ML12352A279
| ML12352A279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Wilkins L | |
| References | |
| EDATS: OEDO-2012-0390, G20120458, NRC-2015, 2.206 | |
| Download: ML12352A279 (48) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
2.206 Petition by Wallace Taylor and Lynn Moorer regarding Fort Calhoun Power Station Docket Number: n/a Location: by teleconference Date: November 19, 2012 Work Order No.: NRC-2015 Pages 1-49 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE:
7 FORT CALHOUN STATION 8 + + + + +
9 MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 19, 2012 11 + + + + +
12 13 The conference call was held, Tim McGinty, 14 Chairman of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
15 16 PETITIONERS: WALLACE TAYLOR and LYNN MOORER 17 18 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
19 TIM McGINTY, Chairman, NRR/DPR 20 MICHAEL BALAZIK, NRR/DIRS 21 CHRISTOPHER CAUFFMAN, NRR/DIRS 22 JOHN KIRKLAND, R-IV/DRP, Fort Calhoun Senior 23 Resident Inspector 24 ANDREA RUSSELL, Petition Coordinator, NRR/DPR 25 LYNNEA WILKINS, Petition Manager, NRR/DORL NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1
2 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
3 PATRICIA JEHLE, OGC 4
5 NRC REGIONAL STAFF:
6 JEFF CLARK, R-IV 7
8 LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
9 BILL HANSHER, Fort Calhoun Station 10 11 ALSO PRESENT:
12 DICK BOYD, Chair, Nebraska Sierra Club 13 BRIAN KEAN 14 MIKE RYAN, Clean Nebraska 15 LaVERNE THRAEN 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 PAGE 4 A. Welcome and Introductions 4 5 B. PRB Chairman's Introduction 8 6 C. Petitioner's Presentation 12 7 D. PRB Chairman's Closing Remarks 45 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (1:07 p.m.)
3 MS. WILKINS: I would like to thank 4 everyone for attending this meeting. My name is Lynnea 5 Wilkins, and I am the Project Manager for Fort Calhoun 6 Station, Unit 1.
7 We are here today to allow the Petitioner, 8 Mr. Wallace Taylor, a second opportunity to address the 9 Petition Review Board, PRB, regarding a 2.206 petition 10 dated June 21, 2012. I am the Petition Manager for the 11 petition. The PRB Chairman is Tim McGinty.
12 As part of the PRB's review of the petition, 13 Mr. Wallace Taylor has requested this opportunity to 14 address the PRB. This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 to 15 2:00 p.m. Eastern.
16 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 17 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a Court 18 Reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to 19 the petition. The transcript will also be made publicly 20 available.
21 I would like to open this meeting with 22 introductions. As we go around the room, please make 23 sure to clearly state your name, your position, and the 24 office that you work for within the NRC for the record.
25 I will start off. As I said, I am Lynnea Wilkins, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 Project Manager for Fort Calhoun, and I am in NRR.
2 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: I am Tim McGinty. I'm 3 the Director of the Division of Policy and Rulemaking in 4 NRR, and I'm the PRB Chair.
5 MR. BALAZIK: Hi. My name is Mike Balazik.
6 I am an Operations Engineer in the Office of Nuclear 7 Reactor Regulation, the Assessment Branch.
8 MR. CAUFFMAN: Hi. I'm Chris Cauffman.
9 I'm an Operations Engineer as well, NRR.
10 MS. JEHLE: Good afternoon. I am Patricia 11 Jehle with the Office of the General Counsel at NRC.
12 MS. RUSSELL: Andrea Russell, 2.206 13 Coordinator.
14 MS. WILKINS: We have completed the 15 introductions here in headquarters. At this time, are 16 there any NRC participants from headquarters on the 17 phone?
18 (No response.)
19 Are there any NRC participants from the 20 regional office on the phone?
21 MR. CLARK: Yes, Lynnea. This is Jeff 22 Clark. I'm the Acting Deputy Director, Division of 23 Reactor Safety in Region IV.
24 MR. KIRKLAND: Lynnea, this is John 25 Kirkland, Senior Resident Inspector at Fort Calhoun NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 Station.
2 MS. WILKINS: Thank you. Are there any 3 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
4 MR. HANSHER: Yes. This is Bill Hansher, 5 Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing.
6 MS. WILKINS: Thanks, Bill.
7 Mr. Taylor, would you please introduce 8 yourself and any other presenters for the record?
9 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. I'm Wally Taylor, 10 appearing on behalf of the Sierra Club. And on the phone 11 with me should also be Lynn Moorer. I haven't heard her 12 yet, but --
13 MS. MOORER: Hello.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Lynn, are you there?
15 MS. MOORER: Yes, I'm here.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Thanks. That 17 concludes our personnel.
18 MS. WILKINS: Ms. Moorer, could you state 19 your position and affiliation?
20 MS. MOORER: I am an attorney from Lincoln, 21 Nebraska, who is assisting Mr. Taylor in this particular 22 project.
23 MS. WILKINS: Thank you.
24 It is not required for members of the public 25 to introduce themselves for this call. However, if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 there are any members of the public on the phone that wish 2 to do so at this time, please state your name for the 3 record.
4 MR. RYAN: Mike Ryan with Clean Nebraska in 5 Omaha.
6 MR. BOYD: Dick Boyd, Nebraska Sierra Club 7 Chair.
8 MR. THRAEN: LaVerne Thraen, just a public 9 citizen.
10 MS. WILKINS: All right. Thank you. I 11 would like to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly 12 and loudly to make sure that the Court Reporter can 13 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you do have 14 something that you would like to say, please first state 15 your name for the record.
16 For those dialing into the meeting, please 17 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 18 noise or distractions. If you do not have a mute button, 19 this can be done by pressing the keys star six. To 20 unmute, press the star six keys again.
21 Thank you.
22 At this time, I will turn it over to the PRB 23 Chairman, Tim McGinty.
24 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Good afternoon. Thank 25 you, Lynnea.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 2 petition submitted by Mr. Taylor.
3 I would like to first share some background 4 on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 5 of Federal Regulations describes the petition 6 process -- the primary mechanism for the public to 7 request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 8 process.
9 This process permits anyone to petition NRC 10 to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees 11 or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its 12 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an 13 NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate 14 enforcement action to resolve a problem.
15 The NRC staff's guidance for the 16 disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management 17 Directive 8.11, and that's a publicly available 18 document.
19 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 20 the Petitioner a second opportunity to provide any 21 relevant additional explanation and support for the 22 request in light of the PRB's recommendation.
23 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an 24 opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine the 25 PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 requests. No decisions regarding the merits of these 2 petitions will be made at this meeting.
3 Following the meeting, the Petition Review 4 Board will conduct its internal deliberation. The 5 outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with 6 the Petitioner.
7 The Petition Review Board typically 8 consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the senior 9 executive service level, at the NRC. It has a Petition 10 Manager and a PRB Coordination. Other members of the 11 Board are determined by the NRC staff based on the content 12 of the information in the petition request.
13 At this time, I would like to introduce the 14 Board. I'm Tim McGinty, the Petition Review Board 15 Chairman. Lynnea Wilkins is the Petition Manager for 16 the petition under discussion today. Andrea Russell is 17 the office's PRB coordinator.
18 Our technical staff includes Christopher 19 Cauffman from NRR, the Inspection Branch; Michael 20 Balazik from NRR's Performance Assessment Branch; John 21 Kirkland, the senior resident inspector at Fort Calhoun, 22 from the NRC Region IV Division of Reactor Projects. And 23 we obtain advice from the Office of the General Counsel, 24 represented by Patty Jehle today.
25 As described in our process, the NRC staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 2 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach a 3 reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 4 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 process.
5 I would like to summarize the scope of the 6 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 7 date.
8 On June 21, 2012, Mr. Taylor submitted to 9 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding his concerns 10 with the adequacy of the management and operation of Fort 11 Calhoun Station. In this petition request, Mr. Taylor 12 identified the following areas of concern. Mr. Taylor 13 requests that the NRC revoke Omaha Public Power 14 District's -- OPPD -- license to operate Fort Calhoun 15 Station.
16 As the basis for this request, Mr. Taylor 17 states, in short, that since at least 1992 OPPD has been 18 unable and unwilling to operate Fort Calhoun properly and 19 safely. He states that OPPD has failed to correct 20 problems that were identified years ago and has resisted 21 directives from the NRC regarding safety violations.
22 The Petitioner is concerned that there is no likelihood 23 that OPPD will ever be able or willing to operate Fort 24 Calhoun properly and safely.
25 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 date. On July 12, 2012, the Petition Manager contacted 2 the Petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 3 to offer the Petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB 4 by phone or in person. The Petitioner requested to 5 address the PRB by phone, which is the purpose of today's 6 call, prior to the PRB internal meeting to make the 7 initial recommendations to accept or reject the 8 petitions for review.
9 On August 27, 2012, Mr. Taylor and Ms.
10 Moorer addressed the PRB via teleconference.
11 On September 19, 2012, the PRB met 12 internally to make the initial recommendation. And on 13 October 5, 2012, the Petition Manager informed Mr. Taylor 14 of the PRB's initial recommendation.
15 The initial recommendation is that the 16 petition meets the criteria for rejection, because in 17 accordance with Management Directive 8.11, the 18 issues/concerns that the Petitioner raised have already 19 been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation 20 either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on 21 a generic basis, for which a resolution has been 22 achieved. The issues have been resolved, and the 23 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.
24 In addition, the PRB notes that the issues 25 referenced in the petition, as supplemented, do not lead NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 the NRC to believe that the licensee willfully operated 2 Fort Calhoun in an improper and unsafe manner.
3 Reactor Oversight 4 Process -- ROP -- collectively assesses the ongoing 5 capability to operate safely, and individual enforcement 6 actions are addressed for willfulness, and the ROP 7 considers that aspect collectively.
8 As a reminder for the phone participants, 9 please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as this 10 will help us in the preparation of the meeting transcript 11 that will be made publicly available.
12 With that said, Mr. Taylor, I will turn it 13 over to you, so you can provide information you believe 14 the PRB should consider as part of these petitions. Ms.
15 Moorer can present her information after you have 16 completed your presentation. Okay?
17 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: You're welcome.
19 MR. TAYLOR: This is Wally Taylor. And we 20 did receive the PRB's initial recommendation on 21 October 5th by email. We believe that the 22 recommendation is factually and legally incorrect.
23 The initial recommendation first cites the 24 criteria for rejection in Management Directive 8.11 that 25 Mr. McGinty just recited. Those criteria are that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 issues raised in the petition have already been the 2 subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which 3 resolution has been achieved.
4 But these criteria are the criteria for 5 determining whether to treat a petition as a 2.206 6 petition in the first place, not the criteria for 7 determining whether a formally accepted petition should 8 be denied. In this case, the petition has been formally 9 accepted as a valid 2.206 petition. Therefore, the PRB 10 was legally incorrect in using those criteria as a basis 11 for denying the petition.
12 The only criteria for revoking a license, 13 as requested in the Petitioner's petition, are found in 14 10 CFR Section 50.100. The criteria applicable to this 15 petition would be, number one, conditions that would 16 warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license, in 17 the original application; number two, failure to operate 18 a facility in accordance with the terms of the license; 19 and, three, violation of or failure to observe any of the 20 terms and provisions of the Act -- that's the Atomic 21 Energy Act -- the regulations, license, or order of the 22 Commission.
23 The PRB's initial recommendation did not 24 discuss any of these criteria. The evidence presented 25 to the PRB, though, shows that the 50.100 criteria have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 been met.
2 At the meeting on August 27th, the 3 Petitioner presented evidence, including a summary of 4 safety violations and management problems at Fort 5 Calhoun dating back almost 40 years, showing that Omaha 6 Public Power District is not able or willing to operate 7 Fort Calhoun safely and properly. This evidence 8 satisfied all three of the applicable criteria for 9 revocation of the reactor license.
10 Unwillingness and inability to operate a 11 nuclear plant safely and properly is a basis for not 12 issuing a license. 10 CFR Section 50.40 sates in 13 pertinent part that "In determining that a construction 14 permit or operating license will be issued to an 15 applicant, the Commission will be guided by the following 16 considerations: (a) the processes to be performed, the 17 operating procedures, the facility and equipment, the 18 use of the facility, and other technical specifications, 19 or the proposals in regard to any of the foregoing 20 collectively, provide reasonable assurance that the 21 applicant will comply with the regulations in this 22 chapter, and that the health and safety of the public will 23 not be in danger."
24 And in subsection (c), "The issuance of a 25 construction permit, operating license, and so on, will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 not, in the opinion of the Commission, be inimical to the 2 common defense and security or to the public health and 3 safety of the public."
4 Also, 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3) says, "The 5 Commission cannot issue a license unless there is 6 reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by 7 the operating license can be conducted without 8 endangering the health and safety of the public."
9 The second -- thus, the first of the 2.206 10 criteria have been met. And yet because of the numerous 11 safety problems and violations at Fort Calhoun, 12 conditions exist that would preclude the issuance of a 13 license pursuant to those sections that I just read of 14 the regulations.
15 The second 2.206 criterion has also been 16 met. The Fort Calhoun license requires the plant to be 17 operated so as to protect the health and safety of the 18 public. The license includes technical specifications 19 related to the condition and operation of the plant, many 20 of which have been violated as shown by the list of 21 violations submitted to the Board after the last meeting.
22 The third 2.206 criterion is also met based 23 on the long list of violations incurred at Fort Calhoun.
24 Those are all violations of the Atomic Energy Act, NRC 25 regulations, and provisions of the Fort Calhoun license.
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 The PRB's initial recommendation next 2 asserts that the evidence presented did not show that the 3 OPPD willfully operated Fort Calhoun in an improper or 4 unsafe manner. Willfulness is not a factor in the 50.100 5 criteria.
6 In any event, the evidence showed that OPPD 7 ignored warnings throughout the years as to flooding 8 hazards at Fort Calhoun. In fact, OPPD went beyond just 9 ignoring the warnings. It denied the problems and 10 resisted making any changes in response to the warnings.
11 In addition, statements by OPPD admit that 12 over the years there has been a culture of ignoring 13 problems. As David Bannister, OPPD Vice President in 14 charge of nuclear operations put it in a May 24, 2012 15 letter to the NRC, "Flawed mental models, misguided 16 beliefs, and misplaced values have driven, influenced, 17 and permitted the misalignment of the individual, 18 leader, and organizational behaviors needed for 19 effective and timely detection, evaluation, and 20 correction of performance deficiencies."
21 The Fort Calhoun Station organizational 22 values regarding problem identification and resolution 23 preclude a self-improvement culture and learning 24 environment. It is hard to imagine a more damming 25 indictment of the intent that has caused the almost 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 30-year history of problems at Fort Calhoun, in fact over 2 30 years.
3 Finally, the PRB's initial recommendation 4 refers to the reactor oversight process as assessing the 5 ongoing safety and operation of a reactor. The 6 recommendation then incorrectly implies that this 2.206 7 petition is an enforcement action and is not appropriate 8 to address the ongoing problems at Fort Calhoun.
9 The reactor oversight process is focused on 10 detecting problems at reactors and remediating those 11 problems. Unlike the 2.206 process, the reactor 12 oversight process does not consider revoking a license.
13 Therefore, if, as implied by the PRB's initial 14 recommendation, the reactor oversight process were a 15 substitute for or precluded a 2.206 petition, that would 16 render the 2.206 process irrelevant and superfluous.
17 There is obviously no basis for such an absurd result, 18 and the PRB has no basis for taking that position.
19 This petition is not an enforcement action.
20 License revocations, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 50.100, 21 refer to licenses issued under Parts 50 or 52 of the NRC 22 regulations.
23 Revocation of a license is, therefore, a 24 licensing proceeding. This fact was made clear by the 25 court in Nuclear Information Resource Service v. NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 For the lawyers on the call, the cite is 969 F.2d 1169.
2 It's a Circuit Court case from D.C. in 1992.
3 And the court there said there are two types 4 of 2.206 petitions -- those that seek enforcement, like 5 for a penalty or forcing something to be done to correct 6 a problem, and there are also the 2.206 petitions to 7 suspend, modify, or revoke a license, and that's a 8 licensing proceeding.
9 Therefore, based on the evidence presented 10 at the meeting on August 27th, the PRB's initial 11 recommendation is in error and not based on substantial 12 evidence. In addition, more evidence has come to light 13 since August 27th.
14 At the public meeting in Blair, Nebraska, 15 on September 11, 2012, it was revealed for the first time 16 that there are design and construction problems in the 17 original construction of the plant. It was not made 18 clear how these design and construction defects can be 19 corrected. This is a structural problem that would 20 seemingly require significant reconstruction of the 21 facility.
22 It also seems obvious that if these defects 23 had been known at the time the reactor was originally 24 licensed, this was a condition that would have warranted 25 refusal to grant a license. Exactly one of the criteria NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 for revoking a license.
2 It was also clear at that meeting that Fort 3 Calhoun has many, many issues to attempt to resolve 4 before it can be considered for restart. It is not at 5 all clear that these issues can be resolved. At a recent 6 meeting last week in Blair, Nebraska, these problems were 7 again cited, and it wasn't at all clear that very much 8 progress has been made.
9 Particularly with regard to the 10 construction and design problems, OPPD still doesn't 11 have any idea what they are or how to correct them. They 12 claim they are going to hire a structural engineering 13 firm to look into that. But that still seems to be a 14 problem that would preclude relicensing and would be a 15 basis for our petition.
16 Aside from the additional evidence 17 regarding Fort Calhoun specifically, the PRB at the last 18 hearing left open our opportunity to provide evidence at 19 a subsequent hearing -- today -- about Exelon and its 20 ability to operate the plant safely and properly.
21 This is relevant because OPPD has entered 22 into an agreement with Exelon Nuclear Partners to operate 23 the Fort Calhoun Station. The agreement between Exelon 24 and OPPD states, "OPPD shall remain the owner, operator, 25 and licensee for the facility, and shall retain authority NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 and control for licensed activities and final 2 decision-making authority for the operation of the 3 facility."
4 The agreement also states that "The 5 Management team, including the initial key management 6 personnel positions, shall be subject to prior approval 7 by the CEO of OPPD and shall serve at the discretion of 8 the CEO as set forth in the agreement. Thus, OPPD, whose 9 culture, attitudes, and actions, you will remember, 10 precluded improvement, would still be making the 11 important decisions."
12 Although OPPD refused to provide the NRC 13 with a copy of the agreement with Exelon, the NRC, thanks 14 to John Kirkland, did receive -- did provide to me a copy 15 of a letter they received and what appears to be selective 16 sections of the agreement, all of which are -- will be 17 supplied to the Board after this hearing.
18 In addition, a review of Exelon's history 19 with the plants in which it has an ownership interest 20 already reveals many problems with those plants, and Ms.
21 Moorer will now go over those problems with you.
22 MS. MOORER: This is Lynn Moorer. Thank 23 you for this opportunity to present evidence. While 24 some might think that Exelon's day-to-day management of 25 the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant, still owned and operated 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 by Omaha Public Power District, will go a long way toward 2 solving Fort Calhoun's deep-seated and pervasive 3 problems, in reality management by Exelon is not a 4 solution.
5 Indeed, given Exelon's history of 6 deliberate violations, Exelon management day to day and 7 implementation of Exelon's nuclear management models at 8 Fort Calhoun as planned is more likely to diminish Fort 9 Calhoun's performance even further rather than improve 10 it. Willful violations generally signal at least two 11 things -- a rotten safety culture and a scofflaw attitude 12 at the plant where these violations take place.
13 There are enough willful or deliberate 14 violations at Exelon's various nuclear plants to 15 demonstrate a pattern and practice which, in turn, 16 demonstrates an unwillingness to comply. There are far 17 too many deliberate violations at Exelon nuclear plants 18 to reasonably conclude that they are all isolated 19 incidents.
20 It is clear that many of the nuclear plants 21 Exelon operates have been repeatedly operated 22 improperly, unsafely, and in violation of regulatory 23 requirements. To protect public safety adequately, the 24 NRC must take a clear-eyed look at the pattern of poor 25 practice at Exelon's nuclear plants as a whole.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 It seems apparent that the NRC has not 2 examined carefully or addressed Exelon's practice of 3 willful violation of NRC requirements across its various 4 nuclear reactors in the United States.
5 There is abundant evidence that the NRC's 6 enforcement actions regarding Exelon's deliberate 7 violations at one nuclear plant do not translate into 8 lessons learned at other Exelon nuclear plants. Rather, 9 Exelon's deliberate violations continue to occur.
10 For example, after it received a Notice of 11 Violation for failure to provide complete and accurate 12 information to the NRC regarding reactor operator 13 licensing at its Clinton plant, Exelon committed a very 14 similar violation at its Dresden plant. Thus, the 15 continuance of Exelon's deliberate violations through 16 the years demonstrates that the NRC has not already dealt 17 adequately with the problems. If it had, these 18 deliberate violations wouldn't keep occurring.
19 Therefore, Exelon's pattern and practice 20 of deliberately violating regulatory requirements is 21 directly relevant to consideration regarding Exelon's 22 likely impact upon Fort Calhoun's poor performance.
23 Some of the violations that I will cite in a few moments 24 occurred at nuclear plants whose ownership at the time 25 was listed under a name different from Exelon.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 However, these are nevertheless relevant 2 because they are all currently owned by Exelon and 3 represent the workforce and safety culture that Exelon 4 draws upon for its current operations. Indeed, 5 deliberate violations have continued under Exelon's 6 ownership at virtually all of these plants.
7 I will now summarize a sampling of the 8 violations at Exelon nuclear plants involving willful 9 violations, violations involving compromised integrity, 10 and violations involving withholding information.
11 These all embrace, to some degree, knowing violations.
12 With respect to the Braidwood Nuclear 13 Plant -- that's spelled B-R-A-I-D-W-O-O-D -- on May 18, 14 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a severity 15 level 3 violation based on a radiation protection 16 technician's deliberate failure to follow required 17 procedures when he activated the alarm on the portal 18 monitors a total of 14 times, and failed to contact the 19 Radiation Protection Department before leaving the 20 station.
21 Perhaps the most notorious and widespread 22 of Exelon's deliberate violations is its failure to 23 disclose and its apparent attempt to cover up massive 24 leaks of radioactive water from uninspected and 25 unmaintained buried pipes and valves at its Braidwood, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 Byron, and Dresden nuclear plants in Illinois.
2 Exelon's reactors at Braidwood, in two 3 massive leaks of three million gallons each, spilled 4 radioactive water into roadside ditches, private yards, 5 private drinking water wells, cornfields, and horse 6 ponds for more than a decade. While Exelon stayed 7 silent, there were approximately two dozen spills over 8 a decade at Braidwood alone.
9 On March 16, 2006, the Illinois Attorney 10 General and the Will County State's Attorney filed suit 11 against Exelon and its subsidiaries for the Braidwood 12 facility for multiple releases of waste water containing 13 tritium into the groundwater beneath the facility and the 14 groundwater outside the plant's boundary. The lawsuit 15 alleged the first leak occurred a decade prior.
16 Exelon released tritiated water at eight 17 separate locations on Exelon's Braidwood property 18 according to this lawsuit. Three distinct releases 19 occurred in 1996, 1998, and 2000, according to the 20 lawsuit, and three other releases occurred at unknown 21 times from the facility's blowdown line -- an underground 22 pipe that carries wastewater -- including tritiated 23 water approximately four and one-half miles from the 24 powerplant directly to the Kankakee River. That's 25 spelled K-A-N-K-A-K-E-E.
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 The suit alleged that an additional release 2 occurred at an unknown time in the area near and to the 3 west of the station, and an eighth release occurred March 4 13, 2006, near the tritiated water temporary storage area 5 at the plant.
6 The lawsuit alleged that the eight leaks 7 contributed to water pollution, and that six of the 8 releases were the result of inadequate maintenance and 9 operation of vacuum breakers along the blowdown lines.
10 According to the Will County State's 11 Attorney, "The method of operation put in place at the 12 Braidwood Nuclear Plant since 1996 by Commonwealth 13 Edison, and their parent company as of 2000, Exelon 14 clearly placed their profit margin first, with a callous 15 disregard for the health, safety, and welfare of the 16 local residents. Exelon was well aware that tritium 17 increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages, and birth 18 defects, and yet they made a conscious decision not to 19 notify the public of their risk of exposure."
20 According to the Illinois Attorney General, 21 samples taken by Exelon in December 2005 indicated 22 elevated levels of tritium in the groundwater at various 23 locations outside the Braidwood Nuclear Plant property.
24 This includes a private well allegedly contaminated by 25 the 1998 release.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 In 2010, the Illinois Attorney General and 2 the State Attorneys of Will, Ogle, spelled O-G-L-E, and 3 Grundy, spelled G-R-U-N-D-Y, Counties reached 4 settlement with Exelon regarding its radioactive tritium 5 leaks into the groundwater beneath its Braidwood, Byron, 6 and Dresden nuclear powerplants.
7 Exelon agreed to pay more than $1 million 8 to settle the lawsuit filed by the Illinois Attorney 9 General and the Will County State's Attorney, as well as 10 lawsuits filed concurrently by the Ogle and Grundy County 11 State Attorneys.
12 In response to this long-term massive 13 leakage of radioactive water both on and offsite at 14 Braidwood, the NRC, on June 29, 2006, issued a Notice of 15 Violation associated with a white significance 16 determination process finding involving multiple 17 failures by the licensee to adequately evaluate the 18 radiological hazards associated with the leaks from the 19 circulating water blowdown line vacuum breakers and to 20 assess environmental impact of the resultant onsite and 21 offsite tritium contamination.
22 With respect to Exelon's Byron Nuclear 23 Plant, on October 10, 2005, a Notice of Violation was 24 issued for a severity level 3 problem involving 25 violations of the Byron station technical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 specifications.
2 Specifically, an engineer engaged in 3 deliberate misconduct when he failed to perform assigned 4 surveillances of ventilation systems and falsified the 5 records to show the surveillances as completed -- a 6 violation of 10 CFR 50.9, "Completeness and Accuracy of 7 Information."
8 Regarding Exelon's Clinton Nuclear Plant, 9 on September 30, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued 10 based on a severity level 3 willful violation involving 11 discrimination against a quality verification inspector 12 for bringing safety concerns to the NRC.
13 Also pertaining to Clinton, on May 6, 2003, 14 a Notice of Violation was issued for a severity level 3 15 violation involving the failure to provide complete and 16 accurate information to the NRC regarding preexisting 17 medical conditions of two initial reactor operator 18 license candidates. The medical information that 19 Exelon withheld from the NRC potentially disqualified 20 the two individuals applying for a reactor operator's 21 license.
22 With respect to Exelon's Dresden nuclear 23 facility, on September 18, 1998, a Notice of Violation 24 for a severity level 3 violation was issued. This action 25 was based on the willful activities of two individuals NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 that caused the licensee to begin violation of 10 CFR 2 55.49, which prohibits licensed applicants and facility 3 licensees from engaging in any activity that compromises 4 the integrity of an NRC operator licensing examination.
5 Also pertaining to the Dresden plant, 6 Exelon, as it had with its Clinton plant, again, failed 7 to provide complete and accurate information. On June 8 23, 2003, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition 9 of Civil Penalty in the amount of $60,000 was issued for 10 the willful failure to provide complete and accurate 11 information to the NRC Region III staff concerning the 12 high-pressure coolant injection system during a 13 telephone conference call on September 27, 2001.
14 Exelon also received a Notice of Violation 15 regarding Dresden on August 29, 2003, for a violation 16 involving the failure by Exelon to provide complete and 17 accurate information to the NRC regarding a request to 18 renew a reactor operator license. This is the same basic 19 violation related to withholding information regarding 20 reactor operator candidates that Exelon had been cited 21 for with respect to its Clinton plant.
22 With respect to the Ginna Nuclear 23 Plant -- that is spelled G-I-N-N-A -- on March 30, 2004, 24 a Notice of Violation was issued for a severity level 3 25 violation involving the willful failure to follow NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 procedures by a manager when he manipulated two valves 2 during a plant cooldown without authorization as 3 required by procedures.
4 Related to its LaSalle nuclear 5 facility -- that's spelled L-A capital S-A-L-L-E -- on 6 May 2, 2005, a Notice of Violation and Proposed 7 Imposition of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $60,000 8 was issued to Exelon for a willful severity level 3 9 violation involving four contract employees who violated 10 radiation protection procedures associated with entry 11 into high radiation areas.
12 Exelon appealed this enforcement action 13 using the alternative dispute resolution process. As a 14 part of the ADR settlement agreement, Exelon agreed that 15 a willful violation occurred, as documented in the NRC's 16 May 2, 2005, Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition 17 of a Civil Penalty.
18 Based on the expectation that Exelon would 19 satisfactorily implement numerous comprehensive 20 short-term and long-term corrective actions, the NRC 21 agreed to reclassify the violations at severity level 4, 22 to reduce the civil penalty to $10,000 and to not consider 23 the violation as part of the civil penalty assessment 24 process should the NRC consider future enforcement 25 actions against LaSalle.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 With respect to Exelon's Limerick Nuclear 2 Plant, on August 5, 1997, a Notice of Violation and 3 Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of 4 $80,000 was issued. This was based on a severity level 5 2 problem that included two violations involving 6 instances of record falsification.
7 In the first violation, a chemistry 8 technician and a chemist, at the direction of the 9 chemistry manager, deliberately falsified a record of 10 the time a grab sample was taken from the reactor 11 enclosure cooling water system. The chemistry manager 12 also pressured the technician and chemist to lie about 13 their actions to licensee security personnel 14 investigating the matter.
15 In the second violation, a fire protection 16 technical assistant deliberately failed to perform a 17 fire hose station visual inspection surveillance test, 18 yet falsified the surveillance test document to indicate 19 the test was performed.
20 Also, regarding the Limerick plant, on 21 October 23, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued for 22 a severity level 3 problem involving the willful creation 23 of inaccurate and incomplete siren testing maintenance 24 records by two maintenance technicians and deficiencies 25 with the ability to provide early notification to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 populace surrounding the facility in the event of an 2 emergency.
3 With respect to the Nine Mile Point nuclear 4 plant, on May 2, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued 5 for a severity level 3 violation involving the deliberate 6 failure of an NRC licensed chief shift operator to 7 provide complete and accurate information on health 8 history forms that were required for the fitness for duty 9 regulation.
10 Also, related to Nine Mile Point, on 11 March 13, 2007, a Notice of Violation was issued for a 12 violation associated with a white significance 13 determination process finding involving an activity that 14 compromised the integrity of the annual licensed 15 operator requalification simulator exam at Unit 1 for 16 calendar years 2005 and 2006.
17 Specifically, the process used by the 18 licensee to select and validate the simulator exam 19 scenarios resulted in the licensed operators being 20 knowledgeable of a significant portion of the exam prior 21 to its administration. The violation was cited against 22 10 CFR 55.49, "Integrity of Examinations and Tests."
23 On October 23, 2001, just as at the Limerick 24 Nuclear Plant, a Notice of Violation was issued for a 25 severity level 3 problem at the Peach Bottom nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 plant involving the willful creation of inaccurate and 2 incomplete siren testing maintenance records by two 3 maintenance technicians and deficiencies with the 4 ability to provide early notification to the populace 5 surrounding the facility in the event of an emergency.
6 Also, related to Peach Bottom, on 7 January 6, 2009, a Notice of Violation and Proposed 8 Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $65,000 was 9 issued for a severity level 3 problem involving 10 inattentive security officers at the Peach Bottom Atomic 11 Power Station.
12 An investigation conducted by the NRC 13 Office of Investigations determined that multiple 14 security officers at Peach Bottom were deliberately 15 inattentive on multiple occasions. In addition, 16 multiple security officers deliberately failed to report 17 observations of inattentiveness to their supervision.
18 This put Exelon in violation of 10 CFR 19 73.55, which requires armed responders to maintain 20 continuous communication with each alarm station and be 21 available to immediately respond to threats; and Peach 22 Bottom license condition 2.C(3), which requires, in 23 part, reporting of aberrant behavior.
24 Again, pertaining to Peach Bottom, on 25 December 1, 2009, an immediately effective confirmatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 order was issued to Exelon Generating Company, LLC, to 2 confirm commitments made as a result of an alternative 3 dispute resolution mediation session.
4 This enforcement action is based on two 5 violations of NRC requirements at Exelon's Peach Bottom 6 Atomic Power Station, including the deliberate failure 7 of a reactor operator to report an arrest in a timely 8 manner, and the deliberate failure of a maintenance 9 supervisor to provide complete and accurate information 10 on a personal history questionnaire.
11 In consideration of the commitments and 12 other actions already completed by Exelon, the NRC agreed 13 to refrain from issuing a civil penalty or Notice of 14 Violation for these violations.
15 In conclusion, Exelon's pattern of 16 deliberate violation is likely to continue at Fort 17 Calhoun. The Petition Review Board must consider the 18 larger reality that the continuing deliberate violations 19 at Exelon nuclear plants bespeak a deeply flawed safety 20 culture and willingness to flout regulatory requirements 21 which may infect Fort Calhoun, thus bringing its 22 performance even lower and jeopardizing public safety 23 even further.
24 In any event, one cannot reasonably expect 25 that Exelon's management of Fort Calhoun will adequately NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 resolve any of the claims made in this 2.206 petition.
2 This concludes my prepared remarks. I will 3 now turn the presentation back to Mr. Taylor.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. Just a quick sum 5 up. I believe we have shown clearly that the PRB was 6 incorrect, both factually and legally, in their initial 7 recommendation, and that if the proper criteria and 8 evaluation were conducted that the evidence we have 9 presented is more than sufficient to justify the 10 revocation of the Fort Calhoun license, and the Board 11 should in fact do that.
12 A couple of housekeeping matters. The 13 transcript of the last hearing from August 27th, Ms.
14 Moorer and I noted some corrections that need to be made, 15 and we will send those proposed corrections in writing 16 to the Board after this hearing.
17 Also, we will send to the Board 18 documentation to support the comments we have made today, 19 and we would request that the record be left open for 30 20 days, so that we can do that, particularly with the items 21 that we learned from the hearing in Blair last Thursday.
22 So with that, that concludes our 23 presentation. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Okay. Mr. Taylor, Ms.
25 Moorer, thank you very much for your presentation. This NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 is Tim McGinty again, the PRB Chair.
2 At this time, I would like to ask the staff 3 here at headquarters whether we have any questions for 4 Mr. Taylor or Ms. Moorer.
5 MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Taylor, this is Andrea 6 Russell, the 2.206 Coordinator.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
8 MS. RUSSELL: I have a question for you.
9 Early on in your presentation you said that the PRB had 10 formally accepted this petition and that now we were 11 proposing to reject it.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
13 MS. RUSSELL: I just want to make sure I'm 14 understanding your concern. Could you clarify that for 15 me?
16 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. Sure. I'd be glad to.
17 The criteria in Directive 8.111 that the initial 18 recommendation referred to -- well, on the page -- I think 19 it's page 11 of the Directive, and those are the criteria 20 for determining that face value, whether or not the 21 petition meets the requirements or the criteria as a 22 2.206 petition in the first place.
23 If those criteria are not met, then the 24 petition is rejected outright at that point, because it 25 doesn't satisfy the criteria for being a 2.206 petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 in the first place.
2 Those are not the criteria -- once the 3 petition has been formally accepted and the process is 4 ongoing like it is here, those are not the criteria for 5 denying the petition on its merits. Those criteria 6 would be the ones I mentioned found in 10 CFR Section 7 50.100, the grounds for revoking a permit.
8 MS. RUSSELL: Okay. Mr. Taylor, this is 9 Andrea Russell again. I just want to clarify that the 10 Management Directive for 2.206 is -- currently it's a 11 two-step process. Basically, a petitioner has to come 12 in and has to meet all three criteria for review. Once 13 it meets those three criteria for review, then we enter 14 into the other set of criteria, which we either reject 15 or accept the petition.
16 If it doesn't meet the original three 17 criteria for review, basically we would issue a closeout 18 letter saying, "Your petition did not meet the criteria 19 for review." If it meets those criteria and we go into 20 accepting and rejecting, that's when we provide we either 21 are accepting the petition based on, you know, X, Y, Z, 22 or we reject this petition because of X, Y, Z.
23 Does that make sense to you? I know the 24 Management Directive is a little hard to read. And as 25 most petitioners are aware, because they provided NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
37 1 comments on it, we are currently revising the Management 2 Directive to make it clear, and it will be, you know, back 3 out for additional comment.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I looked at it very 5 carefully, and I did not see any criteria for ruling on 6 the merits of the petition in Directive 8.111. The 7 criteria that I saw were for deciding whether it was a 8 valid 2.206 petition in the first place. It had nothing 9 to do with determining the merits of the petition, which 10 is the stage we're at now, it seems to me.
11 MS. RUSSELL: You are correct. We do not 12 make any determination on the merits of the petition, 13 unless we have accepted the petition. We are not there 14 yet. We have made an initial recommendation that we are 15 going to reject the petition for those reasons that we 16 provided.
17 And then, after this meeting, if we decided 18 to accept the petition, we would enter on the merits and 19 continue reviewing it and issue you an acknowledgement 20 letter and then a proposed Director's decision, where we 21 would disposition what we have reviewed and the merits 22 of the petition. But we are not there.
23 We are still making the -- we will be making 24 a final recommendation whether or not to accept or reject 25 the petition for review after this meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 MR. TAYLOR: That wasn't how I understood 2 it.
3 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: This is Tim McGinty 4 again. And so actually this experience, and the 5 research that you've done, is part of what has led us to 6 take the initiative to clarify the Management Directive.
7 And so hopefully that will be clear for all parties in 8 the future. But at this stage, do we have any other 9 questions associated with the staff in headquarters?
10 I'm looking around the room here. We don't have any.
11 How about folks out in the region, do you 12 have any questions?
13 MR. KIRKLAND: Wally, this is John 14 Kirkland. Can you just give me one simple example of the 15 issues that you mentioned you noted in the first 16 transcript? So we know kind of what we're looking at.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Oh. The corrections to be 18 made in the first transcript?
19 MR. KIRKLAND: Yes.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Oh. I'm sorry, John. I 21 don't have those in front of me right now.
22 MR. KIRKLAND: Oh, that's fine. Are they 23 technical inaccuracies or --
24 MR. TAYLOR: There were a couple of pages 25 that were misnumbered or missing. I think we did make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 note of those. But I don't believe it's anything really 2 substantive, but it -- there are things that could be 3 misleading if we don't correct them.
4 MR. KIRKLAND: Okay. That's fine . And 5 that's what I was looking for. Thank you.
6 MS. WILKINS: John and Mr. Taylor, this is 7 Lynnea. We received your comments. We have reviewed 8 the original transcript again, and we reissued the 9 transcript with the corrections. I think it was page 30 10 or 31, and there were some typos in there. But I believe 11 we addressed them.
12 MS. MOORER: This is Lynn Moorer.
13 MS. WILKINS: But we'll check to be sure.
14 MS. MOORER: This is Lynn Moorer. May I 15 clarify briefly on this?
16 MS. WILKINS: Yes.
17 MS. MOORER: The nature of the corrections 18 that still need to be made are matters that I would call 19 normal mishearing of technical words which were not 20 readily recognized by any Court Reporter. Like, for 21 example, several cases where I was referring to 480 BAC 22 buses as in B-A-C buses, it ended up in the transcript 23 looking like 480 back, B-A-C-K, buses. You see?
24 Examples of things like that where it was a simple matter 25 of probably mishearing what was actually said.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the Court 2 Reporter. I apologize for that.
3 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: This is Tim McGinty 4 again. So thank you. You have let us know, and we will 5 take that into consideration in terms of having an 6 accurate record. So thanks.
7 If I may, could I ask if there are any 8 members -- or any questions that the licensee might have?
9 MR. HANSHER: No questions or comments from 10 Bill Hansher.
11 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
12 I believe you are the only licensee rep.
13 MR. HANSHER: That is correct.
14 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: All right. Thanks.
15 Before I conclude the meeting, members of 16 the public may provide comments -- and we have I think 17 a couple members of the public, two or three, 18 yes -- regarding these petitions and ask questions about 19 the 2.206 process.
20 Remember, as I stated at the opening, the 21 purpose of this meeting is not to provide an opportunity 22 for the Petitioner or the public to question or examine 23 the Petition Review Board regarding the merits of these 24 petition requests. However, does any member of the 25 public have any comment? Any questions?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 MR. KEAN: Yes. This is Brian Kean, and 2 I'm a citizen that lives just a short distance away from 3 the plant. So when do the determinations on whether this 4 will be allowed to proceed -- is that going to be made 5 after the holidays, or when would we expect a result?
6 MS. RUSSELL: Hi. This is Andrea Russell, 7 the 2.206 Coordinator. Basically, after this meeting, 8 we need to wait on the transcript and review it for 9 inaccuracies, make it publicly available, and allow the 10 PRB some time to look over that and the information that 11 has been provided today, and meet again.
12 So my answer to you is probably 13 mid-December, hopefully before Christmas, but, you know, 14 with the holidays it is hard to get everybody in the same 15 room. That's an anticipated goal.
16 MR. KEAN: And does the outcome of that 17 decision-making process affect when the plant will 18 restart? Or is that on a separate track? So assuming 19 that you do entertain further discovery or further 20 consideration on the petition, would that affect the 21 restart of the plant?
22 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Lynnea, I'll take that.
23 No, it wouldn't. That is -- kind of the way you asked 24 that question, that is a different track than this one, 25 Mr. Kean.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
42 1 MR. KEAN: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Thank you. Any other 3 questions or comments from members of the public?
4 MR. THRAEN: Yes, I have something.
5 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Please identify 6 yourself for the Reporter. Thanks.
7 MR. THRAEN: My name is LaVerne Thraen. And 8 the reason I think you should accept this or the reason 9 why I would agree why they can't run the plant properly, 10 just recently, without even going into much history, 11 multiple board members, vice president of nuclear, all 12 at multiple board meetings over the half a year have 13 answered if there was water in the building, and they have 14 all said no. And then, when I had a conversation with 15 the NRC, they gave me a full description of where, when, 16 and how water was in the building.
17 And what I'm -- the reason I'm bringing this 18 up is because we -- they are not willing to tell us the 19 truth, OPPD, about what is actually going on. The last 20 NRC meeting -- or the second-to-the-last one I went to, 21 they are supposed to be updating us about the condition 22 of the plant and failed to include an uploader breaking 23 and a weld breaking, which stalled the movement of the 24 nuclear fuel from the core to the pools for a week.
25 And no report on that at all, and that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
43 1 discovered, you know, via people telling me in the 2 bathroom. And so it doesn't seem like we can get an 3 honest, truthful, accurate thing about what is going on 4 at the nuclear power plant.
5 So just from an honesty point of view and 6 having trust and faith in them as an organization, it's 7 just not there, and we just don't have the evidence of 8 it being there, or I don't. So that's why I think they 9 should lose their license is just for bold-out lying at 10 board meetings about it.
11 I mean, my God, it seems awful. I don't 12 know what the legal ramifications are, but to me it seems 13 like that would be reason enough.
14 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: All right. Thanks, 15 LaVerne. Thank you for giving us your comment.
16 How about -- did I cut anybody off, other 17 members of the public? Or, LaVerne, do you have more?
18 MR. THRAEN: No, I'm okay. That's it.
19 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: All right. Thanks.
20 Anybody else?
21 (No response.)
22 Mr. Taylor?
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Thank you, sir, for 25 providing the -- taking the time to provide the NRC staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 with clarifying information on the petitions you have 2 submitted. Ms. Moorer, the same goes to you.
3 MS. MOORER: Thank you, Mr. McGinty. May 4 I seek one quick clarification from you --
5 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Of course.
6 MS. MOORER: -- with respect to procedure?
7 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Yes.
8 MS. MOORER: I would appreciate that. Did 9 you all grant us 30 days keeping the record open to submit 10 written information to you?
11 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: As I said earlier, there 12 are no decisions going to be made at this meeting, and 13 so we did not make a decision as to whether or not to 14 accept or grant that. So we heard your request. We are 15 going to go through the process that Andrea mentioned 16 earlier, which is to make sure that we understand 17 completely the proceedings that occurred and have them 18 in writing and make them publicly available. So I don't 19 have an answer for you right now.
20 MS. MOORER: This is Lynn Moorer again.
21 I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I'm clear, if this 22 relates to our request that the record be left open 30 23 days. All right? So the obvious question that follows 24 is, will you wait to make a decision regarding what you 25 want to do with this petition until after you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
45 1 received the supplemental materials from us within 30 2 days, or not?
3 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Could you hold on one 4 second while we talk about it here?
5 MS. MOORER: Okay. Thank you.
6 (Pause.)
7 MR. TAYLOR: Pretty tough decision, 8 apparently.
9 (Pause.)
10 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: This is Tim McGinty 11 again. So we've talked about, as a practical matter, 12 giving the timing of the process as it plays out. And 13 in general, the NRC is always interested, remains 14 interested, when we are provided new and different 15 information, supplementing information that is relevant 16 prior to actually making a decision -- any of our 17 decisions -- and closing something out.
18 From the perspective of a 30-day 19 standpoint, I think it's fairly safe to essentially 20 presume that the process will take something along that 21 period of time. And so although I don't want to make any 22 kind of -- you know, I like to stick to our process, which 23 is we are not making a decision here, but I don't have 24 any reason to argue with the basic premise of what you've 25 asked for.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Okay? Is that fair?
3 All right. Great.
4 So with that said, before we close, does the 5 Court Reporter need any additional information for the 6 meeting transcript?
7 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. This is the 8 Court Reporter. I wasn't sure how to spell the last 9 names of Mr. Kean and Mr. Thraen.
10 MR. THRAEN: T-H-R-A-E-N. And LaVerne is 11 a capital L and a capital V with the E at the end.
12 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Any other questions?
14 THE COURT REPORTER: Is Mr. Kean still 15 there?
16 MS. WILKINS: Mr. Kean, are you still on the 17 line?
18 (No response.)
19 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Does anybody know how to 20 spell his name?
21 MR. RYAN: Mike Ryan in Omaha. It's 22 K-E-A-N.
23 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Ah. That was very 24 helpful. Thank you.
25 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 Those are all the questions I had.
2 CHAIRMAN McGINTY: Okay. Thank you very 3 much. Appreciate everybody's time today. Well, this 4 meeting is concluded, and we're going to be ending our 5 phone connection at this point in time. Again, thank you 6 very much.
7 (Whereupon, at 2:11 p.m., the proceedings in the 8 foregoing matter were concluded.)
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com