ML031890427
| ML031890427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/2003 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 2.206, FOIA/PA-2003-0379, FOIA/PA-2003-0388, NRC-963 | |
| Download: ML031890427 (29) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2.206 Petition on Emergency Planning
Title:
Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
05000247/05000286 (telephone conference)
Thursday, June 19, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-963 Pages 1-27 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
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+.
NRR/OLPM/PD3
+ +TEN++R TELECONFERENCE
____________-x IN THE MATTER OF:
2.206 PETITION ON
- Docket No.
EMERGENCY PLANNING
- 05000247/05000286 x
Thursday, June 19, 2003 The telephone conference call began at 10:05 a.m., Tad Marsh, Chair, presiding.
CALL PARTICIPANTS:
JESSE ARILDSEN HERB BERKOW SCQTT BURNELL.
ROBERT CLARK WILLIAM COOK DAVID CUMMINGS JOHNNY EADS CHARLENE FAISON NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CALL PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd)
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ JACK GOLDBERG JOHN JOLICOEUR TAD MARSH PAT MILANO PATRICIA MILLIGAN JAY SILBERG ROBERT D. SNOOK REBECCA THOMPSON MATIAS TRAVIESO-DIAZ TED QUAID NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com
3 1
P R O C E E D I N G S 2
10:05 a.m.
3 MR. EADS:
I'm Johnny Eads.
The purpose 4
of the call is to allow the State of Connecticut 5
Attorney General's Office to address the Petition 6
Review Board prior to the Board's decision on 7
accepting the petition request under the 2.206 8
process.
9 The first thing I'd like to do is to have 10 all the participants on the call introduce themselves.
11 I'm going to ask you to please speak clearly since 12 this is a recorded call.
I need you to state your 13 name, title and organization you're representing, and 14 I think we'll. go around the room here first.
There 15 are several people in the room, and we're just going 16 to introduce ourselves.
17 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
I'm Tad Marsh.
I'm the 18 Petition Review Board Chairman. I'm also the Director 19 of the Division of Licensing Project Management.
20 MR. BERKOW:
Herb Berkow, Division of 21 Licensing Project Management, PRE member.
22 MR.
JOLICOEUR:
John Jolicoeur, the 23 Executive Director for Operations.
24 MR. GOLDBERG:
Jack Goldberg, Special 25 Counsel, Office of General Counsel.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
MR. CUMMINGS:
David Cummings, Office of General Counsel.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Antonio Fernandez, Office of General Counsel.
MR. BURNELL:
Scott Burnell, Office of Public Affairs.
MS. MILLIGAN:
Patricia Mulligan, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist.
MR. MILANO: Pat Milano, Licensing Project Manager with NRR for Indian Point.
MR. CLARK: Bob Clark, 2.206 Coordinator.
PARTICIPANT:
(inaudible)
MR. EADS: Okay. That's everybody in our conference room.
PARTICIPANT:
- Johnny, it was very difficult to hear most of those.
I don't know that it's crucial that we know exactly who's in the room.
I couldn't understand them.
I don't know if Robert could or not.
PARTICIPANT: I got about a third of them.
MR. MILANO:
Yes.
This is Pat Milano.
Since I know most of the people, let me --
I'll go ahead and I'll introduce all of them for you.
PARTICIPANT:
Okay, Pat.
Thank you.
MR. MILANO: Okay. We have Tad Marsh who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.neakgross.com
5 1
is dual-hatted in this room. He's Deputy Director for 2
Division of Licensing Project Management, and he's 3
also the Petition Review Board Chairman. We have Herb 4
Berkow who's one of the standing members of the Review 5
Board.
We have John Jolicoeur from the EDO's Office, 6
Executive Director for Operations Office.
We have 7
Jack Goldberg, Special Counsel with the Office of 8
General Counsel.
The next two are also with the 9
General Counsel's Office, we have David Cummings and 10 Antonio Fernandez. From our Office of Public Affairs, 11 we have Scott Burnell.
From our Senior Emergency 12 Preparedness Reviewer is Patricia Milligan.
Branch 13 Chief for --
her Branch Chief, Ted Quaid, is on the 14 phone, and our Petition Coordinator we also have on 15 the phone, Bob Clark --
sorry about that. And, again, 16 Johnny Eads who's the Petition Manager.
Thank you.
17 PARTICIPANT:
Thanks, Pat.
18 MR. EADS: Thanks, Pat. Okay. If we can 19 have the other participants introduce themselves, I'd 20 like to start with the Connecticut Attorney General's 21 Office.
22 MR. SNOOK:
Yes.
This is Robert Snook, 23 that's S-N-O-O-K, Assistant Attorney General with the 24 Connecticut Attorney General's Office.
25 MR. EADS: Okay. From the Licensee do we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1
have anybody on board?
2 MS.
FAISON:
Yes.
Charlene Faison, 3
Licensing Manager, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. in 4
White Plains.
5 MR. SILBERG: And in Washington from Shaw 6
Pittman as our law firm representing Entergy, Jay 7
Silberg and Matias Travieso-Diaz.
8 MR. EADS: Very good. Anybody from Region 9
1 on the line?
10 MR. COOK:
Yes.
This is William Cook.
11 I'm a Senior Project Engineer for the Indian Point 12 Plant.
13 MR. EADS: Very good.
FEMA?
14 MS. THOMPSON:
Rebecca Thompson, FEMA 15 Region 2.
16 MR. EADS: And then finally any others?
17 MR. ARILDSEN:
Jesse Arildsen from NRC's 18 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, 19 Senior Program Manager.
20 MR. EADS:
Very good.
.J didn't hear 21 anybody represent themselves as members of the public, 22 but if they are participating on this call, I would 23 remind you that the public is allowed to listen only.
24 And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Marsh.
25 CHAIRMAN MARSH: Are there any members of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W..
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.co
7 1
the public on the line?
2 COURT REPORTER:
Lauren Willis 3
representing Neal R. Gross Court Reporters. I'm doing 4
the transcript.
5 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Okay.
Thank you very 6
much.
Well, good morning again.
My name is Tad 7
Marsh, and I'm the PRB Chairman, and I'm also the 8
Deputy Director for the Division of Licensing Project 9
Management. The subject of this teleconference today 10 is the 2.206 petition request that was submitted by 11 the Attorney General's Office of the State of 12 Connecticut, dated April 23, 2003, with a supplement.
13 Petitioners have requested among other 14 things that the NRC issue an order for the Licensee 15 for the Indian Point Entergy Center to conduct a full 16 review of all emergency preparedness plans at Indian 17 Point, and during the course of this review order the 18 suspension of the Plant's license to operate.
19 The purpose of this teleconference today 20 is'to allow the Petitioners to address the PRB in 21 accordance with our procedure, Management Directive 22 8.11, this is an opportunity for the Petitioners to 23 provide additional explanations in order to support 24 their petition.
It's also an opportunity for the 25 staff and for the Licensee or for other parties to ask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 23443 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.neargross.com
8 1
any clarifying questions. I would emphasize that the 2
purpose of this teleconference is not to debate the 3
merits of the petition or to make any decisions 4
regarding the petition itself.
It is merely to gain 5
information.
6 We requested that the Petitioners keep 7
their remarks to a total of about 30 minutes, and the 8
conference is being recorded for transcription so that 9
it will help if when making your statements if you'll 10 first please announce who you are.
I'd like to also 11 say that transcripts will be made public, so they'll 12 be available for all to see.
That will also help in 13 terms of knowing who's on the call.
We've had a lot 14 of people announce their names and titles.
15 Following the call, the Petition Review 16 Board will meet to determine whether the NRC accepts 17 the petition under the 2.206 process or whether it 18 will be dealt with under another mechanism. The PRB's 19 meeting today will not determine whether we agree or 20 disagree with the merits of the petition. If the PRB 21 decides that the petition will be considered under the 22 2.206
- process, then the NRC will issue an 23 acknowledgement letter to the. Petitioner.
The 24 Petition Manager will keep the Petitioner and the 25 Licensee periodically informed of the progress of the NEAL R GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com
9 1
staff's review.
Mr. Snook, I understand you're 2
available from the Attorney General's Office, and in 3
just a second we're going to turn it over to you.
4 I'd like to also say that if the NRC 5
decides that this is not a 2.206 and it will be 6
handled via another mechanism, the parties would be 7
informed of that as well, and that in either case 8
whether it is or is not a 2.206 petition, we would 9
intend on answering the issues that are addressed in 10 the request.
So if there are no thoughts and 11 comments, Mr. Snook, I'd like to turn it over to you, 12 sir.
13 MR. SNOOK: Thank you.
Once again, this 14 is Robert Snook from the Connecticut AG's Office, and 15 I'd like to thank all of you for the opportunity to 16 address the Board this morning.
17 I cannot emphasize enough how important 18 this 2.206 petition is to the State of Connecticut.
19 The Attorney General is not a special interest group, 20 he"is not a community group, he is the chief legal 21 officer of the State.
He is entrusted under 22 Connecticut law, by statute, with representing the 23 interests of the State in any and all matters in which 24 the State has a concern on interests, particularly of 25 this nature.
And the State does have an interest NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2343 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgrass.corn
10 1
here, it's a very definable and recognizable interest.
2 Probably the easiest one conceptually to 3
describe, and it's been addressed in the 2.206 4
petition and the supplement, are the direct impacts of 5
emergency planning on the transportation 6
infrastructure, particularly of southwestern 7
Connecticut but really of Connecticut as a whole.
8 There are also the interests of the residents within 9
the ingestion pathway, that's the 50-mile, not the 10 ten-mile pathway
- zone, that is described by 11 regulation.
12 In addition, of course, there are any 13 number of effects within the ten-mile zone which also 14 have the collateral effect in Connecticut, and I'm 15 particularly talking about the reservoirs. There are 16 a number of reservoirs in and around the New York 17 Westchester County region which actually supply water 18 to people in Connecticut.
19 I would like to make three very simple and 20 very quick points and then I'd be happy to answer any 21 questions the Board or others may have. In my role as 22 an Assistant Attorney General, as a government lawyer, 23 I am keenly aware of the importance of not wasting 24 limited Agency resources addressing matters that are 25 either duplicative of matters that have already been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com
11 1
considered by the Agency or simply have been dealt 2
with elsewhere, and I am assuming without any 3
information to back this up that the Board may wish to 4
have some reason to apply to this 2.206 petition 5
involving Indian Point and why is it different in any 6
way from the River Keeper one.
7 I understand River Keeper organization, 8
which is not based in Connecticut, and I've had maybe 9
two conversations with them, filed a 2.206 sometime my 10 guess is probably around two years ago. I understand 11 that it also involved Indian Point in the fact that I 12 got something resembling a copy of it, and that's what 13 I used as the format. So to the extent that I used a 14 format, and since I've never done a 2.206 before, the 15 format may appear similar to the River Keeper but 16 that's just about as far as it goes for various 17 important reasons.
18 And as I said before, the AG's Office if 19 representing the legal interests of a state, not a 20 prIvate group.. Furthermore, a number.of things have 21 occurred since the previous 2.206 and in fact since 22 the decision of the NRC on the 2.206, which we feel 23 are very important to raise before the NRC officially.
24 In this regard, one of the foremost is in fact dealing 25 with the transportation issue.
NEDAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1
Before I talk about that, I would like to 2
also emphasize that the State of Connecticut has its 3
own nuclear power station, the Millstone Stations. We 4
our aware, generally, of issues involving emergency 5
preparedness.
You will also notice that I have not 6
filed a 2.206 with respect to those nuclear power 7
stations or ones in Massachusetts or New Hampshire or 8
anywhere else. The reason being is that Indian Point 9
is a unique problem from our perspective.
The area 10 around it is in fact very densely populated and in 11 fact it's adjacent to densely populated areas of 12 Fairfield, Connecticut and our largest city in the 13 State, which by the way is not Harper but it's 14 Bridgeport.
15 And the history of this action is 16 important in putting this 2.206 in context.
- Yes, 17 we've been aware of Indian Point for many, many years.
18 We've had no particular reason for concern.
In fact, 19 if you asked me a few years whether complicated, 20 deliberate, multi-targeted attacks, international 21 terrorists would be considered even reasonable, I 22 would have considered that idea ludicrous.
What is 23 ludicrous now is to pretend that it is --
that there 24 are in fact people who are not attempting to do 25 precisely that. No less an authority to the CIA and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.con
13 1
in fact an article just this week in the London Times 2
suggests that the British intelligence have also come 3
to the same conclusion, that large-scale multi-4 targeted attacks involving possibly even weapons of 5
mass destruction are inevitable.
It is simply a 6
matter of time.
And I can't think of a more 7
attractive target than the New York City area; in 8
fact, apparently, the terrorists have come to that 9
same conclusion.
10 Having said that, it is not surprising 11 that the residents, the citizens of Connecticut have 12 increased concern particularly about a target such as 13 Indian Point, its location and its unique position in 14 terms of emergency preparedness. By that I mean, and 15 it's CON --
Connecticut DOT --
forgive me, I sometimes 16 use the term CONDOT --
which is my other client, has 17 made it very clear that transportation infrastructure 18 in southwestern Connecticut is not capable of doing 19 that which the emergency preparedness plans would have 20 itido.
21 We cannot move, in fact we can't generally 22 move the existing working population safely and 23 efficiently from southwestern Connecticut into New 24 York on a daily basis.
The roads were designed for 25 approximately 80,000 vehicles per day maximum.
They NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 wwwnealrgross.com
14 1
are currently operating at about 140,000 a day.
The 2
result of that, as the Transportation Review Board of 3
Connecticut has made very clear in its study, which I 4
included in my 2.206 petition, the original one I 5
don't believe was in the supplement, is that currently 6
people use the word "trapped" in this road network, 7
and that's just in an average working day. What this 8
means is that the fundamental assumptions for travel 9
times and for evacuation protocols that we have seen 10 and reviewed are in fact designed to do what they are 11 designed to do.
We need to address that if in fact 12 we're going to get people, if necessary, out of an 13 area such as Westchester and elsewhere.
And the 14 immediate ten-mile and we suspect actually we'd 15 probably need to move outside of the ten-mile area.
16 In addition, there are other factual 17 studies and reports independent in fact that have 18 nothing to do with Indian Point, which have raised 19 considerable concern in Connecticut and among 20 Connecticut authorities.
I have sent one of them 21 along I believe with a supplement, that is the Kennedy
- 22.
School of Government Study of nuclear vessel 23 references to federal studies involving hurricane 24 evacuation in and around southern
- Florida, 25 consistently showing that in excess of 20 percent NEAL R..GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwneargmss.com
15 1
additional evacuations, these so-called shadow 2
evacuations.
This is not hyperbole, this is not 3
anecdotal information; this is hard study information.
4 These are fact, and it shows that information that 5
would suggest that even in something as mundane, I 6
should say, as a hurricane, there have been over 100 7
that have hit Florida in a century, something that 8
happens from time to time, you can expect 20 to 25 9
percent additional movement of people, which we do not 10 believe has been adequately included in the travel 11 time and evacuation as to for Indian Point.
12 In addition, we have addition information 13 now on family separation issues. Included in not only 14 the Kennedy School of Government study but in National 15 Institute of Health studies --
in fact, we haven't 16 sent them along yet because we just found them --
17 indicating that people will evacuate not as 18 individuals but as families.
To attempt to separate 19 the family, to assume that children will be evacuated 20 first and families elsewhere is not only inconsistent 21 with existing government studies but will be in fact 22 counterproductive.
23 Final area is of course the Witt Report, 24 a report that --
I assume everyone that I am speaking 25 to is familiar with --
and the Hopenfeld letter which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross.com
16 1
I understand came from, and I have no factual 2
information to support this other than what I have 3
been informed of, I have not spoken to Dr. Hopenfeld.
4 I understand he is a former NRC staffer. All of which 5
indicate that there are some fundamental concerns with 6
evacuation, emergency preparedness and the design 7
basis threat and Indian Point.
8 This is directing the State of Connecticut 9
to an issue of concern.
It is true that when River 10 Keeper, and I suspect there may have been other 11 organizations, first raised their concerns about 12 Indian Point we did not share with them, we did not 13 join them. We have tremendous confidence in the NRC, 14 and please accept my statement when I say this is not 15 an attack on the NRC or necessarily even the Licensee, 16 Entergy.
What we are saying is that the citizens of 17 Connecticut have deep concerns, factual concerns, 18 reasonable concerns about evacuation and other 19 emergency preparedness issues at Indian Point. Indian 20 Pornt poses a unique threat a sense to the State of 21 Connecticut because of its location vis-a-vis the 22 movement per people and prevailing wind direction.
23 We are asking for the NRC, either on its 24 own through FEMA or through the Licensee, to review 25 the issues at this facility, particularly those that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1
impact upon Connecticut the reservoirs, the 2
Connecticut transportation infrastructure issues. And 3
the reason we're asking NRC this is because NRC is in 4
fact the Licensee and the only one who can ultimately 5
make the decisions that can correct these issues. It 6
would send very much the wrong message if the State of 7
Connecticut, through its elected officials, if their 8
concerns are dismissed, if they are considered --
or 9
shall I say if they're not even technically or 10 seriously reviewed, that would be very unfortunate for 11 all of us.
12 The State is taking this very, very 13 seriously. Mr. Blumenthal himself is taking this very 14 seriously, that much I can assure you.
I would hope 15 that the NRC will take this 2.206 petition and 16 evaluate it. We look forward to answer any questions 17 that members of the Board or others may have, and we 18
- also, of course, look forward to an ultimate 19 determination on the merits of this issue.
20 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Okay.
Thank you very 21 much. We've been taking notes and of course it's also 22 being recorded for transcription.
Are there any 23 questions from those here in the room regarding this?
24 Yes, Patricia?
25 MS. MILLIGAN:
I just have a question --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000563701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1
CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Can you hear this okay?
2 COURT REPORTER:
Barely.
And could you 3
identify who's speaking, please.
4 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
This is Trish Milligan.
5 MS. MILLIGAN:
Hi.
I'm the Emergency 6
Preparedness Specialist here at NRC.
I just have a 7
question. When you talked about adequate evacuation 8
of travel times, could you give me an idea of what you 9
think is an adequate evacuation travel time, just so 10 I understand what your language is. When you say 11 inadequate versus adequate, I'm --
12 MR. SNOOK: Okay. Thank you. Once again, 13 this is Bob Snook and I stress I'm actually a lawyer, 14 and as a consequence I'm making my comments about 15 evacuation travel times based on the following. First 16 of all, for those who have studied it, Mr. Witt and 17 others, have made some comments about the assumptions 18 involving travel times. Furthermore, our own internal 19 people have been concerned about as follows:
There 20 arp travel time estimates that have been reviewed and 21 updated from time to time.
22 On the other hand, we have seen no 23 indication that any of the travel time estimates in 24 any of the NRC studies include the fact that in 25 southwestern Connecticut certainly during the course NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1
of any emergency our DOT and other people would 2
preclude that you will have effectively no movement or 3
none of significance that will be possible through 4
Interstates 84, State Route 15 or Interstate 91.
5 The result of this that if prevailing 6
winds are coming from west to east and if we have a 7
deliberate or even a large-scale accidental release 8
from the facility moving Cesium 137 or any other 9
radionuclides into the air, the 11.9 million people, 10 roughly 300,000 in the immediate vicinity plus the 11 larger numbers that would in all likelihood move 12 anyway, the shadow evacuation issue, would be on 13 interstates.
Even if you opened up all lanes, six 14 lanes, and were able to do that, you would have 15 traffic jams that would essentially lock people for 16 anywhere from eight to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in the direction that 17 winds will be blowing the radioactive material, and 18 this is a worst-case scenario, understand that.
19 We haven't seen that adequately addressed, 20 in,"fact we haven't seen much of anything about the 21 transportation issues in southwestern Connecticut in 22 any of the radiological emergency preparedness plan 23 information that has been brought to our attention.
24 MS. MILLIGAN: Okay. Thank you. And one 25 more question which was probably --
it's sort of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nalrsa.com
20 1
same kind of question again just so I can understand 2
a frame of reference.
When you discuss in your 3
executive summary, "poses an unreasonable risk," can 4
you explain to me what's an unreasonable risk versus 5
a reasonable risk?
6 MR. SNOOK: Actually, in addition to being 7
an extremely important question, it's almost an 8
impossible one, in many ways, to answer.
I would 9
respond in two ways.
If you take risk as in and of 10 itself a thing, how do people perceive risk?
- Well, 11 it's very subjective.
On the other hand, certain 12 empirical studies seem to suggest, the ones that have 13 been brought to our attention here, that there are 14 certain facts that you can't --
or least certain 15 common trends among this perception.
16 It is also true in a non-scientific sense 17 that people, for example, accept the risk of smoking 18 with considerably greater ease than the risk of 19 radiation.
We have found that in doing our own --
20
- well, for example, in lower radioactive waste 21 facilities here in Connecticut, or at least our 22 attempts to do so. The State of Connecticut's DEP is 23 a one times ten to the minus fifth as the official 24 risk factor, in a sense, for doing certain types of 25 remediation of radioactive waste sites. That being an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cOm
21 1
official, shall we say, remediation level of risk is 2
what the risk the public may or may not accept from 3
certain specific instances.
4 What I would say here is that certainly 5
any remediation of the site or any downwind or 6
affected
- areas, particularly in Connecticut or 7
elsewhere, would of course have to meet at the very 8
minimum the State of Connecticut's one times ten to 9
the minus fifth, which in using the BEER 5 Standard we 10 come up to a total dose equivalent of 19 milirem.
11 That is not the same as addressing the risk that the 12 public would be willing to accept. And we as public 13 officials have an obligation to bring *to the NRC's 14 attention with respect to the risk of, for example, a 15 terrorist attack.
That is a different reason in the 16 same war but we're not meaning the same thing.
17 So if your question is posed to what level 18 of remediation following a post-incident cleanup, then 19 certainly anything in Connecticut would be under the 20 l97imilirem one times ten to the minus fifth standard.
21 MS. MILLIGAN: A quick question on the ten 22 to the minus fifth standard.
Is that fatal cancers?
23 MR. SNOOK:
I'm sorry?
24 MS. MILLIGAN:
Is that a fatal cancer 25 risk?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 ww.nealrgross.corn
22 1
MR. SNOOK:
I believe so.
2 MS. MILLIGAN:
Is that ten to the minus 3
fifth?
4 MR. SNOOK: I believe so.
I would stress 5
that, and once again, I'm the lawyer, I did not bring 6
the risk specialist with me today.
I have been 7
working with them on other issues; in fact, on two 8
radioactive contamination sites in the State of 9
Connecticut, and it was explained to me that using the 10 BEER 5 standard, it's not a non-linear standard.
It 11 is my understanding the DEP equates one times ten to 12 the minus fifth lifetime cancer risk to a 19 milirem 13 total dose equivalent.
14 MS. MILLIGAN:
Okay. Thank you very much.
15 MR.
SNOOK:
Sure.
16 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Okay.
Any other 17 questions from those here at headquarters?
Okay.
18 Region 1 NRC, any questions there for the Petitioner?
19 MR. CLARK: This is Bill Clark. No, thank 20 you.
21 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Thank you.
FEMA, any 22 questions from you?
23 MS.
THOMPSON:
No.
No questions FEMA 24 Region 2.
25 CHAIRMAN MARSH: Thank you. The Licensee?
WEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1
MR. SILBERG: This is Jay Silberg. I have 2
one question for Mr.
Snook, and that is these 3
additional four studies that you mentioned, the NIH 4
studies, do you plan to file an addition supplement to 5
your petition?
6 MR.
SNOOK:
Thank you.
That's an 7
excellent question.
I am left with the impression 8
that the Board will be meeting soon on the petition 9
itself.
The Board --
and I would stress that if the 10 Board finds that one element or more of the petition 11 are not effective and if I've used the wrong framework 12 to raise the issues, I would urge the Board either to 13 redact those sections and preserve --
in other words, 14 basically don't strike the whole petition on the basis 15 that I may have bled one element of it, but if in fact 16 the petition is to go forward, I would like an 17 opportunity to provide either the studies or citations 18 to them. They just literally have just been found on 19 these.
I think a lot of it you can find if anyone's 20 interested in Grant M as in Michael, H as in Harry, 21 45069 from the Research Branch.
22 COURT REPORTER:
I'm sorry, can you say 23 that again, please?
24 MR. SNOOK: I'm sorry, M as in Michael, H 25 as in Harry 45069 Research Branch, National Institute NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.mealr9ross.com
24 1
of Mental Health. And I believe Jasmine Ryad is the 2
person --
the contact person at the Disaster Research 3
Center, University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, 4
and their electronic mail is jriadsudel.edu.
The 5
study involves --
it's a fascinating area, by the way 6
a number of issues involving adult perception of 7
risk and the variables involving families and family 8
separations. The studies are commenced and they have 9
ones from 1971, '79, '84 and the most recent which I 10 think is in the last few months, and I don't have it 11 right here in front of me. If possible, I will supply 12 these but that depends if the Board accepts the 13 petition or not.
14 CHAIRMAN MARSH: Okay. Now, the point of 15 the --
the initial decision before us is whether or 16 not it is a 2.206, and if it is, then we would request 17 those other citations or the material itself. And so 18 let's proceed that way if we can.
19 Okay. Any other questions from those that 20 ark on the line? Attorneys for the Licensee, did we 21 get all comments from you?
22 PARTICIPANT:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Okay.
Well, thank you 24 very much, Mr. Snook.
I appreciate the information 25 you've given us.
It will certainly be helpful.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1
Again, we have recorded the call, and it will be 2
available through transcription, publicly available.
3 We will look carefully at the information that's 4
there, and as I just said, we will be meeting shortly 5
to decide whether or not the information rises to the 6
2.206 level.
7 Just procedurally I want to make sure we 8
all understand where are, and this is all covered in 9
the Management Directive 8.11.
That Directive talks 10 about time frames, it talks about our procedures, and 11 roughly if this is a 2.206 process, an acknowledgement 12 letter will be issued.
Within 120 days of the 13 acknowledgement letter, a proposed Director' s decision 14 would be issued.
The parties would have 30 days at 15 that point to make comments on the proposed Director's 16 decision. The Agency would have 45 days thereafter to 17 address those comments and issue the final Director's 18 decision.
We, of course, are swayed by comments 19 coming from all the proposed decisions.
And our 20 commissioners have an option to review the final 21 Director's decision at their choice, and there is a 22 time frame associated for that.
23 So, again, I want to thank everybody for 24 participating in the call.
25 MR. SILBERG:
Okay.
And before you get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005$3701 www.neafrgross.comn
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 off,, just one other --
and I think I've told this to at least some of the folks in the General Counsel' s Office, that Entergy is intending to submit a response document to the 2.206 petition in the reasonably near term.
CHAIRMAN MARSH: Can you give a rough time frame for that?
MR. SILBERG: I don't know. It will be in the nature of a few weeks. We're waiting for internal review.
MR.
MR.
MR.
GOLDBERG:
SILBERG:
GOLDBERG:
Jay?
Yes.
Jack Goldberg.
Can you hear me?
MR.
MR.
SILBERG:
GOLDBERG:
I'm sorry, say again?
I said Jack Goldberg coming to the phone.
MR. SILBERG:
Yes, Jack.
Hi.
MR. GOLDBERG:
Hi.
In your written response will you be arguing that. this does not warrant treatment as a 2.206 petition under Management Directive 8.11 or will it just address the merits of the petition?
MR. SILBERG: No. I think it will just go to the merits.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 (202) 234-4433 wwwmnalrgmsror nT
27 1
MR.
GOLDBERG: Okay.
Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Okay.
Any other 3
thoughts, comments and questions from those that are 4
on the call? Again, thank you very much.
We will be 5
meeting very shortly to consider this under 2.206.
6 MR. SILBERG:
Okay.
One other question.
7 Robert, could you just give me your phone number so if 8
there's a reason for us to get hold of you directly if 9
we can?
10 MR. SNOOK:
Please.
And in addition to 11 being a lawyer being also a public official, I look-12 forward to talking to anybody from Entergy or Shaw 13 Pittman.
It's 860-808-5020, and my fax same number 14 except it's 5347.
15 MR. SILBERG:
Okay, 860-808-5020.
16 MR. SNOOK:
Yes.
17 MR. SILBERG:
Got it.
18 MR. SNOOK: And thank you all once again.
19 CHAIRMAN MARSH:
Thank you very much.
20 Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m.,
the 21 Teleconference was concluded.)
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 wwwneaIrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: 2.206 Petition on Emergency Planning Docket Number:
05000247/05000286 Location:
telephone conference were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Lauren Willis Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL RF GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com