BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MARIBETH A. BUSHEY, presiding

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MARIBETH A. BUSHEY, presiding Joint Application of Southern California Edison Company (UE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U0E) to Find the SONGS Units and Decommissioning Cost Estimate Reasonable and Address Other Related Decommissioning Issues. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EVIDENTIARY HEARING Application --00 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT San Francisco, California August, Pages - Volume - Reported by: Thomas C. Brenneman, CSR No. Wendy M. Pun, CSR No.

2 WITNESSES: I N D E X PAGE ADAM H. LEVIN Direct Examination By Ms Salustro Cross-Examination By Mr. Freedman Cross-Examination By Ms. Gilmore Cross-Examination By Mr. Geesman 0 Cross-Examination (Resumed.) By Ms. Gilmore Cross-Examination By Mr. Lutz Cross-Examination (Resumed) By Ms. Gilmore Redirect Examination By Ms. 00 Salustro Recross-Examination By Mr. 0 Geesman Examination By ALJ Bushey 0 Recross-Examination By Mr. 0 Geesman Recross-Examination By Ms. 0 Gilmore Recross-Examination By Mr. Lutz 0 TRACY M. DALU Direct Examination By Ms. 0 Salustro Cross-Examination By Mr. Freedman Examination By ALJ Bushey NORMA G. JASSO Direct Examination By Ms. Salustro Cross-Examination By Mr. Lee RANDALL G. ROSE Direct Examination By Ms. Salustro Cross-Examination By Mr. Freedman BRUCE A. LACY Direct Examination By Mr. Freedman Cross-Examination By Mr. Matthews Cross-Examination By Ms. Salustro Cross-Examination By Mr. Geesman Redirect Examination By Mr.

3 Freedman Recross-Examination By Ms. Salustro Exhibits: Iden. Evid

4 AUGUST, - :00 A.M. * * * * * ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE BUSHEY: The Commission will come to order. This is the time and place set for the continued evidentiary hearing in Application Good morning. Today we are going to have cross-examination of San Diego Gas and Electric Company's witnesses. While we were off the record we identified all of their exhibits. The titles of these exhibits have been slightly modified. I will read to you the official title that we're going to use and also tell you what has been excised from the title. Exhibit is titled Prepared Direct Testimony in Support of the Decommissioning Cost Estimates on Behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We have removed from the title the words "second errata to revised." (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit is titled Rebuttal Testimony in Support of the Decommissioning Cost Estimates on Behalf of

5 San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We have removed from that title "errata to prepared." (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit is Rebuttal Testimony, Trust Funds, Regulatory Balancing and Memorandum Accounts, and Ratemaking on Behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We removed from that title "errata to prepared." (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit is Prepared Direct Testimony Financial Modeling, Trust Fund Contributions and Ratemaking on Behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We removed from that title "second errata to revised." (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit is entitled Supplemental Direct Testimony of Jonathan Atun, SONGS and Updated Equity Scale Down and Trust Allocations on Behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We added the word "direct" to that title. (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.)

6 ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit is San Diego Gas and Electric Company Workpapers for Witness De Marco. (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibit are Workpapers for Witness Atun. (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Anything further? Hearing none then, Ms. Salustro, would you like to call your first witness. Honor. MS. SALUSTRO: Yes. Thank you, your SDG&E calls Adam Levin. ADAM H. LEVIN, called as a witness by San Diego Gas and Electric Company, having been sworn, testified as follows: ALJ BUSHEY: Please be seated. State your full name for the record and spell your last name. THE WITNESS: My name is Adam H. Levin. Last named is spelled L-e-v-i-n. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Salustro. MS. SALUSTRO: Thank you. BY MS SALUSTRO: DIRECT EXAMINATION Q Good morning, Mr. Levin. Mr.

7 Levin, a moment ago the judge identified several exhibits, specifically Exhibit, Exhibit, and Exhibit. Do you have those documents in front of you? A Yes, I do. Q You're sponsoring sections as indicated in the table of contents within each of these three exhibits, correct? A That is correct. Q And was this testimony prepared by you and under your supervision? A Yes, it was. Q Do you have any additional changes or corrections to make at this time? A I do not. Q To the extent that these documents contain facts, are those facts true and correct to the best of your information, knowledge, and belief? A Yes, they are. Q And to the extent these documents contain opinions, do those opinions constitute your best professional judgment? A Yes, they do. Q Do you adopt these exhibits as your sworn testimony in this proceeding? A Yes, I do. MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, the witness

8 is available for cross-examination. ALJ BUSHEY: Thank you. Let's start with Mr. Freedman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FREEDMAN: Q Good morning, Mr. Levin. A Good morning, Mr. Freedman. Q Mr. Levin, I'd like to ask you to take a look at your rebuttal testimony, Exhibit, page. A I'm sorry. Exhibit number? Q. A. Yes. Q And on this page you discuss the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight of the decommissioning trust funds, and you state that the NRC oversight prohibits any return of trust funds until final decommissioning has been completed; is that correct? A That is correct. Q What does final decommissioning mean? A Final decommissioning is the point at which the NRC's Part 0 license, licensee's Part 0 license is terminated. Q So when does SDG&E expect that the Part 0 license will be terminated for SONGS

9 0 Units and? A Assuming that the Part 0 license remains in place as long as spent nuclear fuel is on site, it would be in. Q Are you familiar with the provisions of the SONGS master trust that addressed the disbursement of excess funds from the trust and the termination of the trusts? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection. Your Honor, this witness is a decommissioning NRC witness. He doesn't work for SDG&E or Sempra. So master trust agreements for Sempra are outside the scope of his testimony. MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, the witness is free to say that he does not know about them. However, this question is directly relevant to his contention regarding NRC requirements that govern master trusts and the termination of such trusts. ALJ BUSHEY: He was referencing IRS requirements. MS. SALUSTRO: NRC requirements, your Honor. MR. FREEDMAN: My questions, your Honor, go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. I'm not asking him

10 about Internal Revenue Service code requirements. ALJ BUSHEY: The testimony you're referencing is about the Internal Revenue Code, though. MR. FREEDMAN: No. Your Honor, I'm actually asking about the prior section, Section C, in which Mr. Levin makes contentions regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. ALJ BUSHEY: Oh, I see. I see. Yes, you're absolutely correct. Yes. If the witness doesn't know, he can say he doesn't know. THE WITNESS: I have read the master trust agreement for San Diego Gas and Electric. MR. FREEDMAN: Q And are you aware then that the master trust agreement addresses a threshold -- it references a point at which SDG&E would initiate a filing with the California Public Utilities Commission for return of any remaining funds in the trust, does it not? A No, it does not. Q So you're not familiar with a reference to the 0 percent threshold of costs incurred?

11 A I am familiar with that reference. Q From your perspective, what does it mean? A As I understand the trust agreement, it says that at the 0 percent threshold of costs that have been anticipated, any further disbursements require the -- require a submission to the CPUC for any further disbursements for costs incurred. Q Don't all disbursements require a filing with the Public Utilities Commission? A I don't know if I can answer that. Q So you don't know what the difference would be regarding PUC filing requirements before and after the 0 percent threshold? A I do not have complete knowledge of that. Q And so to the extent that there were any provisions in the master trust that called for a potential termination of the trust prior to the termination of the Part 0 license, it's your contention that that would be a violation of NRC requirements? A Can you repeat that? There was something I didn't quite catch in the middle. Q So to the extent that there's any

12 provision of the master trust that specifies the potential termination of the trust prior to the termination of the Part 0 license, is it your contention that that would violate NRC rules? A I'm not aware of anything in the trust that potentially talks about termination of the trust prior to termination of the NRC license. Q Are you familiar with, when you're referencing NRC rules, are you referencing CFR Part 0.? A And associated guidance. Q Now, the NRC guidance, doesn't it mention that transfers are permissible to another financial assurance method prior to the completion of decommissioning? A I make that statement in my testimony. That is correct. Q And what other financial assurance methods are acceptable under the NRC rules? A Financial assurance methods under NRC regulations are either a sinking fund or a nonbypassable surcharge, a letter of credit, or another method as approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Q And does that also include prepayment? Is that one of the methods

13 that's permissible? A That is correct. Q And dose the NRC also permit a surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method? A I recall that being part of CFR 0. financial assurance methods, but I believe that that method was something that the NRC has removed from 0.. Q So if I were to look at the current version of 0. subpart (e)() little that states a surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method is permissible, you're saying that that doesn't exist anymore if I were to look for that subdivision? A If that is the current regulation, then you are correct. Q So is it fair to say that the NRC allows multiple methods of complying with these requirements for adequacy of decommissioning funding? A Yes. Q And that the maintenance of an external sinking fund is not the sole method that satisfies NRC requirements? A That's correct. MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you. I have one cross-examination exhibit at this time, your

14 Honor, I'd like to distribute. record. record. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. We'll be off the (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be back on the While we were off the record we numbered Exhibit, TURN cross-examination exhibit. (Exhibit No. was marked for identification.) ALJ BUSHEY: Mr. Freedman. MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you, your Honor. Q This exhibit contains the response by SDG&E to TURN Data Request Set, Question. Mr. Levin, are you sponsoring or are you the author of this response? A I am sponsoring this response. Q Great. And in this response SDG&E is asked what approvals might be required from the NRC for transfer of funds between qualified nuclear decommissioning trust funds, and the answer is: At a minimum a temporary exemption request from CFR 0.(a)() would have to be approved by the NRC in order to move a facility's funds from

15 one unit's trust to another unit's trust. Do you see that? A Yes, I do. Q Why would an exemption from CFR 0. be required? A NRC regulations require that licensees have a dedicated decommissioning trust fund for each nuclear unit for each nuclear license. And CFR 0. identifies the limitations with respect to the expenditures of those funds. One part of CFR 0. identifies that withdrawals from those funds can be made for legitimate decommissioning expenses. The NRC has taken the position that transfer of trust funds from one unit to another does require an exemption. And I'll cite that by talking about an exemption that was filed that I'm familiar with by Arizona Public Service for Palo Verde, the Palo Verde site which has three units. And in that exemption request APS requested the ability to move decommissioning funds up to $ million from Unit decommissioning trust to the Unit decommissioning trust. And as I said, that required an exemption approval by the NRC.

16 Q Mr. Levin, was that request for an exemption for Palo Verde approved? A Yes, it was. MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Those are all my questions. ALJ BUSHEY: Mr. Peffer. MR. PEFFER: Your Honor, Ms. Gilmore will be conducting questioning. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. MS. GILMORE: Okay. Sorry. Didn't have my glasses on. MR. PEFFER: Your Honor, if it's possible, I'd like to reserve five minutes possibly after the break for this witness. ALJ BUSHEY: For what purpose? MR. PEFFER: I'd like to ask some followup questions potentially, but we need to do some printing first. We will subtract that from this. So there shouldn't be any -- ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be off the record. (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be back on the record. Ms. Gilmore. Ms. Gilmore, are you ready to begin your questioning? MS. GILMORE: Yes. MR. PEFFER: Your Honor, Ms. Gilmore would like to approach the bench. She has

17 some exhibits. ALJ BUSHEY: Exhibits. We'll be off the record. (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be back on the record. Ms. Gilmore, your first question. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. GILMORE: Q Okay. My first question is, all right, on page it starts, line, you know, Witness Gilmore argues spent fuel pools are only viable method to remediate a failed spent fuel canister. And then on the next page I reference the DOE document stating in order to repackage a used nuclear fuel waste, that's another term for spent fuel canister, that it would require, according to the DOE, it would require either a storage pool or a hot cell facility. MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, your Honor. I understand that Ms. Gilmore is reading what she -- MS. GILMORE: Yeah. I just was putting it in reference for the question. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. Ms. Gilmore, you don't need to do that. MS. GILMORE: Okay.

18 ALJ BUSHEY: You don't need to read anything. It's already in the record. MS. GILMORE: Okay. All right. Okay. Q So regarding your mention of repairing a canister as an option, what were you using as your interpretation of failed spent fuel canister when you were responding to that? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection. Could we get a reference to -- MS. GILMORE: He's saying -- he's saying that repairing is an option. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, a line reference, please. MS. GILMORE: Q Okay. I'm sorry. Line references a failed spent fuel canister. So you're making a statement that I should have considered the canister can be repaired. I'm asking you what your definition is of a failed spent fuel canister. You were responding to that. MS. SALUSTRO: And your Honor, I have to object here. This is twisting not only Mr. Levin's written testimony, but also Ms. Gilmore seems to be twisting her own testimony that's quoted here. ] MS. GILMORE: Okay. I'm making it simple.

19 0 Q What is your -- what is your definition -- on line it says failed spent fuel canister. What is your understanding of the term, "failed spent fuel canister," when you were responding to this? MS. SALUSTRO: And again, your Honor, I have to object because all he's doing is quoting Ms. Gilmore on the previous page. ALJ BUSHEY: Right. Sustained. Ms. Gilmore, he's just quoting you. MS. GILMORE: All right. I'll go further down, and we'll get to this. Okay. All right. Q Down in tools to repair a flawed canister, line. Are you aware of any tools that are currently available today to repair a canister -- successfully repair a canister filled with spent nuclear fuel? A In my testimony on lines and, I've said, "my experience absent tools to repair a flaw." So that is correct. I am not aware of any tools. Q Okay. All right. So -- okay. So you're not aware of any tools. Okay. So are you aware of any other options besides future repair tools or pools or hot cell to deal with a failed canister? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, there's a

20 lack of foundation. I'm not sure any of those methods have been substantiated. MS. GILMORE: Okay. Well, I have to learn how to ask questions better. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. Ms. Gilmore, hold on. Isn't the answer, Mr. Levin, to the question found at the top of the next page? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, your Honor. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. MS. GILMORE: Okay. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, this is already in the record. MS. GILMORE: Well, I'm trying to understand -- okay -- his point here. Okay. All right. Q Let's go to line on page where you say that -- your belief that the DOE will proceed with developing tools for repairs. Are you aware of any projects -- you know, what -- is your belief based on any documents or knowledge of -- of project in place to -- to do this? A I'm sorry. Can you repeat which line you're on? Q On number -- line, where you state, "It is my belief DOE will proceed with developing tools for making any needed

21 repairs down the road." A Yes, I stated that in line that DOE has programs in flight to develop tools for inspecting canister surfaces, and I identified a reference by Dr. Marshman at Idaho National Laboratory. Q No, my question is regarding tools for making repairs, not for inspecting. It's the second part of your statement. A And my response is that you need to have tools to identify the flaw. And down the road, DOE will follow on with development of tools to repair the flaws. Q Okay. But my question is are you aware of any projects that are in the queue for the repair part. A I'm not aware of any. Q Okay. All right. That's what I needed to know there. Okay. This may go -- this may go -- this may go quicker than I thought. And -- and your -- wait a minute. Okay. Page, line. So you say that it can be placed in a larger canister, oversized concrete storage module. Are you aware of any NRC-licensed cask or canisters to do this? A It would require an amendment to

22 any of the existing systems as I know about them today. Q Okay. Are you aware of any currently licensed vendor that has a larger canister available that they could put into a slightly oversized concrete storage module? A Again, it would require an amendment to the systems that I'm aware of today in order to do that. Q Okay. Could it possibly require a new license as opposed to just an amendment? Are you sure it's just an amendment? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, your Honor, it's asks for hypotheticals based on -- MS. GILMORE: I'm just asking -- I'm just trying to clarify that he said a license amendment, and I'm asking is it possible that it could require a new license versus an amendment. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, when a witness' attorney objects -- MS. GILMORE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. ALJ BUSHEY: Let's hear the objection. MS. SALUSTRO: My objection is it's a hypothetical based on uncertain facts. In addition, we've asked several questions on this point. I'm not sure if this line of

23 questioning is helpful getting to the determination of the reasonableness of the estimate. ALJ BUSHEY: The witness has provided testimony asserting that the failed canister could be addressed by this means and is being cross-examined on what it would take to get permission to do that. That seems to be within the scope of the witness' testimony. Whether that -- how that plays, if at all, into the reasonableness determination is another story. This witness has presented testimony, and questions are being asked regarding his testimony. So on that basis, I'm going to overrule your objection. The witness can answer if he knows. THE WITNESS: It is my opinion that it would require a license amendment and not a new license. MS. GILMORE: Q Okay. Can you give an example of a -- a canister that would -- would have a -- that could get a license amendment for this? MS. SALUSTRO: That one I have to object to, your Honor. MS. GILMORE: Because a license amendment assumes -- ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, we have

24 another objection. MS. GILMORE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Objection. I'm sorry. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. And the objection is? MS. GILMORE: Calls for speculation and in addition is calling for the witness to speculate about an NRC action determining whether -- what kind of license amendment would be needed for what kind of canister. ALJ BUSHEY: I was kind of thinking asked and answered was where I was going with this. Ms. Gilmore, he's already said he's not aware of anyone whose done this. MS. GILMORE: Well, he's -- he said -- can I rephrase? ALJ BUSHEY: Yes, Mr. Peffer? MR. PEFFER: Your Honor, can I ask that Ms. Gilmore be allowed to complete her question before objections are lodged. She was in the middle of the question, and she was interrupted. ALJ BUSHEY: I believe it was completed. Ms. Gilmore, had you completed your question? MS. GILMORE: Yeah. Well, yeah. Can I

25 just -- maybe there was a thought missed there. He -- we're here to kind of validate the witnesses; right? To -- the credibility or their knowledge; right? That's the part of what -- ALJ BUSHEY: Right. MS. GILMORE: Okay. So when he says that, "Oh, you need a license amendment," that means existing canisters that are currently approved by the NRC would be the only ones eligible for an amendment. Otherwise you need a new license. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. Ms. Gilmore, now you're testifying. MS. GILMORE: No, but I was trying to explain where I was going with my question, but -- ALJ BUSHEY: The purpose of cross-examination is not to explain where you're going. MS. GILMORE: Okay. All right. ALJ BUSHEY: You get a fact on the record, and then you use that in your brief. MS. GILMORE: Right. ALJ BUSHEY: And you explain in the brief. MS. GILMORE: Right. And I was trying to get another fact on the record.

26 ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. What fact that's not now in the record that you would like to get in the record? MS. GILMORE: I would like for him to say what -- what approved canisters or casks might be eligible for this license amendment. He's saying a license amendment. To what -- to -- to -- to what existing canister, what existing system? ALJ BUSHEY: Let's see if the witness has particular system in mind for an amendment, or would any licensed -- THE WITNESS: Any licensed canister-based dry cask storage system could seek an amendment to allow that system to be packed into a -- an oversized canister. ALJ BUSHEY: Does that complete the facts that you require, Ms. Gilmore? MS. GILMORE: Q Would a transfer cask be one of those for a license amendment? A The transfer cask is a different entity. Q Okay. I just want -- A The transfer cask is licensed with -- typically licensed with a system in its original license in order to move canisters between a storage overpack in the spent fuel pool.

27 Q Correct. I understand. What I'm asking is -- would -- so would a -- just kind of yes or no. Would a transfer cask potentially be a cask that could get a license amendment to store a failed canister? Just yes or no. A What would need to change for a transfer cask is the certificate of compliance and operations associated with the transfer cask in the final safety analysis report that says how long a canister can reside in a transfer cask. And so it would likely not be a new license. It would likely not be a license amendment. It would be a change of operating system requirements that may or may not necessarily require the license amendment. Q Would it require an -- a license exemption? A Possibly, but I would expect it to be an engineering change that's performed under CFR.. Q Okay. Would a transport -- a transportation cask be a possible option for a license amendment? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, asked and answered. MS. GILMORE: No, that was a transfer

28 cask -- sorry. Sorry. MS. SALUSTRO: Now we're getting to transfer cask. I'm not sure how that relates back to his testimony about packaging into a storage module. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, we're -- we've gotten quite a long ways from the witness's direct testimony. MS. GILMORE: Well, he's -- he's claiming that you can do this, so that's -- ALJ BUSHEY: Right. And you're quizzing him on exactly what type of permission would you need from the NRC. That may or may not have any bearing on whether this is technically feasible at all. MS. GILMORE: Well, I -- I -- you know, can I -- can I have a little latitude on these questions because I -- ALJ BUSHEY: I've given you quite a bit of latitude. MS. GILMORE: All right. All right. Because this is extremely relevant to -- to the decommissioning -- the decommissioning. ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be off the record. (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be back on the record. Mr. Geesman?

29 0 MR. GEESMAN: Thank you, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GEESMAN: Q Good morning, Mr. Levin? A Good morning, Mr. Geesman. Q I'm John Geesman for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. I would like to turn your attention to Exhibit, which is your prepared direct testimony. And go to page, lines through where you're talking about the DOE pilot ISF program. And I believe ISF is identified in your testimony as an acronym for interim storage facilities. Your reference is to a pilot program, and my question is is your belief that is a reasonable assumption for the commencement of DOE acceptance of spent nuclear fuel -- is your belief premised on this pilot program taking place? A I discussed the pilot program in my testimony in as much as I used that to help me validate the position that the decommissioning cost estimate has taken that as a reasonable date. And based upon that validation, I've concluded that the date is a reasonable date. Q If there were no pilot program,

30 would you reach the same conclusion? A If there were no pilot program today, I would reach the same conclusion. However, I expect that -- as I've mentioned in my testimony that legislation will be in place by, which will allow a pilot program to be enacted and to begin in. Q I'd like to turn to page of that same exhibit. At lines through, you make reference to a Executive Order by Governor Gray Davis from 0. Could you elaborate a bit more on what that Executive Order does and how it relates to the decommissioning cost estimate? A Without the order in front of me, I cannot at this time elaborate completely. However, my familiarity with it tells me that it potentially prevents municipal landfill waste by governor order to be disposed of from a nuclear facility in the state of California. Q And that would then focus the plant owners on scrap metal recyclers or a out-of-state municipal landfill? A That is my understanding as reflected in the decommissioning cost estimate. Q Do you know whether or not the

31 plant owners have sought any variance from this Executive Order? A I do not. Q I'd like to go to Exhibit, which is your rebuttal testimony, and turn to page? A I'm focused on Section B, which occupies lines through of page. And I'd like to make certain I've got the arithmetic correct. I look at line and where you attribute to turn an estimate of $ million, and then you at line indicate that million of that is for the intake and discharge conduit. So you believe that ought to be subtracted from the $ million, which if I do that math is minus, or $ million attributable to the Navy easement. MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, your Honor. I think Mr. Geesman is looking at the -- I withdraw that objection. ALJ BUSHEY: Well, I have just a -- I didn't hear an actual question in there. What is the question? MR. GEESMAN: Q Is my math correct? $ million should be attributable to the requirements in the Navy easement for Site

32 Restoration Period? A I'll assume your math is correct. Q Thank you. Then I would like to go to pages and. On page -- A Excuse me, Mr. Geesman. Which exhibit? Q Oh, I'm sorry. I'm still on Exhibit. A Thank you, sir. Q On page I'm looking at that numbered Paragraph. On line, you say, "The SONGS DCE assumes all clean concrete demolition debris is disposed of at an out-of-state Class landfill." I want to clarify when you say, "all," you mean not just that which is three feet below the subsurface. You mean all? A Beyond three feet below existing grade, yes. Q Okay. And in line, you attribute a cost impact of. million to that requirement, including the contingency? A The $. million is the disposal cost for that material. Q Okay. Then I go to page, lines and. You indicate that the SONGS estimated cost impact is. million, including the

33 contingency. And I believe that also includes, does it not, the intake and outfall facilities as well? Is that correct? A That is correct. Q I want to go through another arithmetic question, and I'm focused on Footnote on page. And I start with the. million. That includes the intake and outfall facilities; correct? A For the complete disposition, including labor, burial, et cetera, that is correct. Q I subtract. million to cover that below three feet of the subsurface requirement that only applies to SONGS. Am I correct in doing so? A I don't understand what you're saying when you say, "Am I correct in doing so?" Is there something -- Q Where I'm trying to go is a cost number to attribute to this Executive Order, the Executive Order which forces the plant owners to find scrap recyclers or an out-of-state landfill in which to dispose of this uncontaminated rubble. And I believe based on your testimony, the correct way for me to do that is. million minus. million. I'm

34 asking if that is the appropriate way to look at the effect of this Executive Order? A I understand what you're looking for. Without my workpapers in front of me and the cost estimate to look at -- there may be some other costs that should be in or out associated with that, so I'm afraid I cannot give you an answer at this time. Q Do you know what the general magnitude of those other costs would be? Is it percent? percent? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection. If Mr. Geesman could be more clear about what he means by those other costs? MR. GEESMAN: Q The other costs that you are concerned that without access to your workpapers you can't give me a precise number. A I refrain from doing so without having that information in front of me. MR. GEESMAN: Thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. GEESMAN: That completes my; questioning, your Honor. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. Ms. Gilmore? MS. GILMORE: Okay. ALJ BUSHEY: Are you ready with your

35 last questions? MS. GILMORE: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed.) BY MS. GILMORE: Q Page. ALJ BUSHEY: Of what exhibit? MS. GILMORE: Of Exhibit. Q And a paragraph that starts on line of page. You're -- let's see. Is the paper that you're referencing here in Footnote for -- for what kind of repository? What kind of facility? A The document I'm referencing in -- in Footnote here simply is a discussion of how the DOE may go about picking up canisters from retired nuclear units. Q Does it relate to interim storage facilities or permanent repositories? A I do not recall any discussion in that document about a permanent repository. I -- and with respect to the interim storage facility, it addresses it only from the standpoint that it would be the intent that these canisters would go to an interim storage facility. Q Could you describe what an interim storage facility is? A An interim storage facility is a

36 facility that will allow spent nuclear fuel to be picked up from nuclear -- commercial nuclear plants in advance of there being available a deep geologic repository for disposal. The interim storage purpose is exactly that, for storage until a repository is available. Q And what kind of storage is used for interim storage? What type? A The technology would be very similar to if not the same as the technology that's currently used at commercial nuclear plants. Q So could you describe -- describe at a very high level the process of moving the existing fuel to the interim? Just a very high level. I'm sure the Judge will appreciate I said very high level. A Are you requesting that I identify the fuel that is in dry storage at a nuclear plant? Q Yeah, yeah, in dry storage. A Or in wet storage? Q Already in dry storage. A The way that would happen is that the Department of Energy would provide a transportation cask of some sort into which a canister of spent fuel at a retired reactor

37 site or at an operating reactor site would be transferred to be transported to the Department of Energy. ] Q And would this be using the existing canisters that are there? A That is the discussion that is in this document. Q Correct. Okay. Would those canisters be inspected for any corrosion or cracks prior to being transported? A It's not a question or something I can answer. Q Okay. A I'm not aware of it. Q All right. Now, if it wasn't an interim facility using the existing canisters, if it was to take to a permanent repository, which is what the current, you know, law is, would the process be the same? Would they be taking the canisters in the existing canisters? A That's speculation. I don't know. Q We don't know. Okay. That's what I wanted to -- that's what I wanted to -- On page, line, would you describe what a transportation overpack is, what the purpose of it and what it is? A A transportation overpack, the

38 purpose of it is to provide a conveyance of package that allows spent nuclear fuel to be moved outside or off of the plant site boundary. Q To? A Wherever it may go. Q Okay. Now, is the -- is this normally -- what is this normally made out of? A It's normally made out of steel and lead. Q Is the steel normally thicker than the thin canisters that it's currently in? A You'll have to help me identify what you're talking about. Q Well, the -- we're putting here the failed canister into a transport overpack. So the thin canister goes into an overpack for transport. Does this canister have any additional barriers for, say, radiation or requirements that the thin canister doesn't have? A The purpose of the thick canister is threefold. It provides radiation shielding. It provides structural support. Q Is it designed to be reusable? MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, if the witness could -- I'm not sure if he was done

39 0 with his answer. MS. GILMORE: Sorry, sorry. ALJ BUSHEY: All right. Ms. Gilmore, why don't we let the witness finish his answer. MS. GILMORE: Okay. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. And let's confine it to the reference he's made in his testimony and not ask him to speculate about other things. MS. GILMORE: Okay. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. So if the witness would complete his answer. THE WITNESS: The transportation overpack provides three functions. The first is radiation shielding. The second is structural support. And the third is confinement. MS. GILMORE: Q Are these designed to be reusable? A Typically that is the goal. Q Is the cost ratio between the thin canisters and the transport overpacks significantly different? A Yes. Q In page, okay, on page on the paragraph starting on line. Let me know when you're there.

40 A Yes. Q Okay. A Same exhibit? Q Yes. Same exhibit. Yeah. Okay. Now, where you reference that the spent fuel pool gave Crystal River the ability to reopen and repackage the fuel into any size DOE-provided system, how would we -- is there any way to do that without a pool? A It may be possible. Q And what might that be? A It would require an in-air transfer of spent fool assemblies, shielded spent fuel assemblies. Q Is there a name that they usually call these facilities? A Not that I can think of. Q Okay. Dry transfer. Are you aware of any of these? I'll just call it dry -- you said like a dry transfer type. Are you aware of any of these facilities that exist that are large enough to perform this function? A There was an experimental design that I'm aware of that was up at the Idaho National Laboratory. Q Does that facility still exist? A I do not know.

41 Q Do you know what the cost of roughly of building one of those facilities would be in order to perform this function? A I do not. Q Would you think it would be significant? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. ALJ BUSHEY: The witness says he doesn't know. MS. GILMORE: Okay. All right. Q And do you, you know, do you know why Crystal River would want to be able to repackage the fuel in a DOE-provided system? A Yes, I do. Q And what is that reason? A The reason is if the Department of Energy provided a transportation system that required a smaller package or a smaller amount of spent fuel in it. Q Okay. Is there a current requirement that the utilities be able to do that, provide the fuel to be put in a DOE canister? A No. Q Would their standard contract? A The standard contract simply identifies a standard waste form, which is a

42 fuel assembly. It does not specify package sizes. Q No. But it specifies that you need to be able to put the -- it doesn't specify the container it goes in. I understand that. But that the fuel assemblies need to be able to go into a DOE canister. Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to make sure I understand. A It does not specify that. Q It does not. Does the NRC require that spent fuel assemblies be retrievable from a canister? A The NRC is currently reviewing what retrievability means. Q But under the current existing requirements? A Retrievability is on an assembly basis. Q Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. In terms of, are you -- in terms of -- so do you know how long the thin type of canisters have been in use roughly? MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I'm not sure what relevance that is to Mr. Levin's testimony. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore, do you have a --

43 MS. GILMORE: Q Well, we're talking about -- okay. Let's go down to page, line. Okay. The whole paragraph there. Okay. So in here we're discussing developing tools to inspect, developing tools to repair. This obviously assumes something went wrong. So what would you -- how do -- MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, objection. MS. GILMORE: Hold on. I need to gather my thoughts here. ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be off the record. (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be back on the record. Mr. Lutz. MR. LUTZ: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUTZ: Q Ray Lutz with Citizens Oversight. Good morning. A Good morning. Q I'm looking at your testimony regarding the pilot ISF operation, and this is on page, lines through. I'm not sure what exhibit number this had on it. Sorry. My eyes are getting bad. Let me get my glasses out. Okay. Here you say that -- A I'm sorry. Can you clarify the

44 exhibit for me, please. Q It's SDG&E-0-R-E-A. MR. GEESMAN: Exhibit. MR. LUTZ: Is that No.? MR. GEESMAN:. MR. LUTZ: is the number that you guys have assigned. ALJ BUSHEY: What page? MR. LUTZ: Page and lines through is what I'm referring to. Q Do you see those lines starting with, "The DOE-assumed start date"? A Yes. Q Okay. In this passage it references that it was predicate -- the start date was predicated on work beginning by January, but then it goes on to say it has yet to be launched. So is the schedule slipping for the pilot ISF program? A As I've mentioned in my testimony here, DOE recognizes that federal legislation will be in order for them to move forward, and federal -- it's reasonable to make an assumption at this point that legislation can be acted, enacted by. That legislation is already in process. Q Has the -- are you aware of any investigation by the utilities into an

45 in-state off-site ISFSI, or what we call it here, a interim storage facility within California? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, your Honor. By investigation, if Mr. Lutz could clarify what he means by that. MR. LUTZ: Q Well, in other words, in order to create a interim storage facility, you would have to have a site for it, a location, transportation to it and so forth. So there was a lot of issues regarding where it might be. Has there been any discussion or investigation into a location in California that you are aware of regarding those issues? A The only thing I'm aware of is what I've read in the newspaper. Q Okay. So all right. Because you're not really part. Have you read anything in the newspaper about a -- since you're an expert in this area, on a interim storage facility within California? A That's about the level of my knowledge, yes. Q So you haven't heard anything? A Not in detail, no. MR. LUTZ: Okay. Thank you very much. ALJ BUSHEY: All right. Ms. Gilmore,

46 are you prepared? MS. GILMORE: Yeah. CROSS-EXAMINATION (resumed) BY MS. GILMORE: Q Okay. Page, line. A Of which exhibit? Q Exhibit. A I'm sorry. You said page? Q Page, line. It's the third bullet. A Yes. Q Ready? Okay. All right. Once you have this canister in the transport overpack, then what do you do with it? How do you -- you know, what's the plan for it after that to -- you know, what would you do with it after you do that? A Research the options as to whether it needs to be repaired. Q Okay. You don't have repair technology yet? A I would first search the options to see if it needs to be repaired. Q Okay. Well, that's -- it's a failed canister. And so what you're saying is you would -- okay. Assume it needs -- assume it needs repairing or assume it is a failed canister, meaning it has cracks. So

47 then what do you do after you have it in this transport overpack? Then what do you do with it? A Well, again, I would first evaluate it to see if it needs to be repaired and if necessary either seek an exemption from the NRC to accept the canister as is or determine what my repair technology might be. Q Okay. Assuming we don't have the repair technology yet, which is what's in your statement, if there was a site for it to go to, which is the eventual plan, would we be able to transport a -- would you be able to transport a failed canister in this transport overpack, canister with cracks in it? A To be able to provide an opinion on that requires somebody with some structural engineering background, and I'm not of that ilk. Q Or have you read any technical specifications for any of these canisters to see what the requirement is or what the requirements are for transportation overpacks, that they would allow a transport of a cracked canister? MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, can I object. This is going pretty far afield.

48 His testimony here we've discussed quite a bit, and his testimony was just laying out something that Exelon staff had identified as what to do if there was a suspected failed canister. It doesn't go into transporting to off-site storage and so on. ALJ BUSHEY: I'll sustain your objection. The witness has already said he doesn't know. He's not qualified to opine on this. MS. GILMORE: He doesn't know. Okay. That's fair. Okay. Q Do you have any knowledge of how long it's going to take to develop inspection technology? A No. Q No. Okay. Or how long it would take to develop repair technology? A No. Q No. Okay. All right. ALJ BUSHEY: Does that conclude your questions, Ms. Gilmore? MS. GILMORE: Yeah. Let's see. ALJ BUSHEY: Redirect? MS. GILMORE: I think that's -- I think that's it. ALJ BUSHEY: Good. Thank you, Ms. Gilmore.

49 00 Redirect, Ms. Salustro. MS. SALUSTRO: Yes, your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SALUSTRO: Q Mr. Levin, do you recall the line of questionings that TURN asked you about the SDG&E master trust agreements? A Yes, I do. Q For clarification, you did not author the SDG&E six master trust agreements, did you? A I did not. Q Are you at all responsible for administering the master trust agreements? A I am not. Q Or interpreting the master trust agreements' meaning? A I am not. Q Mr. Levin, do you acknowledge that the nuclear decommissioning trusts, again that you were discussing with Mr. Freedman earlier, are not only subject to NRC rules but also subject to IRS rules? A Yes. Q Ms. Gilmore asked you several questions about the availability or the existence of tools to repair canisters. Do you recall your response of the existence of

50 0 these tools? A I believe I responded that the tools for repair do not exist. Q Thank you. Mr. Geesman from A for NR asked you several questions about numbers as they related to navy easements. If I could take you back to those pages. I'm sorry. I don't have the reference immediately handy. Oh, I'm sorry. Exhibit, pages and. A Yes. Q On page, paragraph, which runs from to line, isn't it true, Mr. Levin, that this paragraph is discussing the estimated cost of disposal as that relates to the California executive order? A That is correct. And I believe I made that statement previously. Q And then further down on lines, on page, paragraph, starting at line which carries over to the next page, this paragraph and your estimate here relates to site restoration; is that correct? A That is correct. Including all costs associated with that. Q And when you say all costs, I believe that was a reference to line -- I'm sorry -- footnote on page?

51 0 A That's correct. Q And for clarity you said that the number that appears in footnote included not only the costs mentioned in paragraph about site restoration but also costs such as labor that would be associated with that? A That is correct. Labor, equipment, materials, etcetera. MS. SALUSTRO: One moment, your Honor. ALJ BUSHEY: Off the record. (Off the record.) ALJ BUSHEY: Back on the record. Ms. Salustro. MS. SALUSTRO: Yes. Thank you. Q Mr. Levin, were you present for Tom Palmisano's testimony? A Yes, I was. Q Do you recall this statement in his testimony on the stand that repair technology exists although tools would need to still be developed? A Yes. His statement is, was that, technology exists, the tools need to be developed. Q Do you agree with that statement? A Yes, I do. MS. SALUSTRO: No further questions. ALJ BUSHEY: Thank you. Final

52 0 questions? Mr. Geesman. MR. GEESMAN: Recross. ALJ BUSHEY: Yes. Of course confined to the new material. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GEESMAN: Q Mr. Levin, based on the numbers in your testimony and your responses to Ms. Salustro's redirect, how would you isolate the additional costs for compliance with the navy easement attributable to the executive order you cite in your testimony? MS. SALUSTRO: Your Honor, that's a mischaracterization. The executive order is about waste disposal. The navy easement is about as Mr. -- when Mr. Geesman was walking through the numbers, he was referencing numbers for the navy easement about site restoration. They're two separate categories. ALJ BUSHEY: Well, it would help the record I think if we were clear as to whether or not -- how these numbers work together, how the numbers in paragraph and paragraph work together. Is that where you're going, Mr. Geesman? MR. GEESMAN: That is. ///

53 0 EXAMINATION BY ALJ BUSHEY: Q Yes. I will just share with you my understanding, and feel free to correct me if this is wrong. I'm understanding that these two numbers are additive. So that. million plus. million gets us the total of the executive order and the site remediation; is that correct? A I wish it were that simple. Q Okay. A The discussion in paragraph not only addresses the costs of disposing of the material that needs to be removed because of the navy easement but also discusses other material that may be removed down to the -foot mark as an example. So it encompasses not only the material that's below feet but all the other material at the site that ends up going to a municipal landfill. Q How does that relate to the. million then? A Okay. The total costs for doing the remediation to meet the navy easement as well as the removal of the intake and outfalls is $ million. That's given in my footnote. Subtracted from that is a portion of the $ million.

54 0 Q Right. So the disposal costs -- A Which is applicable only to that piece of the work. Q Right. So the disposal costs have already been taken out, right, of the million? A No, no, no. The disposals costs are in there. Okay. So there's a piece of the which is the total cost of the site. There's a piece that's associated with the. And what I did was backed that piece out in order to come up with the. Q So the number doesn't include the disposal costs? A That is correct. Because I did not -- I had included the disposal cost in that Item. Q Right. A And so I didn't want to double count for it as I looked through all of these items here and added them up. ALJ BUSHEY: All right. Okay. All right. Ms. Geesman, questions? RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GEESMAN: Q So how much of the is attributable to the executive order? A Again, without my workpapers I

55 0 can't tell you because that -- when you talk about that piece associated with the executive -- oh, excuse me. Let me step back. You're asking of the what is associated with the cost of disposal? Q That's correct. A Associated with that executive order? Q Correct. A It would be difference between the. million and. million. MR. GEESMAN: Thank you very much. ALJ BUSHEY: Okay. THE WITNESS: Thank you. ALJ BUSHEY: Ms. Gilmore. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. GILMORE: Q One cross question, recross. Regarding Tom Palmisano's statement yesterday bringing up the repair tools, he mentioned that Calvert Cliffs had a license renewal approved. Are you aware if there's any requirements in the renewal for repairing or inspecting in that license renewal? ] A I know there are some inspection requirements. I do not know exactly what they are. MS. GILMORE: Okay. Thank you.

56 0 ALJ BUSHEY: Mr. Lutz? RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LUTZ: Q Okay. In the redirect, there was mention made of Tom Palmisano's testimony regarding technology but not tools available, and the reference was to repair. There was also another reference in that his testimony which was regarding inspection. And from my memory, I remembered that inspection was possible, but the tools weren't available. Do you agree that with inspection, the tools are not available? MS. SALUSTRO: Objection, your Honor, this goes beyond my limited -- MR. LUTZ: Well, I disagree with you that the -- I'm sorry. ALJ BUSHEY: I understand that you disagree with it. But when you're on recross, you have been confined just to the new material. And Ms. Salustro only asked about a narrow range of Mr. Palmisano's testimony. MR. LUTZ: Well, let me just say that -- before I ask, can I go off the record for a second? ALJ BUSHEY: We'll be off the record. (Off the record.)