility 21 requirements in Section 2.309(f).
22 But one significant deficiency that does 23 cut across all three contentions was Sierra Club 24 ignoring information in the application that addresses 25 the very issues raised in the contentions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 Contention 1 claimed that the statement of 2 purpose and need was so narrow that only the proposed 3 action would satisfy it, but that ignores the detailed 4 information in the environmental report that 5 identifies 18 energy alternatives that were 6 considered, including four determined to be reasonable 7 alternatives.
8 Indeed, even wind and solar, although 9 concluded to not be reasonable, they were examined in 10 detail as if they were reasonable with a comparison of 11 their environmental impacts against proposed action.
12 Contention 2 claimed to challenge the 13 consideration of renewable energy and energy 14 efficiency as alternatives, but that ignored the 15 relevant portions of the environmental report that 16 addressed consideration of alternatives, including 17 environmental report Section 2.6, Chapter 7 and 18 Chapter 8.
19 Those sections considered wind, solar, and 20 energy efficiency, and also a combination of 21 alternatives that included a renewable energy source 22 and demand-side management, which includes energy 23 efficiency.
24 Contention 3 claimed that the application 25 did not address alkali-silica reaction degradation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 2 here. The ER did not consider renewables in 3 combination; did not?
4 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. In 5 environmental report Section 7.1.1.4, the combination 6 of alternatives is presented. That combination 7 includes three different energy sources. It includes 8 demand-side management of 105 megawatts, which 9 includes energy efficiency. But it also includes 10 biomass units which are considered renewable.
11 Although they're not wind and solar, they are a 12 renewable source, and that's even considered renewable 13 in the State of Louisiana for Entergy's integrated 14 resource plan. And the remainder of that is natural 15 gas to ensure that it can provide baseload power here.
16 JUDGE HAWKENS: It did not, though, 17 consider solar and wind in combination; did it?
18 MR. BURDICK: It did not in the Section 19 7.1.1.4 combination of alternatives. And the National 20 Energy Policy Act -- National Environmental Policy 21 Act, or NEPA, it only requires us to look at 22 reasonable alternatives, and here Entergy, you know, 23 under the rule of reason established, you know, one 24 combination of alternatives that was reasonable.
25 And I think what's important here is if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 wind or solar or wind and solar were combined or were 2 put into this combination of alternatives, it would 3 not have a different outcome. The biomass units 4 themselves, assuming a sufficient fuel source, can 5 function as a baseload power unit. If we were to 6 replace that with wind and solar, then that would not 7 necessarily provide baseload power, and so you would 8 have to increase the amount of natural gas.
9 And as the Board alluded to earlier, there 10 is Commission case law that specifically allows for 11 the consideration of baseload power when determining 12 reasonable alternatives.
13 The point I wanted to make that's 14 overarching here with Contention 3, it's the same 15 thing as test omission. As we've pointed out and it 16 has been discussed, there is information in the 17 application. And for all three of these contentions 18 they just missed information in the application.
19 And the Commission has made it very clear 20 that contentions that do not address the contents of 21 an application on a challenge topic are inadmissible.
22 And even Section 2.209(f)(1)(6) likewise states the 23 contention "must include references to specific 24 portions of the application, including the applicant's 25 environmental report and safety report, that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 Petitioner disputes and its supporting reasons for 2 each dispute."
3 That has not been done here, and so our 4 view is, because they failed to do that, all the 5 previous contentions are inadmissible at the outset.
6 Let me turn to Contention 1 and just 7 address a couple of points I heard in the earlier 8 discussions.
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 10 here again. Before you --
11 MR. BURDICK: Sure.
12 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- contention, can we go 13 back to standing? And I know you're not challenging 14 standing in this case, correct?
15 MR. BURDICK: That's correct, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE HAWKENS: You can see that standing 17 does exist.
18 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. We do not 19 oppose standing here.
20 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. And is my research 21 correct that the Commission has not yet squarely held 22 that the 50-mile proximity presumption does apply in 23 license renewal cases?
24 MR. BURDICK: To the best of my knowledge, 25 the Commission has never ruled directly on that. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 as you noted earlier, licensing boards have taken that 2 position.
3 JUDGE HAWKENS: Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. BURDICK: So just briefly on 5 Contention 1, this relates to the statement of purpose 6 and need. I think there has been some confusion on 7 exactly how the statement of purpose and need should 8 be interpreted here, and hopefully I can help to 9 clarify that. As stated in environmental report 10 Section 1.0, the purpose and need for the proposed 11 action is to provide an option that allows for 12 baseload power generation capability beyond the term 13 of the current nuclear power plant operating license 14 to meet future system generating needs.
15 What I heard in the discussion is some 16 confusion about the phrase "the term of the current 17 nuclear power plant operating license." That does not 18 mean that only nuclear power can satisfy the statement 19 of purpose and need. That's a timing issue that we 20 are talking about whether the generating needs will be 21 available when the River Bend operating license is 22 done, which here it's in 2025, if the license is not 23 renewed.
24 So hopefully that provides some 25 clarification. But as the Board had discussed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 earlier, you know, certainly our environmental report 2 doesn't identify only one reasonable alternative. We 3 identify many more than that.
4 Turning I guess to Contention 2 --
5 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 6 here again. Can you address Sierra Club's argument 7 regarding advocation of the NRC's duty under NEPA?
8 MR. BURDICK: Certainly. I think that's 9 also a misreading of the statement of purpose and need 10 and is an unsupported statement. There has been no 11 advocation here. As I just read, and I won't read it 12 again, you know, certainly the statement of purpose 13 and need is to provide this option. It's not an 14 advocation.
15 What is retained for other energy planning 16 decisionmakers is what the actual energy source will 17 be that is constructed or continued in the region.
18 And that, as we point out in our answer, is 19 appropriate for other agencies or other bodies.
20 That's not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.
21 And we point to some of the rulemaking 22 history when the NRC revised Part 51 to address NEPA, 23 and they certainly -- the statements in that 24 rulemaking uphold this issue that it's not within the 25 jurisdiction of the NRC to make these decisions about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 exactly what should be constructed.
2 And I think, importantly, you know, NEPA 3 and the implementing regulations do not impose that 4 requirement. And here we have a very interesting 5 situation with the statement of purpose and need 6 because it's not one that Entergy just formulated on 7 its own. As the Petitioner notes, this comes from 8 guidance, but it's not just the guidance. It also 9 comes from the rulemaking history.
10 And as we point out in our answer, this 11 concept of preserving the option for future energy 12 planning decisionmakers is actually codified in the 13 rules themselves, and we identify a few of those 14 sections. And so it's really the Commission's 15 statement of purpose and need of what must be done 16 here. And for them to challenge it here is an 17 improper challenge to the rule, contrary to 10 CFR 18 Section 2.335.
19 The other issue that came up was the 20 concept of baseload power. And, you know, our view, 21 as we do discuss in our answer some, but I think some 22 of this also responds to the newer reply arguments, is 23 the Sierra Club has not provided any support that the 24 renewable sources that they are discussing in 25 Contention 2 can provide baseload power.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 There are only two places in their 2 proposed contentions in which they identify or mention 3 baseload. The first I will mention is on pages 21 and 4 22 of Contention 2, and there the Petitioner is not 5 stating that they have demonstrated that wind and 6 solar can provide baseload. Instead, they are 7 complaining about using the standard of baseload in 8 these energy alternatives. So they are actually 9 almost competing here, that wind and solar don't 10 provide that.
11 The other place they mention it is on 12 page 10 of their Contention 2. And this is in a 13 simple statement that is introducing this report from 14 Christina Archer and Mark Jacobson, which was already 15 discussed here.
16 But that document also does not support 17 baseload power from wind and solar. In fact, as we 18 pointed out in our answer, the Commission had 19 evaluated this exact report in the Davis-Besse 20 proceeding and rejected it as providing a basis for 21 wind and solar providing baseload power. And so that 22 certainly can't support baseload.
23 This report also is -- doesn't demonstrate 24 that it's technically feasible or commercially 25 available. In fact, the Commission explained in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 Davis-Besse decision that this document refers to it 2 as an idea to use interconnected windfarms. And so 3 it's not even a solid plan here.
4 Additionally, the report itself does not 5 appear to even increase the capacity factor very high, 6 and so it's arguably not even baseload. I think the 7 report -- still, the maximum is less than 50 percent.
8 And for a lot of the reports that identified in 9 Contention 2, these are not discreet opportunities to 10 replace River Bend. Instead, they are overarching 11 changes to the energy infrastructure and to energy 12 policy that are simply not a reasonable alternative 13 here.
14 We also pointed out that some of this --
15 much of proposed Contention 2 is copied from a Turkey 16 Point new reactor proceeding. That, in and of itself, 17 could be okay, but here it was not. It brings a lot 18 of arguments that are simply irrelevant or outside 19 scope. And combining that action with the failure to 20 actually address what is in the environment report 21 itself, simply there is no genuine dispute here.
22 And, again, these are full of policy 23 arguments rather than technical arguments. Most don't 24 address baseload sources, and they are never tied to 25 River Bend or Louisiana, and some don't even discuss NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 nuclear. And, in fact, some of these sources even 2 discuss changes that would not be implemented until 3 after the period of extended -- period of extended 4 operation. I believe one report talks about 2050, so 5 that's even past the renewed period.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Burdick, Judge Hawkens 7 here. Can you address the two reports, the studies on 8 pages 29 and 30 of the opening petition? Those were 9 related specifically to Louisiana and Sierra Club.
10 You seem to have placed a high reliance on them, 11 saying that they were -- should be given weight and 12 laying a foundation for finding that renewables and 13 energy efficiency are a reasonable alternative.
14 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. We 15 reviewed these studies, and they certainly don't 16 support that conclusion. They are older studies.
17 They don't mention baseload. They are focused on just 18 the potential for wind and solar, but certainly not 19 only a scale that could replace River Bend.
20 They are speculating about what could be 21 done in the future. I believe I heard counsel for 22 Sierra Club talk about how no one can say whether wind 23 and solar can be done in this manner, and it's really 24 just a lot of speculation. And I also would point out 25 that we actually have more detailed information in our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 environmental report.
2 And environmental report Section 7.1.2.2.1 3 for wind power, and Section 7.1.2.2.2 for solar power, 4 have more recent data and fully evaluate this. And so 5 there is really no genuine dispute here, and this 6 information in these sections I just mentioned has not 7 been challenged by the Petitioner and certainly not in 8 the original contention.
9 And these walk through wind and solar in 10 great detail. And as I mentioned earlier, I think 11 what is really important about these two sections is 12 not only do they look at wind and whether it's viable 13 and whether they are sufficient, they also look at 14 energy storage. And they conclude that there is not 15 a basis for these to be reasonable alternatives.
16 But the last paragraph in each of these 17 sections is very clear. For example, in Section 18 7.1.1.2.1, it says, "Nonetheless, even if wind were 19 considered to be reasonable, the impacts discussed 20 above show that the impacts from winds -- from wind, 21 with or without compressor energy source, would be 22 higher than the impacts for renewal of the River Bend 23 license, and so forth.
24 So in those sections, they look at some of 25 the environmental impacts; for example, the high land NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 use for wind that would be on the scale to replace 2 River Bend, and some with solar. And so they have 3 actually, in a sense, conservatively considered that 4 they -- if they were reasonable, here is the 5 evaluation. And so Entergy has gone well beyond what 6 was required.
7 And, in fact, the section on wind even 8 talks about offshore wind, which is in some of these 9 Louisiana documents, and says that the NRC determined 10 Louisiana's offshore areas had the lowest 11 classification for potential wind energy development, 12 and that's also in the generic environmental impact 13 statement.
14 Your Honor, I guess turning to 15 Contention 3, then, I did want to make a clarification 16 here. The discussion -- the information we agree 17 with, the Information Notice is not a requirement.
18 It's not even a recommendation. As stated on the 19 first page, it's suggestions. And licensees do take 20 these seriously. They evaluate them.
21 River Bend has evaluated the Information 22 Notice, and that has led to -- to what is in the 23 license renewal application. The discussion I think 24 is important. The Information Notice does not require 25 that River Bend put a lot of details as to what would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 happen if there is ASR degradation, but the 2 Information Notice on page 2 of 5 talks about that ASR 3 can be identified as the likely cause of degradation 4 during visual inspection.
5 And then, also on page 4 of 5, as was 6 already read here, once visual indications of ASR-7 induced concrete degradations have been identified, 8 those visual indications, consistent with the 9 Information Notice, which is the only support that has 10 been identified by the Petitioner, you first start 11 with visual inspections, and that is exactly what 12 Entergy has done in the license renewal application.
13 It points to the discussion, and Section 3.5 points to 14 the structures monitoring program, and that requires 15 visual inspections.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Burdick, this is 17 Judge Wardwell. Is there anything in your aging 18 management plan for what to do if, in fact, you do 19 observe cracking associating with ASR?
20 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, under the 21 structures monitoring program, the aging effects of 22 cracking are identified. Then Entergy would put that 23 information into their corrective action program, and 24 then would have to evaluate it and take actions, and 25 certainly they would consider things such as what has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 been presented in the Information Notice or suggested 2 in the Information Notice.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And has this -- could you 4 point us to where that is stated? And where is the 5 applicability or the relevance to the ASR phenomena?
6 Especially as identified in Seabrook.
7 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, if I understood 8 correctly, you're asking about the structures 9 monitoring program and the corrective action?
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah. Where in that 11 construction -- where in the structures monitoring 12 plan -- and are we speaking of B-1.41, pages 146 to 13 140 -- well, it may go further than that. I don't 14 know exact page numbers.
15 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. That is 16 the correct structures monitoring program.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you look at that, 18 where in there does it say anything in what to do 19 after you observe cracking associated specifically 20 with ASR in order to address that particular issue and 21 the impacts on the operation of the plant?
22 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. So at that 23 point, the structures monitoring program specifies, 24 you know, on page B-1.45, the visual inspection, and -
25 -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me while we get 2 that. Hang on just a second. What number did you say 3 again?
4 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, just at the 5 beginning, so page B-145. I'm just pointing -- that 6 talks about the visual inspection, but I'm getting a 7 citation for you for the reference to the corrective 8 action program.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: This structures 10 monitoring, is this program -- B-1.41, as I read this 11 from your license renewal application, wasn't -- where 12 does it include specific stuff associated with the 13 ASR, not just general -- generic information relating 14 to concrete structures?
15 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, the specific 16 structures monitoring program does not call out ASR 17 specifically. Where the connection is is in 18 Section 3.5 of the license renewal application, and so 19 the structures monitoring program is broader and 20 covers not just ASR but covers other -- you know, 21 managing other aging effects.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And where do we see that, 23 then, in 3.5?
24 MR. BURDICK: That's correct.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: No. I said point us to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 where in 3.5 --
2 MR. BURDICK: I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in your submittals 4 that you talk about 3.5.2.2.1.8 and you've talked 5 about 3.5.2.2.1, Item 2, and you've also referenced 6 3.5.2.2.3, Item 2. Could you direct me into those 7 sections on where there is some specificity related to 8 ASR types of actions that have been generated as a 9 result of the Seabrook concerns?
10 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. So in the 11 three sections that you have just identified, and each 12 of those sections covers a different type of concrete 13 structure, but all of them deal with reaction with 14 aggregates, as we explain, includes alkali-silica 15 reactions. Those sections, then, point to the 16 structures monitoring program.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where is it -- well, now 18 we're coming full circle I thought. Give me some 19 paragraphs within those sections where you're saying 20 where that is pointing and how that is doing it 21 regards to addressing this concern.
22 MR. BURDICK: Okay. Your Honor, I am 23 starting on Section 3.5.2.2.1.8.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
25 MR. BURDICK: And this is on page 3.5-11.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 And so this section entitled Cracking Due to Expansion 2 with Reaction for Aggregate, and towards the bottom of 3 the first paragraph it says, "Based on ongoing 4 industry operating experience," which would include 5 things such as the Information Notice and what 6 occurred at Seabrook, "the structures monitoring 7 program manages cracking" --
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Wait a minute. Your 9 pause there wasn't -- was your comment, right? It 10 wasn't -- that's not written here, correct?
11 MR. BURDICK: That's correct. I was 12 explaining what the industry operating experience was.
13 Let me start over without the commentary. So this 14 sentence says, "Based on ongoing industry operating 15 experience, the structures monitoring program manages 16 cracking due to expansion from reaction with aggregate 17 in accessible concrete areas for the RBS concrete base 18 foundation."
19 So for that structure, this points to the 20 structures monitoring program, and then that's when we 21 would turn to Appendix B. And what we had discussed 22 there, the beginning of Appendix B, the beginning of 23 -- so now I'm in Section B.1.41. In paragraph 2, for 24 example, there is a statement that the structure and 25 structural components are inspected by qualified NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 personnel. And then concrete structures are inspected 2 for indications of deterioration and distress."
3 And so now we are in the structures 4 monitoring program that includes the inspections. And 5 if any indications that could be alkali-silica 6 reaction are identified, consistent with what is 7 discussed in the Information Notice, then that 8 identification would be placed into Entergy's 9 corrective action program, and that would determine 10 what the next steps are through evaluation.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Have these -- well, never 12 mind. Strike my thought, okay?
13 MR. BURDICK: Okay.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy. Is 15 there criteria based -- so you do the inspections, and 16 then there is -- must be criteria that guides these 17 inspections. And does the failure of -- if the 18 inspection detects something out of the bounds of the 19 criteria, is that how you get to the corrective action 20 program? I'm trying to -- I guess I'm picking up on 21 Judge Wardwell's thoughts of how the dots get 22 connected.
23 MR. BURDICK: Yes. So the inspectors 24 would be trained for -- to perform these inspections, 25 and their procedures would have some indications of, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 you know, if you see this type of cracking, which is 2 discussed in the Information Notice, then they would 3 put in the corrective action to determine it further.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: But none of that is stated 5 in the aging management program.
6 MR. BURDICK: That's correct. That level 7 of detail is not in here. And I think part of the 8 reason is the structures monitoring program is not 9 just for alkali-silica reaction; it's for these 10 inspections of all types of potential cracking. And 11 under the license renewal --
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Can I 13 interrupt there? Just because I don't want to lose 14 that thought. So you're saying that there is no 15 specificity here in this structures monitoring report 16 related to ASR reactions.
17 MR. BURDICK: Well, I would say there is 18 adequate specificity in the structures monitoring 19 program. And, you know, under the license renewal 20 process, the licensees, they inspect for the aging 21 effects. And so it's not necessarily looking at 22 specific mechanisms. It's looking at the effects that 23 could have various mechanisms.
24 And then it is only if -- if you identify 25 those aging effects, then you determine what the next NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 steps are, and that would be in more detailed 2 procedures.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: But some of these, the 4 cracking that you are going to observe due to the 5 structures monitoring, they might not -- it might be 6 observed by the structures monitoring, can occur from 7 a number of processes, not just ASR, as you have 8 mentioned. But ASR does have a distinctive pattern; 9 is that not correct?
10 MR. BURDICK: Yes. We took --
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: You would suspect that it 12 is ASR that is causing this; is that correct?
13 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. You know, 14 based on -- as explained in the Information Notice, 15 there is certain patterns of cracking, and so that 16 could give an indication of --
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Then that would lead you 18 down a different path of corrective actions, wouldn't 19 it, than if this cracking looked like it came from 20 free saw, for instance?
21 MR. BURDICK: Yes, that's correct.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And so where is that laid 23 out in your program that tells someone, oh, yeah, I 24 see where there -- I see how this is managed? I mean, 25 because that --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is not adequately 3 described as an ASR program to manage it. And so if 4 that's where it's going to go once it's observed, 5 where do we see that in your aging management program?
6 MR. BURDICK: So, Your Honor, going back 7 to -- I think cuts across some of these questions. As 8 we said, the aging management program is in B-141, and 9 that aging management program, as discussed, is 10 consistent with the generic aging lessons learned or 11 GALL report. And that is on page B-146. And so there 12 are more details in the GALL reports that are part of 13 this program that are incorporated here.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Which version of GALL are 15 you referring to?
16 MR. BURDICK: So I'm in NUREG-1801, 17 Revision 2.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And wasn't that 19 written before Seabrook even came into concern --
20 MR. BURDICK: Yes, it was from December 21 2010.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Or, at that point, any of 23 the lessons learned or information that has been 24 gathered or generated from Seabrook investigations and 25 information; is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 MR. BURDICK: One second, Your Honor.
2 (Pause.)
3 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, so in the GALL 4 report, and the reference here in NUREG-1801 Rev 2 is 5 to Section -- it's Roman eleven F6 for structures 6 monitoring. That includes I think two provisions that 7 I want to --
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me while I get 9 it. Okay. I am with you. You are on S2?
10 MR. BURDICK: On -- so I'm on page Roman 11 eleven. F6-4 is the page.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
13 MR. BURDICK: So this -- the aging 14 management program is consistent with the GALL and 15 incorporates these aspects of the GALL.
16 So two points. Item 7 is corrective 17 actions, and that discusses evaluation performed for 18 any inspection results that do not satisfy the 19 established criteria. Corrective actions are 20 initiated according to the --
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: You said established 22 criteria.
23 MR. BURDICK: -- if the results indicate 24 there is a need for repair or replacement.
25 And so the second point, though, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 Item 10 on operating experience. And that does 2 require licensees to continue to review operating 3 experience as part of that program, and that would 4 include things like Seabrook and this Information 5 Notice.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Burdick, I'm not sure 7 you heard one of Judge Wardwell's questions, and that 8 was, where are the acceptance criteria for the 9 inspection?
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Under the corrective 11 actions, you say, "Evaluations are performed for any 12 inspection results that do not satisfy established 13 criteria." Where is the criteria when you see 14 cracking due to ASR?
15 MR. BURDICK: Yes. So here the acceptance 16 criteria would be in the detailed procedures, and then 17 that would -- you know, if those procedures determined 18 there was, you know, some level of cracking, then that 19 would go to this Item 7, corrective actions, put in 20 the corrective action program where it would be 21 evaluated for the next steps.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And, again, both 7 and 10 23 were written without any knowledge of Seabrook 24 existence, correct?
25 MR. BURDICK: Yeah. But the -- yes, Your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 Honor. Item 10, though, deals with operating 2 experience, and that continues and requires an ongoing 3 review of that operating experience, which would 4 include things like Seabrook, and so -- or going into 5 the future. And so, you know, the fact that the GALL 6 report was from December 2010 before Seabrook doesn't 7 matter.
8 So this is a living document, and we 9 believe the structures monitoring program, 10 particularly here --
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: I would argue it's a dead 12 document because it's so generic it just applies to 13 anything, and you could take this same thing and apply 14 it to any other structure that wasn't even a power 15 plant. And it's so general, it just tells you how 16 just basic, good engineering and monitoring of 17 engineering facilities might be handled with no 18 specificity.
19 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I respectfully 20 disagree. This item here on operating experience is 21 taken very seriously. In fact, the Information Notice 22 that we're talking about was put into the corrective 23 action plan and was evaluated as operating experience 24 not just for license renewal but for the continued 25 operation of plants for their inspections under the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 maintenance rule, and this really continues those 2 activities.
3 And this operating experience item is a 4 key part of license renewal and makes this a living 5 program.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I wanted to just 8 correct one thing on the record. We've had a lot of 9 discussion about the standards, and it was correctly 10 pointed out that the standards that are discussed in 11 the Information Notice are standards that were used at 12 the time of construction. So they're not actively 13 used right now.
14 But similar to other plants that were 15 constructed during that time period, River Bend did 16 use some of these standards, including C289 and C295.
17 Again, as explained in the Information Notice, that 18 doesn't mean there is a concern here, doesn't mean 19 there is alkali-silica reaction. It just means for 20 this one type of late or still-expanding alkali-silica 21 reaction it may not have been picked up by that test.
22 So per the Information Notice, as we have 23 been talking about, we are doing these visual 24 inspections to address any aging effects of alkali-25 silica reactions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Burdick, I just have 2 two quick follow-up questions, just more of a 3 curiosity in reviewing the material. In the aging 4 management program structures monitoring, it calls out 5 a number of enhancements. Are any of those 6 enhancements related to ASR-induced degradation that 7 you're aware of?
8 MR. BURDICK: Not that we're aware of, 9 Your Honor.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fair. And just 11 one other sort of curiosity question. In those 3.5 12 sections that your answer refers to, I think the 13 category of structures, of inaccessible concrete 14 structures, and I guess I'm curious, what are 15 inaccessible concrete structures? And then how do you 16 do visual inspections if they are inaccessible?
17 MR. BURDICK: Some of the inaccessible 18 areas could be, if it's a high radiation area, or if 19 it's below grade, you know, so those are some 20 examples.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So how are you 22 going to inspect if it's below grade?
23 MR. BURDICK: The structures monitoring 24 program is similar to the maintenance rule that's used 25 at all the plants. If it's an accessible area, then NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 it's inspected at a specific periodicity. For 2 inaccessible areas, there are opportunistic 3 inspections, and also evaluations to try to consider, 4 you know, what the impact of inspections on accessible 5 areas mean for inaccessible areas.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: Judge Hawkens here. Mr.
7 Burdick, do you have anything else? Your time has 8 expired.
9 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, just to 10 reiterate the first point that the original hearing 11 request missed much information in the application, 12 and that alone should be enough to reject these 13 contentions. But even if the information is 14 considered, they don't satisfy the conditions in the 15 Commission's contention as to builder requirements.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.
18 NRC staff, we'll be hearing from you next.
19 If nobody objects, I propose we take a five-minute 20 break and return at quarter 'til. Any objection, 21 Sierra Club?
22 MR. TAYLOR: No.
23 JUDGE HAWKENS: Entergy?
24 MR. BURDICK: No objection.
25 JUDGE HAWKENS: NRC staff?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 MR. TURK: No objection, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. I'll put you 3 all on hold, and we will resume at quarter 'til.
4 Thank you.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 6 off the record at 3:39 p.m. and resumed at 3:47 p.m.)
7 JUDGE HAWKENS: Let's go back on the 8 record. Let me confirm that our other players are 9 still on the line. Sierra Club?
10 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
11 JUDGE HAWKENS: Entergy?
12 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE HAWKENS: And NRC staff?
14 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Mr. Turk, I 16 think you indicated you wanted to make a brief 17 introduction before turning it over to Mr. Roth?
18 MR. TURK: Yes. That's correct, Your 19 Honor.
20 JUDGE HAWKENS: Please proceed.
21 MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor, and 22 Judges Kennedy and Wardwell. My name is Sherwin Turk.
23 I have had the pleasure of appearing before two of you 24 in the past, in the Indian Point proceeding in 25 particular.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 I'll be very brief because I know the 2 questions that you have pertain primarily to the 3 contentions. The staff does not contest standing for 4 the Sierra Club. We state so in our brief 5 excessively.
6 And, Your Honor, I'd like to address the 7 question that you've asked other parties about the --
8 whether the Commission has ruled directly on the 9 question of proximity presumption of fines in a 10 license renewal proceeding. The only case that we 11 could find was the decision that we cited at page 5 of 12 our response to petition. That's the Calvert Cliffs 13 decision in which the Commission took note of a board 14 decision in which the proximity presumption had been 15 applied in license renewal.
16 So we could find no case in which the 17 Commission has explicitly ruled itself. We do 18 believe, however, that the Commission's citation of 19 that case was a citation with approval. So we are led 20 to believe that the Commission has at least implicitly 21 endorsed that concept.
22 Your Honor, we do not oppose standing, but 23 we do oppose the admission of the contentions for the 24 principal reason that the petition to intervene did 25 not contain the specificity that is required under the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 Commission's regulations. And as stated in our brief, 2 the Commission's regulations governing the 3 admissibility of contentions are strict, and they are 4 strict by design.
5 I won't address the specifics of each 6 contention, but I would note that the rules governing 7 contention admissibility would lead us to conclude 8 that the contentions must be rejected for failing to 9 meet the criteria of 2.309(f).
10 And, Your Honor, with that, I will turn 11 over the podium to Mr. Roth, who will speak on the 12 environmental contentions, and he will be followed by 13 Mr. Gillespie on Contention 3 dealing with the safety 14 issues.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: Thank you, Mr. Turk.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Roth.
17 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors. Very 18 briefly, concerning Contention 1, as the staff 19 discussed in its written pleadings, this appears to be 20 a challenge to the Commission's rules governing 21 licensing renewal application. I would like to point 22 out the specific rule is that the staff document, 23 because it's to the ER, that the staff's final 24 document is a supplemental environment --
25 environmental impact statement supplementing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 guidance.
2 The guidance already has the specific 3 relief to develop through rulemaking. And the staff 4 supplement is not going to use an alternative purpose.
5 This could be confirmed through both looking at the 6 staff's environmental standard review plan, as well as 7 the ESRP NUREG-1555 Supplement 1, Section 1.0, purpose 8 of reactions, this is tabbed evaluation findings, 9 noting that the findings -- the purpose and need 10 should be that purpose and need that is in Section 1.3 11 of the guidance.
12 In terms of guidance on how the ER should 13 be drafted, the standard format with preparation of 14 environmental report for nuclear power plant license 15 renewal applications, which is Regulatory Guide 4.2 16 Supplement 1. Likewise, echoes what the ER should say 17 within the guidance.
18 Turning to the issue of what the 19 Intervenor would need to challenge these rules, this 20 again is explained as written, stating this is 21 developed through rulemaking. The Intervenor would 22 have needed to do a petition for waiver under 2.235, 23 the full balance and special circumstances with 24 respect to the subject matter of a particular 25 proceeding are such that the application for renewal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 regulation did not give a purpose for which the 2 renewal regulation was adopted. The Intervenor has 3 not done that.
4 One last point on the quote, the purpose 5 and need argument, the one of the cases that the 6 Intervenor in its submissions was citing, and we'd 7 like to cite this case. The case is Burlington v.
8 Lucy. In the Intervenor's petition, on page --
9 staff's page 7, they cite the case in staff's answer 10 to the case where the staff is discussing the 11 Commission's views on -- the Commission's views with 12 respect to Seabrook and Davis-Besse proceedings.
13 And the particular spot on page 29 where 14 the staff is discussing how the Commission does not 15 adopt baseload items and discusses then that 16 alternatives must be alternatives that are capable of 17 meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action.
18 And within that forwarding footnote, once 19 again, it is citing Burlington v. Lucy. Getting to 20 the point of this discussion, within that case, the 21 report in part claims that it should be a general rule 22 rather than specific rules. And in particular, 938 23 F.2d page 199, the Court wrote that Congress did 24 expect agencies to consider an applicant's blunt to 25 the agency's redaction. Congress did not expect the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 agency to determine for the applicant what the goal 2 for the applicant supposedly should be.
3 Here again, our view is that it's a 4 challenge to the scope. It's a challenge to 5 rulemaking. They haven't tied a waiver to it. It's 6 not seem to conform to admissible contentions.
7 Hearing no questions on that, may I move 8 on to Contention 2?
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: Please go ahead.
10 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors. Within 11 Contention 2, and as you have previously heard, the 12 petition does not address the contents of the ER with 13 any specificity. Within their petition, they have a 14 substantial number of documents they cite, there has 15 already been discussion about the contents of the 16 documents as to what they say and what they don't say.
17 Fundamentally missing is any discussion of the ER 18 itself and any demonstration of any errors or 19 omissions within the ER.
20 In particular, the environmental report 21 discusses in Section 2.6.2, which is page 2-34, how 22 Entergy's 2015 integrated review plan, which is a 23 long-term strategy for meeting the customers' power 24 needs, exists. The ER in multiple places describes 25 how it uses the integrated review plan and the basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 to decide which alternatives warrant further 2 investigation and which alternative does not.
3 An item of note, turning to the integrated 4 review plan -- and this is a document that you all 5 read through in 2015 -- Sierra Club actually commented 6 on the integrated review plan. At multiple places in 7 the document, there are responses that Entergy's 8 providing to Sierra Club's comments. The Sierra Club 9 acknowledges the document that was used by the 10 applicant in determining which alternatives were going 11 to be considered further and which ones were not.
12 But the contention, as written, definitely 13 doesn't discuss any reasons why the discussions and 14 voluminous IRP, which is around 99 pages in total, for 15 the ER have any particular errors or omissions that 16 warrant further investigation and eventually a 17 hearing.
18 (Pause.)
19 JUDGE HAWKENS: Hello?
20 MR. ROTH: Hearing no further discussion 21 on that, would Your Honors like us to continue to 22 Contention 3?
23 JUDGE HAWKENS: I have -- this is Judge 24 Hawkens. I have -- the same question that I posed to 25 Mr. Burdick I'd like to pose to you. Namely, could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 you address the two studies that Sierra Club said were 2 its best source of support for laying a foundation for 3 this contention? And those were the two studies 4 dealing with -- specifically with Louisiana, pages 29 5 and 30 of their petition.
6 MR. ROTH: That workforce, without going 7 into any technical detail as to the studies, the 8 studies do not seem to demonstrate that the wind 9 resource in fact will be a viable, commercially 10 available source of energy sufficient to replace the 11 power of River Bend.
12 Notably, for instance, since letting 13 onshore wind resources, the 2004 study on the second-14 to -- or the third-to-the-last page -- no, second-to-15 the-last page, within the section marked Wind 16 Resource, it states Louisiana's onshore wind resource 17 has virtually no potential for wind power development.
18 So the very study itself was just for onshore, they 19 need further information. There's nothing that says 20 it's going to be commercially viable within the 21 studies. And if we were to study looking at smaller 22 capacity, not the same capacity as River Bend anyway.
23 But more significantly, again, turning to 24 the facts of the contention, I'd like to reiterate 25 that within the IRP wind was discussed available, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 role of it was discussed, within the ER referencing 2 the IRPs, the same thing with stress. And the 3 Intervenor's reliance on the December 2004 and the 4 2005 studies simply don't demonstrate that there is an 5 error or omission in the application or that the 6 particular study shows that, in fact, the wind wasn't 7 viable by itself or placement hours for within.
8 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you, Mr.
9 Roth. We have no further questions on Contentions 1 10 or 2 at this time.
11 MR. ROTH: Thank you, Your Honors.
12 MR. GILLESPIE: Okay. Your Honors, thank 13 you. My name is Joe Gillespie. I'm representing the 14 staff with respect to Contention 3.
15 The issue here today on Contention 3 is 16 simply whether the petition included sufficient 17 information in the original petition to meet the 18 standards of 2.09(F)(1)(5) and (6). And there the 19 Commission has repeatedly held that the admissibility 20 requirements are strict by design. The contention 21 language itself may have included adequacy.
22 The only defect that was identified in the 23 original petition with respect to the application 24 under review was that the license renewal application 25 does not address the degradation of the concrete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 drywall due to ASR.
2 And F(1)(6) explicitly requires that when 3 a petitioner believes the application fails to contain 4 required information in the petition, must identify 5 each failure and the supporting reasons for their 6 belief. And for a contention of omission, that means 7 that it is the Petitioner's burden to show the facts 8 necessary to establish that the application omits 9 information that should have been included.
10 The petition -- given petition facts 11 demonstrating that omission, and based on an erroneous 12 factual predicate, categorically it bases 13 admissibility on the erroneous assumption.
14 Categorically, degradation due to ASR is not addressed 15 anywhere in the application.
16 The Commission has stated that it is the 17 Petitioner's burden or responsibility to fully read 18 and understand the application and demonstrate how the 19 application is lacking. And a misunderstanding of the 20 contents can affect the basis of the admission.
21 As discussed in the applicant's motion to 22 strike and our answer to that motion, their reply 23 impermissibly adds new material to the adjudication, 24 along with some of the new arguments that are added 25 today with respect to the details of the structures NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 monitoring program.
2 And by changing the basis from contention 3 of omission to one of inadequacy with respect to this 4 discussion, it vitiates that the timing and the 5 requirements that are associated with the petition.
6 The Petitioner did not include any of the good cause 7 requirements under 2.09(c) that would be needed to 8 permit new or admitted contentions.
9 And so for these reasons, the Board should 10 find that the Contention 3 is inadmissible because it 11 fails to provide sufficient information showing that 12 the required information is omitted, and it fails to 13 show that it didn't -- fails to demonstrate that the 14 materials --
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Could I 16 interrupt quickly, Mr. Gillespie? This is Judge 17 Wardwell.
18 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where in your original 20 petition -- where in your answer did you claim this 21 was a contention of omission?
22 I also -- on page 29, you state that the 23 petition argues that the applicant fails to properly 24 consider concrete degradation as a result of ASR.
25 That seems to imply that you not only didn't claim it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 was a contention of omission, but now you are saying 2 that it's not adequate, if you will.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, while the term 4 "contention of omission" may not have been included on 5 page 29 or 30 --
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry?
7 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. Could you --
8 I didn't -- oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. While it may not 9 have included anything specifically on page 29 or 30 10 that said the words "contention of omission," the 11 issue that we took with the petition itself and why we 12 claim it's inadmissible is because of the statement 13 that the application does not include any discussions 14 of ASR-induced degradation.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, where was that 16 statement made in their petition? Wasn't that made 17 under facts? It wasn't made under the contention or 18 under the basis for contention; isn't that correct?
19 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. Could you 20 repeat that, Your Honor? Your Honor, could you repeat 21 your question? I would like to make sure I'm 22 addressing it properly.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I don't know what 24 my question was. But I'm asking --
25 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: When you -- you know, my 2 last question was you brought up the quote from Sierra 3 Club saying that there wasn't any discussion in the 4 ASR. And I asked you what section of their petition 5 did that come from, and I believe that came from the 6 part that talks about the facts and not dealing with 7 the contention itself or the basis. What does the 8 contention say?
9 MR. GILLESPIE: The contention itself, 10 Your Honor, states that the LRA does not undertake an 11 adequate aging management review.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: The only fact that --
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Your initial --
15 MR. GILLESPIE: -- with the application.
16 I'm sorry. Go ahead.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Your initial -- sorry to 18 interrupt you, but --
19 MR. GILLESPIE: No, no, no.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- I want to make sure 21 we're not running out of your time here, if it's 22 nothing that I need, or if you're going down a path I 23 don't think I need. Your initial petition didn't 24 claim it wasn't a contention of omission.
25 In fact, you raise other arguments, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 they're fine, but one of them was not that it was a 2 contention of omission. And, in fact, you implied 3 that it was a contention of adequacy when you talked 4 about properly considering; isn't that correct?
5 That's a yes or no.
6 MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And why not? Where did 8 I -- where did I misquote you? Or where in your 9 initial petition have you claimed it's an error of 10 omission where in fact you claimed it was not properly 11 addressed on page -- I believe it was 29, if I 12 remember correctly. Yes.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, if I could 14 please take a moment to confer with my co-counsel?
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure.
16 (Pause.)
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the petition 18 itself included both an adequacy claim -- adequacy --
19 the petition itself was unclear as to whether it was 20 -- it used both arguments adequacy and omission. In 21 the first sentence of the contention, it raised an 22 adequacy argument. But in the bases for the 23 contention, the only issue identified is an omission.
24 And in our response on page 29, we 25 identified that the application -- or the statement NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 that the application does not include any discussion.
2 We underline the word "any." On page 30, in the top 3 paragraph we identify it as an omission -- or that the 4 argument from the petition is that it omits 5 discussions. And, again, on page 32, that the LRA 6 omits the discussion.
7 But we felt it was needed to address it 8 from an omission standpoint and from an adequacy 9 standpoint.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's always prudent to 11 provide alternative arguments, Mr. Gillespie.
12 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: While I've got your 14 attention here, if I can find my -- here we go.
15 Rather than wait for any other discussion, just by 16 looking at the time, I thought I would get into a 17 question I've got, so that I can then bow out probably 18 in a little bit and have my answers.
19 But on page 32, you say that "The 20 applicant further states that the enhancements 21 described in the application to its current structures 22 monitoring program will make the program consistent 23 with GALL." And then you cite to the license renewal 24 application for that.
25 Does that imply that if those enhancements NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 aren't there, and if in fact there are no enhancements 2 related to the ASR, that the program won't be 3 consistent with GALL?
4 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the 5 application itself, also in Appendix B-141.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is this Mr. Gillespie?
7 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, it is.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. I just want to 9 make sure.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: And B-141 also submits 11 that it will be consistent with the GALL, aside from 12 the enhancements. That the application on page B-146 13 through B-147 identifies a number of enhancements that 14 are made --
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's -- yeah, B-141 16 on pages 146 and 147?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: That is the cite? Which 19 is of those relate to ASR? Or if we want to use the 20 term "the reaction with aggregates." It doesn't 21 matter. Either way.
22 MR. GILLESPIE: With respect to the terms 23 of the enhancements themselves do not state words 24 "alkali-silica reaction," but the enhancements 25 themselves still confirm the preventive action, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 the parameters that are monitored all generally relate 2 to, for example, in Element 4, would include visual 3 inspection.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: You're saying they don't 5 apply to ASR; is that correct?
6 MR. GILLESPIE: No. Your Honor, they do 7 apply to ASR. They apply to all structures in the 8 structures monitoring program. And, again, with the 9 commitment to the GALL, the items identified in the 10 GALL in Section F(5), F(6), the 10 elements there, 11 including the detection of aging effects, monitoring 12 and trending, corrective action consistent with 13 50 Appendix B, are -- all would be included, and could 14 be inspected in the future.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, but none of these are 16 specifically related to ASR as -- I'm just -- I'm 17 trying to clarify a misreading that I had of what you 18 said on page 32, because when I read the sentence "The 19 applicant further states that the enhancements 20 described in the applications to its current 21 structures monitoring program will make the program 22 consistent with GALL," that implied to me that these 23 enhancements were related to ASR because that's what 24 you were talking about throughout your petition --
25 your answer, I should say.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 And I was wondering which of those are 2 specifically related to ASR concerns as addressed in 3 Seabrook. And I gather none are specifically related 4 to that; is that correct? That they're just generally 5 related to ASR like they are everything else dealing 6 with the structures monitoring plan for any concrete 7 structure.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor. I would 9 say these are generally related to the ASR as part of 10 the structures monitoring plan. So this is consistent 11 with the guidance -- with the recommendation in the 12 GALL to place -- that is a facility that is accessible 13 to place these structures into the structures 14 monitoring program.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Gillespie, let's stay 17 on the structures monitoring program for just a 18 second. This is Judge Kennedy. Sorry.
19 Entergy has stated that they are committed 20 to GALL Rev 2. Does the NRC recommend that that 21 version of GALL manages ASR-induced aging effects for 22 concrete structures?
23 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: So GALL Rev 2, structures 25 monitoring program, is what would be recommended for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 managing that aging effect.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Is there anything 4 missing? I guess I'm reading that there is nothing 5 missing that should be included as an enhancement, 6 then? For ASR. Sorry. Yes, everything needed to 7 manage ASR is in GALL Rev 2.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm sorry. If I could 9 take one moment to confer.
10 (Pause.)
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, unless they 12 had -- unless the particular facility had operating 13 experience that would place them outside the bounds of 14 the background of the GALL, the GALL would be bounding 15 for this issue.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
17 Just, again, one follow-up question about GALL Rev 2.
18 It's something that has bothered us since we got 19 involved in this. This is Judge Kennedy again. GALL 20 Rev 2 was issued at about the same time that the 21 Seabrook ASR concerns were identified, and before the 22 Information Notice 2011-20 was issued.
23 So we continue to struggle as how it would 24 contain the required attributes to manage cracking due 25 to alkali-silica reaction. I'm curious as to your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 reaction to that.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, specifically, 3 GALL Rev 2 identifies in the definition of reaction --
4 alkali-silica reaction, some of the standards 5 identified in the structures monitoring program in 6 GALL Rev 2 are the same as those referenced in the 7 Information Notice.
8 And more specifically with respect to 9 Seabrook Station, that facility, because they had 10 operating experience and had a condition that was 11 found onsite, it would require that additional plant-12 specific programs -- as I mentioned just a little bit 13 ago, if operating experience onsite would -- if there 14 was an identified issue onsite, that may require 15 additional action. But as River Bend identified an 16 application, there is no indication of onsite 17 operating experience or ASR that has been identified 18 at this point.
19 And so the recommendation in the GALL 20 placed on the structures monitoring program which 21 primarily uses as the first would be to do an 22 inspection.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm -- this is 24 Judge Kennedy again -- trying to turn it around a 25 different way. So the information that is contained NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 in the Information Notice 2011-20, and any subsequent 2 information that came out of the Seabrook 3 investigation of their ASR concerns, does not need to 4 inform the GALL Rev 2 aging management program that 5 the --
6 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the GALL 7 Rev 2, Item 10, and the structures monitoring program 8 identifies operating experience. And operating 9 experience does need to be taken into account in the 10 structures monitoring program. So operating 11 experience like that from Seabrook that was 12 transmitted to licensees in the Information Notice 13 would be taken into account as part of that program.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll give you that one.
15 What about the first six attributes of the aging 16 management program?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: The operating experience 18 would inform -- would inform how the actions are taken 19 onsite.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: I think I -- I guess what 21 I'm -- I'm really trying to get at the base level 22 here. I am concerned that GALL Rev 2 came out before 23 the issue was identified and the concerns were 24 addressed at Seabrook. I'm struggling with 25 understanding how that relevant information as regard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 to detection criteria is contained in GALL Rev 2.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, the staff's 3 position at this point is that GALL Rev 2 is 4 sufficient, and there has not been a need to update 5 the GALL. It validates the conclusions that were made 6 in it, based on the Information Notice that was sent 7 out.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And just one last 9 follow-up question that's going to get to the same 10 point. At the closure of the Information Notice, it 11 states that Seabrook was the first plant to address 12 ASR-induced concrete degradation as part of license 13 renewal. When the notice was issued, Seabrook was 14 developing aging management programs to manage the 15 effects of aging from ASR-induced degradation.
16 Has anything been provided by Seabrook to 17 manage its aging effect that goes beyond what is 18 currently provided in GALL Rev 2, structures 19 monitoring program?
20 MR. GILLESPIE: If we can take a moment, 21 Your Honor?
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Sure.
23 (Pause.)
24 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, because of the 25 operating experience at Seabrook, Seabrook is beyond NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 the GALL where they are taking into account Item 10 of 2 the structures monitoring program with the GALL, and 3 have included a plant-specific program that would 4 address that issue consistent with the GALL.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah. And I guess I'm 6 trying to take it a little further. So does that --
7 is there nothing there that needs to be communicated 8 generically to the industry related to an update to 9 GALL?
10 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, there is no 11 intent from the staff to submit further communication 12 on that.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do I read that to mean 14 there is nothing significant there that needs to be 15 communicated to the industry?
16 MR. GILLESPIE: I think that it will not.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
18 MR. GILLESPIE: Your Honor, in the past 19 when the initiatives under GALL, the practice has been 20 to issue interim staff guidance on an issue, and there 21 is no plans at this point to issue any interim staff 22 guidance.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. That's good.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. This is Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 Wardwell again. I've got -- just some clarification 2 here because I got a little confused. But on page 31 3 of your original answer -- of your answer, you state, 4 and I quote, "The LRA does not discuss this ASR --
5 does discuss this ASR potential degradation mechanism 6 in multiple portions of the application, most 7 thoroughly in Subsection 3.5.2.2.2.1, Item 2, cracking 8 due to expansion, reaction with aggregates, and below-9 grade accessibility."
10 Then you cite at the end of that the 11 license renewal application at 3.5.1-43. And I assume 12 by that cite you mean that's the item number, correct, 13 that's on page 3.5-35 of the license application?
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And are you implying that 16 this 3.5.1-43 is the thorough discussion of potential 17 degradation mechanisms? Because as I turn to that, 18 all I see is a table with the item number, component, 19 it says all groups except group 6, then says aging 20 effects, cracking due to expansion. That's what we've 21 been talking about. Aging management programs. One 22 sentence, further evaluation, not much. I mean, is 23 that what you mean by "thorough"?
24 MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor. The 25 thorough discussion in 3.5.2.2.1, Item 2, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 referenced in Footnote 108 immediately after the 2 identification of the title of the section. And 3 that's on page 3.5.1-43.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: What was the purpose of 5 citing 3.5.1-43?
6 MR. GILLESPIE: These other tables and 7 sections of the application are also other areas where 8 reaction of aggregates is discussed.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
10 JUDGE HAWKENS: Do you have anything else, 11 Mr. Gillespie?
12 MR. GILLESPIE: No, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Thank you.
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: Mr. Taylor?
16 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
17 JUDGE HAWKENS: In your initial 18 presentation, you exceeded the allotted hour, but we, 19 nevertheless, want to give you a modest amount of time 20 for rebuttal. You may proceed.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Well, it was thanks to your 22 questions, and I appreciate that.
23 The first point I want to make is Mr.
24 Burdick, I believe, cited Section 7.1.1.4 of the ER 25 alleging that Entergy analyzed a combination of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 alternatives in response to a question I think from 2 Judge Hawkens.
3 And in looking at that section of the ER, 4 the combination of alternatives were two 400-megawatt 5 natural gas combined cycle units. The next one was 6 four 50-megawatt biomass units. And then the third 7 one was demand-side management programs.
8 You know, again, there is no discussion of 9 a combination of renewable energy and energy 10 efficiency or demand-side management, whatever you 11 want to call it. And that I think is the real crux of 12 why the ER doesn't adequately address the 13 reasonableness of renewable energy and energy 14 efficiency as an alternative.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: But, Mr. Taylor, do you 16 understand it's your burden, under binding Commission 17 case law, to lay a foundation for your claim that 18 renewables and energy efficiency in some combination 19 can satisfy baseload in the region of interest by 20 2025?
21 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
22 JUDGE HAWKENS: Is there a sentence in 23 your petition where you say a particular source 24 satisfies that condition precedent?
25 MR. TAYLOR: Just what we discussed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 before, that those studies that I have cited indicate 2 that renewable energy and energy efficiency, 3 especially in combination, can in a very short time 4 produce all the power we need.
5 JUDGE HAWKENS: And it's your position 6 that the two most probative studies are those ones 7 that are specific to Louisiana?
8 MR. TAYLOR: I wouldn't say that, no.
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: I thought you said that.
10 MR. TAYLOR: No. I put those in just to 11 show what's going on in Louisiana and that Louisiana 12 could provide renewable energy in time to be online 13 before the River Bend license expires.
14 Those other studies, although they are not 15 Louisiana-specific, certainly indicate how any state, 16 Louisiana or the country as a whole, can get to 17 formulating renewable energy and energy efficiency by 18 a short time period within the time before 2025.
19 So --
20 JUDGE HAWKENS: I'm going to give you the 21 opportunity again to -- earlier you did say that 22 Louisiana was probative. Are there any only extremely 23 probative sources you want to bring to our attention?
24 MR. TAYLOR: I think those -- the Jacobson 25 studies, in terms of renewables, and then also we had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 several studies on energy efficiency, that -- it 2 starts on page 14 of our petition. And, again, you 3 have to take it all together. You can't take it and 4 separate out each one and say, "Well, that's not going 5 to work." You have to take them all together. So 6 that was my point.
7 The other point I wanted to make was about 8 baseload. And it's our contention that what these 9 studies say is that taking the Seventh Circuit 10 definition of "baseload" that was cited in I think 11 Entergy's answer, that it's energy intended to 12 continuously produce electricity at or near full 13 capacity with high availability.
14 But that, you know, defines what we're 15 saying that renewable energy and energy efficiency 16 taken together can do. It doesn't require a 17 stationary physical plant to be able to provide 18 baseload. So I think the baseload argument is made in 19 our petition.
20 And, finally, I'd just point the Board to 21 our discussion of the standards for admissibility of 22 contentions in our petition. I'm not sure the Board 23 is aware, but just to emphasize those, I think that 24 Entergy and the Board staff are trying to make the 25 standards too strict, and that we have complied with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 the requirements for admissibility.
2 And that's all I have.
3 JUDGE HAWKENS: Judge Hawkens here. Mr.
4 Taylor, I have a question for you --
5 MR. TAYLOR: Sure.
6 JUDGE HAWKENS: -- regarding Contention 3.
7 On its face, it looks like an adequacy contention.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
9 JUDGE HAWKENS: But I think both Entergy 10 and the staff make rather strong arguments that in 11 your discussion both in the basis section and the 12 factual section you seem to limit it to a contention 13 of omission. In particular, in the basis section, you 14 say the license renewal application "does not address 15 the degradation of the concrete drywell due to ASR."
16 And then in the factual section you say, 17 "The LRA for River Bend does not include any 18 discussion of ASR-induced degradation." And the fact 19 that you don't point to any portion of the license 20 renewal application identifying a deficiency would 21 seem to confirm that at least in your petition you 22 intended it to be a contention of omission. Was that 23 your intention?
24 Now, it looks like in your reply it did 25 appear to morph into a contention of deficiency.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 MR. TAYLOR: Well, it didn't morph. I was 2 trying to clarify what I was arguing in the petition.
3 But as you know, the contention itself clearly is an 4 adequacy contention, and it's -- you know, if that was 5 not clear in the basis and the factual recitation, 6 that's why I clarify that in the reply.
7 JUDGE HAWKENS: So it is a challenge to 8 the adequacy of the aging management program rather 9 than a challenge to the failure, the absolute failure 10 to address reaction with aggregates or ASR cracking.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
12 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. Do you have 13 anything else, Mr. Taylor?
14 MR. TAYLOR: No. Thank you.
15 JUDGE HAWKENS: All right. The case is 16 submitted. Mr. Taylor, I thank you.
17 Mr. Burdick, Mr. Turk, Mr. Roth, and Mr.
18 Gillespie, thank you for the arguments. And I would 19 ask you to stay online for a few minutes to give 20 Jasmine the opportunity to get any additional 21 information from you.
22 With that, we are adjourned. Please stay 23 on the line.
24 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 25 off the record at 4:32 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433