ML032790200
| ML032790200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Skay, Donna, DLPM/PD1, 415-1322 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml032790230 | List: |
| References | |
| G20030545, NRC-1092 | |
| Download: ML032790200 (28) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Meeting Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-1092 Pages 1-25 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 MEETING 5
+ + + + +
6 WEDNESDAY, 7
SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 8
+ + + + +
9 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 10
+ + + + +
11 The Petition Review Board met at 3:00 p.m. at 12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint 13 North, Room 09B4, 11555 Rockville Pike, Eric Leeds, 14 Chairman, presiding.
15 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD:
17 ERIC LEEDS, Chairman 18 BRIAN BENNEY, Petition Manager 19 HERB BERKOW 20 JACK GOLDBERG 21 22 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
1 RALPH ARCHITZEL 2
SUZANNE BLACK 3
MOLLY BUPP 4
T.Y. CHANG 5
ROB ELLIOTT 6
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ 7
SUE GAGNOR 8
DONNIE HARRISON 10 JOHN LAMB 11 DAVID LEW, via teleconference 12 MICHAEL MARSHALL 13 DONNA SKAY 14 SUNIL WEERAKKODY 15 LICENSEE:
16 ALAIN GROSJEAN, Entergy 17 JOHN McCANN, Entergy, via teleconference 18 JAY SILBERG, Shaw Pittman, on behalf of Entergy 19 PETITIONERS:
20 DAVID LOCHBAUM, Union of Concerned Scientists 21 KYLE RABIN, Riverkeeper, Inc.
22 ALSO PRESENT:
23 JENNY WEIL, McGraw Hill 24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I-N-D-E-X 1
Page 2
Opening Remarks 3
3 Mr. Benney 4
Chairman Leeds 5
5 Presentation by Petitioners 6
Mr. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists 6
7 Mr. Rabin, Riverkeeper, Inc.
15 8
Questions and Remarks 19 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
3:08 p.m.
2 MR. BENNEY: On the record. I want to 3
welcome everybody to todays meeting. My name is 4
Brian Benney. Ive been assigned as the Petition 5
Manager. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Eric 6
Leeds. Hes seated to my right.
7 This meeting is being transcribed. The 8
transcription will be a supplement to the Petition and 9
will be made publicly available. Representatives from 10 the NRCs Region I Office and the Licensee, Entergy 11 Nuclear Northeast (also known as "Entergy") are 12 participating via a recorded phone line. If we could 13 go around the room and present ourselves. My name is 14 Brian Benney.
15 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: My name is Eric Leeds.
16 MR. JOHNSON: Mike Johnson.
17 MR. WEERAKKODY: Sunil Weerakkody.
18 MR. FERNANDEZ: Antonio Fernandez.
19 MR. BERKOW: Herb Berkow.
20 MS. BLACK: Suzie Black.
21 MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum with the 22 Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS").
23 MS. GAGNOR: Sue Gagnor, NRC Public 24 Affairs.
25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. BUPP: Molly Bupp, NRC OGC.
1 MR. GROSJEAN: Alain Grosjean, Entergy 2
Nuclear Northeast.
3 MR. SILBERG: Jay Silberg, Shaw Pittman 4
representing Entergy.
5 MR. ARCHITZEL: Ralph Architzel, NRC.
6 MR. ELLIOTT: Rob Elliott, NRC.
7 MR. HARRISON: Donnie Harrison, NRC.
9 MR. CHANG: T.Y. Chang, NRC.
10 MR. MARSHALL: Michael Marshall, NRC.
11 MS. SKAY: Donna Skay, NRC.
12 MR. GOLDBERG: Jack Goldberg, NRC OGC.
13 MR. BENNEY: Again, this is Brian Benney.
14 If everyone on the phone can introduce themselves 15 please.
16 MR. RABIN: Kyle Rabin, Environmental 17 Group, Riverkeeper.
18 MR. McCANN: John McCann, Entergy.
19 MS. WEIL: Jenny Weil, McGraw Hill.
20 MR. LEW: David Lew, Region I.
21 MR. BENNEY: Thank you. I just ask that 22 anyone making a statement please state their name 23 first so that the court reporter can put your name 24 attached with your statement correctly. Ill pass it 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 on now to Eric Leeds, the Petition Review Board 1
Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you. Again my name 3
is Eric Leeds. Im the NRC Petition Review Board 4
Chairman. Some opening comments before we get 5
started. The subject of this meeting is the 2.206 6
petition ("Petition") submitted by Riverkeeper and the 7
Union of Concerned Scientists (to be referred to 8
collectively as the "Petitioners") on September 8, 9
2003.
10 The purpose of todays meeting is to allow 11 the Petitioners to address the Petition Review Board.
12 This is an opportunity for the Petitioners to provide 13 additional explanations or support for the Petition.
14 This is also an opportunity for the Staff and Licensee 15 to ask any clarifying questions. The purpose of this 16 meeting is not to debate the merits of the Petition 17 nor whether the NRC agrees or disagrees with the 18 contents of the Petition.
19 The Petitioners requested that the NRC 20 take enforcement actions against Entergy Nuclear 21 Northeast, the Licensee for Indian Point Units 2 and 22 3 in Buchanan, New York to immediately shut down 23 Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and to maintain the 24 reactors shutdown until such time that the containment 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 sumps are modified to resolve Generic Safety Issue 1
191. The Petitioners requested as an alternative 2
enforcement action that the NRC prevent plant restart 3
until certain conditions have been met with additional 4
restrictions in the interim.
5 Following this meeting, the PRB will meet 6
to determine whether the NRC accepts the Petition 7
under the 2.206 process or whether it will be dealt 8
with under another mechanism. The PRBs meeting will 9
not determine whether we agree or disagree with the 10 contents of the Petition, merely the process the NRC 11 will use to evaluate the Petition.
12 I also want to make the public aware 13 before we get into the meeting that there is 14 additional information on the sump issue on the NRCs 15 website. Well continue to update that as current 16 information becomes available. So without any further 17 adieu, let me turn it back over to David Lochbaum and 18 UCS.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: David Lochbaum with Union 20 of Concerned Scientists. I appreciate that. I also 21 want to start to express our appreciation to Brian 22 Benney and the NRC staff for rescheduling this 23 meeting. Originally it was scheduled for Monday. It 24 was hard for us to get the Supplement done by then so 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I appreciate it. I know it took some work to make 1
that happen and we appreciate that.
2 Also we would like to acknowledge our co-3 Petitioner, Riverkeeper. Riverkeeper in general and 4
Kyle Rabin in particular has been subjected to 5
unwarranted and unjustified attacks in recent letters 6
to "The Editor." While UCS cherishes a open and 7
unfettered press and believes that everybody is 8
entitled to their opinion, our opinion is that 9
Riverkeeper is an organization providing an invaluable 10 public service to the people living in New York and 11 that Kyle Rabin is a competent, capable and dedicated 12 individual with unimpeachable integrity. We are 13 honored and pleased to partner with Riverkeeper on 14 this Petition.
15 Also I must apologize to Entergy for 16 having to use Indian Point to force the NRC to take 17 this safety issue seriously. If the NRC even remotely 18 resembled an effective regulator, a safety issue 19 identified affecting 69 power reactors deemed to high 20 priority in September of 1996 would still not be 21 opened seven years later. It may be unfair or seem 22 unfair for us to single out Indian Point in trying to 23 get the NRC to take this issue seriously. We fully 24 agree. We have plans for the other plants that we 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 will set in motion very soon so Indian Point will be 1
alone for only a few more days.
2 With that, I would like to just point out 3
a few things in the Petition and the Supplement. I 4
think it was fairly clear. We will glad to entertain 5
any questions about it in case its not. On page 6
eight of our September 8th Petition, we provided what 7
we thought was a relevant precedent for our requested 8
actions and that was the dual unit shutdown at the 9
D.C. Cook plant in September of 1997.
10 Although the exact nature of the reasons 11 for the shutdown were a little bit different, the 12 basic fundamental causes were the same. That was 13 uncertainty about whether that plant could 14 successfully enter the long-term recirculation phase 15 or the low pressure recirculation phase of ECCS 16 operation. There was an absolute proof of that. In 17 fact, there was less proof of that then than there is 18 today of the sump issue, but it was uncertainty 19 nonetheless that led the plant owner to voluntarily 20 shut down both units until that issue could be 21 determined one way or the other.
22 On page 11 of our September 8th Petition, 23 we cite the limiting condition for operation for the 24 Indian Point reactors that says if the LCO cant be 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 met, the required action is to place the reactor in at 1
least hot shutdown within seven hours. The 2
containment sump issue was identified seven years ago 3
and clearly seven hours is within that timeframe.
4 Page 14 of our September 8th Petition, we 5
note that the NRCs bulletin that was issued in June 6
2003 licensees such as Entergy would consider taking 7
various steps to lessen the likelihood of containment 8
sump clogging or subsequent loss of ECCS function. We 9
noted that the bulletin did not request Entergy or any 10 other plant on earth to consider taking any steps to 11 maintain the leak-before-break monitoring equipment or 12 to minimize the likelihood of a loss-of-coolant 13 accident that would potentially challenge the 14 containment sumps. We felt that it was a necessary 15 compliment to the steps that the NRC took in that 16 bulletin. That in fact is why we cited that as basis 17 and included that in the alternative enforcement 18 actions we are seeking.
19 On page 15 of the September 8th Petition, 20 one of the things we were a little confused about is 21 weve seen some of the press accounts since the 22 Petition about the low likelihood that an event could 23 occur that would the containment sumps. There were 24 words to the effect from the NRC spokespersons saying 25
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 the containment sump has never been challenged in the 1
past. Thats a basis for not having to worry about 2
this in the immediate timeframe today.
3 Whether there was any analysis that 4
supported the bulletin going out in June this year 5
looks like it would be equally valid for this Petition 6
now. That does not seem like its a fine enough line 7
to allow the bulletin to go out and keep the Petitions 8
actions for going through. We cant understand how 9
that could possibly happen.
10 Turning to the Supplement to the Petition 11 that we sent in on September 22nd, basically it should 12 have been in the Petition, but the question we ask 13 ourselves that led to the Petition was everything 14 weve heard is that at the end of the day or decade or 15 whenever there will be physical modifications made at 16 Indian Point to resolve GSI-191. If thats the case, 17 how was the safety justification for continuing to 18 operate until then?
19 So we went through those three possible 20 outcomes. One is the GSI-191 resolution for Indian 21 Point will require physical modifications. If thats 22 the case, whats the justification for operating 23 between now and then with that impairment? We havent 24 seen anything in NOED ("Notice of Enforcement 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Discretion"), a Generic Letter 91-18 analysis or 1
anything that would support continued operation of the 2
plant if thats the expected outcome.
3 On page 2 of our Supplement, we looked at 4
the next outcome which was the resolution of GSI-191 5
for Indian Point could be made with no physical 6
modifications. Basically the existing configuration 7
is okay or will be okay as is based on further 8
walkdowns and analysis. If thats the expected 9
outcome, then we dont see any preliminary assessment 10 or engineering judgment again per 91-18, Supplement 1, 11 that would support such a notion.
12 The third outcome weve also heard some 13 media speculation about is that the outcome of GSI-191 14 cant be determined at the moment because theres not 15 enough plant-specific information available to know 16 whether physical modifications are required or not.
17 For that outcome, we havent seen anything that would 18 override or negate the Los Alamos work that suggests 19 that theres a high likelihood of problems with high 20 consequence. It looks as a minimum that Los Alamos 21 yelled "Fire" in a crowded theater and nothings been 22 done to look at the people in the audience.
23 On page 4 of the Supplement to our 24 Petition, we did cite some previous precedence that 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the NRC has done. The NRC has not issued a lot of 1
shutdown orders. This may not be a comprehensive 2
list. These are the ones that we could find in our 3
files and in the NRCs files.
4 Pilgrim in December of 1973 did a fuel 5
channel boxware. It was the result of UCS-New England 6
Coalition Against Nuclear Pollution petition. Cook 7
Unit 1 in spring of 1978 due to electrical connector 8
concerns. Beaver Valley, Surrey Units 1 and 2, 9
FitzPatrick and Maine Yankee in March of 1979 due to 10 seismic concerns or computer code used to do seismic 11 analysis. Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 in March of 1987 12 due to operator attentiveness associated issues.
13 Again in all of those the case doesnt 14 seem as strong as the containment sump issue today and 15 yet they all led to NRC issuing shutdown orders and 16 immediate repairs. So I think thats precedence that 17 should be followed in this case.
18 One counterpoint combo that we left out of 19 this of this list we heard of the NRC telling a 20 reporter just yesterday was that we based a lot of our 21 petition on Lost Alamos August 2002 report. The NRC 22 issued Los Alamos more recent study in February 2003 23 that outlined a number of measurements that could be 24 taken to reduce the risk values that were reported in 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the August 2002 report.
1 We recognize that to be true and in fact 2
that February 2003 report was a significant input to 3
the NRCsBulletin 2003-01 that was issued in June 4
2003. But in looking at Entergys response to the 5
Bulletin, Entergy politely declined to implement 6
virtually any of the Los Alamos risk reduction 7
measures. We dont think any credit should be given 8
to the steps not taken.
9 Page 5 of our Supplement to the Petition.
10 We look at the case of what happens if the NRC denies 11 this petition in its entirety today and Entergy 12 enlarges the containment sump screens and/or replaces 13 installation and coding inside containment at any 14 point somewhere down the road. We would look at those 15 modifications as prima facie evidence, of regulatory 16 malpractice because enough information is know today 17 to suspect thats going to be the outcome. We would 18 say that its a proof positive that the public health 19 hazard was both real and ignored by the NRC in the 20 interim.
21 We do have some new information thats 22 related to the Petition. Thats the Westinghouse 23 Owners Group Standard Technical Specifications Section 24 3.5.2 specifically. Its available on the NRCs 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 website and on ADAMS. Citing data from the Revision 1
2 dated April 30, 2001, it talks about three phases of 2
ECCS operation. This is the bases section, not the 3
tech spec section.
4 The three phases of ECCS operation are 5
injection, cold leg recirculation and hot leg 6
recirculation. It says that in the injection phase 7
water is taken from the refilling water storage tank 8
and injected into the reactor coolant system through 9
the cold legs. When sufficient water is removed to 10 the refilling water storage tank to ensure that enough 11 boron has been added to maintain the reactor sump is 12 critical and the containment sumps have enough water 13 to supply the required net-positive suction head to 14 the ECCS pumps, the section is switched over to the 15 containment sump for cold leg recirculation.
16 It says that during the recirculation 17 phase of LOCA recovery, RHR pump suction is 18 transferred into the containment sump. The RHR pumps 19 then supply the other ECCS pumps. Initially 20 recirculation is through the same paths as the 21 injection phase.
Subsequently recirculation 22 alternates injection between the hot and cold legs.
23 The reason for that in the applicable 24 safety analysis section of the bases says that this 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 LCO helps to ensure that the following acceptance 1
criteria for the ECCS established by 10 CFR 50.46 will 2
be met following a LOCA. Maximum fuel element 3
cladding temperature remains below or equal to 2,200 4
degrees Fahrenheit. Maximum cladding oxidation is 5
less than 17 times the total cladding thickness before 6
oxidation and three other related issues.
7 Again as the LCO specific for Indian Point 8
says if you dont with one or more trains inoperable, 9
at least 100 percent of the ECCS flow equivalent to a 10 single operable ECCS train available the inoperable 11 components must be returned operable within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 12 or you shut down. As we see it right now, that 13 question of whether the plants are operable or not 14 hasnt been asked or answered.
15 We understand that President Clinton 16 instituted the "Dont ask, dont tell" policy for gays 17 in the military, but we dont think it should be 18 applied to nuclear safety and the containment sump 19 issue. The NRC must ask if Indian Points ECCS are 20 operable today and Entergy must tell you. Thats all 21 we have. I believe Riverkeeper has some input also, 22 Kyle.
23 MR. RABIN: Yes, thank you. This is Kyle 24 Rabin, Policy and the Environmental Group from 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Riverkeeper. I want to thank you for the opportunity 1
to join this via telephone. Ill start out by giving 2
a little bit of background on our organization, 3
Riverkeeper.
4 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Kyle, could you speak up?
5 Were having a little trouble hearing you.
6 MR. RABIN: Yes. Ill do my best.
7 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you.
8 MR. RABIN: Sorry about that. Im going 9
to start out by providing you just a little bit of 10 background on Riverkeeper. Riverkeeper is an 11 independent member-supported not-for-profit 12 organization whose mission is to protect the Hudson 13 River, safeguard the New York City water supply that 14 serves over nine million New Yorkers.
15 Since its founding in 1966, Riverkeeper 16 has led the battle to restore the Hudson River and has 17 successfully prosecuted hundreds of environmental law 18 breakers. Riverkeeper uses law, science and education 19 to extend every citizens right for clean water and 20 healthy children.
21 I think I want to first start out by 22 reiterating a point that Dave had mentioned earlier on 23 which Entergys response to the Petition which as you 24 can see has been very initiated. Thats been simply 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to dismiss it and attack Riverkeepers credibility and 1
in some cases attack UCSs credibility. Its worth 2
noting this because the concern here is that this is 3
the operator of these reactors. Their initial 4
response is this Petition, highly unprofessional even 5
with the fact that they dismissed it readily without 6
delving into the issues in a more professional 7
fashion. Its a concern for us that this is the owner 8
and operator of a plant thats situated just 35 miles 9
north of New York City. This is the response. It 10 calls in question their ability to safely run the 11 plant.
12 I want to go into real quickly some of the 13 support that we have received from elected officials 14 in the region. On September 9th, Senator Clinton 15 submitted a letter to the NRC and in the letter she 16 called on the Agency urgently to review the Petition.
17 She noted that the plant which is situated in such a 18 densely populated area should be required to meet the 19 highest standards for safety and security in order to 20 protect the people of the region.
21 On September 12th, Congresswoman Lowey 22 sent a letter to the NRC and she gave her support for 23 the immediate repair of the containment sump of the 24 reactors at Indian Point.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: We cant hear. Kyle, you 1
are dropping out.
2 MR. RABIN: Sorry. Do I need to repeat 3
myself?
4 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Please.
5 MR. RABIN: My last point was that on 6
September 12th Congresswoman Nita Lowey sent a letter 7
to the NRC expressing her support for the immediate 8
repair of the containment sump at the two reactors at 9
Indian Point. She noted immediate upgraded safety 10 systems at the plant is required to protect that 11 nearly 20 million people that live within a 50 mile 12 radius of Indian Point.
13 On September 24th in a letter to the NRC, 14 Congressman Maurice Hinchey urges the NRC to 15 immediately shut down a plant in order to deal with 16 the concerns in the Indian River petition. On 17 September 11th, Rockland County Legislator Harriet 18 Cornell submitted a letter to the NRC again urging the 19 Agency to order the immediate shutdown of the plant 20 and instruct Entergy to fix the problem which poses a 21 direct threat to public health and the environment.
22 On September
- 17th, sixteen of the 23 seventeen Rockland County legislators sent a letter to 24 Chairman Diaz again urging the NRC to order the 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 immediate shutdown of Indian Point to address these 1
concerns. Lastly again today Westchester County 2
Legislator Michael Kaplowitz submitted a letter to the 3
NRC again purporting the immediate shutdown of the 4
plant to fix the problem that was addressed in the 5
Riverkeeper-UCS Petition.
6 I want to convey that the initial response 7
of the officials who are working on this issue -
8 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Im losing him again. Mr 9
Rabin, if you could speak up again. Im sorry.
10 MR. RABIN: Im sorry. I am yelling.
11 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Yes, I apologize.
12 MR. RABIN: I thought I was coming through 13 okay.
14 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: We have a bad phone 15 connection or something.
16 MR. RABIN: I just wanted to convey to the 17 NRC the concern that some of the elected officials 18 have raised in support of the UCS-Riverkeeper 19 position. I will end there unless theres any 20 questions I can address.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Does the staff have any 22 questions for Mr. Rabin about the Petition or Mr.
23 Rochbaum?
24 MR. ROCHBAUM: I do have more.
25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: You have more?
1 MR. ROCHBAUM: Kyle Rabin went through a 2
list of letters of support. I have most of those 3
except for one that I can provide as an attachment.
4 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you. Well take 5
them and well docket them.
6 MR. ROCHBAUM: Sure.
7 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: I think we have received 8
some. Well make sure they get docketed on the 9
record. Thank you. Let me go back. Does the staff 10 have any questions for Mr. Lochbaum or Mr. Rabin?
11 MR. ARCHITZEL: I just have one question 12 on the supplement on page two. The number on the 13 bottom, was that out of the same table as the - to 14 that paragraph -
15 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum, UCS.
16 Youre talking about the 99.9 percent number.
17 MR. ARCHITZEL: No, the 4 times 10 to the 18 minus 3 to.3, those numbers.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thats correct. They also 20 came from Table F-10 in Appendix F. They came from 21 the same place. Sorry about that. Lack of cite 22 there.
23 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Any other questions? Any 24 questions from Entergy.
25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SILBERG: We have none here.
1 MR. McCANN: Its not a question but I 2
would like to make one brief statement for the record 3
if thats okay, Brian.
4 MR. BENNEY: Is that John McCann?
5 MR. McCANN: Yes, this is John McCann, 6
Entergy. I take it you will docketing a response to 7
the petition in the near future that will describe 8
some of our basis for the conclusion that the sump 9
systems are capable of performing their intended 10 safety function and some of the unique design features 11 at the plant.
12 While waiting for that though I would say 13 that from our perspective it doesnt appear to be 14 anything new or unique in the petition that has been 15 presented. NRC is already well aware of this issue 16 and has been taking action on it. Entergy is fully 17 and responsibly cooperating with NRCs action on the 18 issue. I guess from our perspective the total NRC 19 process seems to be in place and working for this 20 issue.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you for your 22 statement.
23 MS. BLACK: May I say something too?
24 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Please.
25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. BLACK: Suzanne Black. Im the 1
Director of DSSA, the division responsible for 2
resolving this generic issue. We put a website out 3
for the public to get information on this and we have 4
been struggling with the resource issues trying to 5
deal with the problem and have a good communication 6
plan on this. We realize at this point that our 7
website is not the most helpful. We plan in the very 8
near future to add additional information which will 9
explain to the public the basis for our schedule and 10 our actions.
11 Also I would like to state that in 12 addition to that just this week Ive asked a separate 13 group of independent people who work for me and for 14 Eric Leeds to take a look at the schedule and the plan 15 to advise me whether they think anything else is 16 needed. I appreciate, David, your bringing this issue 17 to us for consideration. Well keep you informed as 18 well as the rest of the public hopefully of our 19 actions.
20 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: All right. Thank you, 21 Suzanne. I think you can tell from the lack of 22 questions from the staff that the petition pretty much 23 stands on its own merits. Its well explained. I 24 know when I went through it I didnt have specific 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 questions. I had questions at the beginning. You 1
answered them later on in the petition so I have no 2
further questions for you either. Unless you have 3
other clarifying remarks youd like to make or 4
statements youd like to make.
5 MR. LOCHBAUM: The only additional thing 6
I will add is we were monitoring the GSI-191 with 7
attending some of the meetings and so on. Were a 8
little concerned that absent a petition or something 9
that could go on forever.
10 Theres no commitment to meet 2007. It 11 could be anything. Theres no chance at all for the 12 public to formally have any participation in that 13 process to either speed it, slow it down or agree or 14 disagree. Its basically a process between the agency 15 and the industry.
16 The 2.206 process is one of the few 17 mechanism the public has if they disagree with 18 schedules or scope or anything like that. That was a 19 way we used the only tool we have to look out for the 20 public outcry which will continuing.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: I understand you 22 mentioned that in the petition specifically that there 23 is no public input to the GSI process.
24 MR. LOCHBAUM: Exactly.
25
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 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Point taken.
1 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you. If there are 3
no other questions from Entergy or the staff, Ill 4
conclude this meeting and then if there are any 5
questions from the public or the press, the NRC staff 6
would be willing to stay afterwards and respond to 7
your questions. Any other questions before we end the 8
meeting? Well conclude the meeting then and take 9
questions from the public or the press. Off the 10 record.
11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 12 concluded at 3:37 p.m.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25