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