ML13015A144
| ML13015A144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/03/2013 |
| From: | Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Lamb J NRR/DORL/LPL1-1 301-415-3100 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF0070, NRC-3003 | |
| Download: ML13015A144 (52) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Oyster Creek Nuclear Station Docket Number: 50-219 Location:
Commissioners Hearing Room, Rockville, MD Date:
Thursday, January 3, 2012 Work Order No.:
NRC-3003 Pages 1-52 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 PUBLIC MEETING 5
RE 6
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 7
+ + + + +
8 THURSDAY 9
JANUARY 3, 2013 10
+ + + + +
11 The public meeting was held, Allen Howe, 12 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
13 PETITIONER: RICHARD WEBSTER 14 PAUL GUNTER 15 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 16 ALLEN HOWE, Petition Review Board Chairman 17 JOHN LAMB, Petition Manager 18 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Review Board Coordinator 19 NRC TECHNICAL STAFF 20 CHRISTOPHER HAIR, OGC 21 JOHN HUGHEY, NRR 22 GORDON HUNEGS, Region 1 23 NEIL SHEEHAN, Public Affairs 24 DOUG TIFFT, Region 1 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 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LICENSEE 2
DONALD FERRARO 3
RICHARD GROPP 4
FRANK MASCITELLI 5
GLENN STEWART 6
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 7
PAULA GOTCH 8
JOSEPH LACHAWIEC 9
PEGGY STURMFELS 10 JANET TAURO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
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
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(11:00:53 a.m.)
2 MR. LAMB: I'd like to thank everyone for 3
attending this meeting. My name is John Lamb, and I am 4
the Oyster Creek Senior Project Manager. We're here today 5
to allow the Petitioner, Mr. Richard Webster, to address 6
the Petition Review Board, PRB, regarding the 2.206 7
petition dated November 19 th, 2012, as supplemented 8
November 30 th, 2012.
9 I am the Petition Manager for the petition.
10 The PRB Chairman is Allen Howe, to my left.
11 As part of the PRB's review of this petition, Mr. Webster 12 has requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
13 This meeting is scheduled from 11 a.m. to 14 1 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being recorded by the 15 NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 16 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to the 17 petition. The transcript will also be made publicly 18 available.
19 There is a maximum of 50 bridge lines 20 available for this meeting. The bridge line was published 21 in the media so I apologize to members of the public if 22 you aren't able to get on the bridge line. This meeting 23 is also being webcast on the NRC web page.
24 I would like to open this meeting with 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
introductions. As we go around the table please be sure 1
to clearly state your name, your position and the office 2
that you work with within in the NRC for the record. I 3
will start off. Once again, I am John Lamb, Senior Project 4
Manager for Oyster Creek and Seabrook in the division of 5
Operating Reactor Licensing, DORL, in the Office of 6
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRR.
7 MR. HOWE: Good morning. I'm Allen Howe. I'm 8
the Deputy Director in the Division of Inspection and 9
Regional Support in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 10 Regulation, and I'm also the Petition Review Board 11 Chairman for this petition.
12 MR. HUGHEY: Good morning. My name is John 13 Hughey. I'm the Acting Branch Chief for the Division of 14 Operating Reactor Licensing, the Office of Nuclear 15 Reactor Regulation.
16 MR. HAIR: My name is Christopher Hair. I'm 17 with the Office of the General Counsel.
18 MS. MENSAH: I'm Tanya Mensah. I'm the 2.206 19 Coordinator, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office 20 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
21 MR. LAMB: Okay. Are there any other NRC 22 headquarters personnel on the telephone line? Please 23 introduce yourselves. Is there any regional participants 24 on the telephone line?
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
MR. TIFFT: Yes, this is Doug Tifft, NRC 1
Region I.
2 MR. HUNEGS: This is Gordon Hunegs, Division 3
of Reactor Projects, Branch Chief.
4 MR. SHEEHAN: Neil Sheehan, Region 1, Public 5
Affairs.
6 MR.
LAMB:
Okay.
Are there any 7
representatives of the licensee on the phone?
8 MR. FERRARO: This is Donald Ferraro from 9
Exelon.
10 MR. STEWART: Glenn Stewart from Exelon.
11 MR. MASCITELLI: Frank Mascitelli from 12 Exelon.
13 MR. GROPP: Richard Gropp from Exelon.
14 MR. LAMB: Okay, thank you. Mr. Webster, 15 would you like to introduce yourself for the record?
16 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I'm Richard Webster from 17 Public Justice. I'm here representing New Jersey 18 Environmental Federation and Beyond Nuclear. And I'm 19 here with my colleague, Paul Gunter.
20 MR. GUNTER: Yes, Paul Gunter. I'm the 21 Director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond 22 Nuclear.
23 MR. LAMB: Thank you. At the end of the 24 meeting I will obtain phone attendees through the roster 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
playback, so we won't go through all the people that are 1
on the line right at this point.
2 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 3
speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 4
reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If you 5
do have something that you would like to say please first 6
state your name for the record.
7 For those dialing into the meeting please 8
remember to mute your phone to minimize any background 9
noise or distractions. If you do not have a mute button 10 this can be done by pressing *6. To unmute press the *6 11 again. Thank you.
12 At this time I will turn it over to the PRB 13 Chairman, Allen Howe.
14 MR. HOWE: Thank you, John. Good morning, 15 and thanks again for coming to this meeting for the 2.206 16 petition that was submitted by Mr. Webster.
17 I want to start off by noting that the NRC 18 is focused on our strategic goals of safety and security.
19 And for Oyster Creek what that means is that NRC licensed 20 the facility to operate in accordance with the applicable 21 regulations, and we also oversee the facility via our 22 inspection program to verify that it's operating safely 23 and meeting NRC requirements.
24 I want to just start out also with some 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
background on what our process is. This is a 2.206 1
Petition Review Board meeting. Section 2.206 of Title 10 2
of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition 3
process. It's the primary mechanism for the public to 4
request enforcement action to be taken by the NRC, and 5
this a public process. This process permits anyone to 6
petition the NRC to take enforcement-type action related 7
to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
8 Depending on the results of its evaluation, 9
the NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC issued 10 license or take any other appropriate enforcement action 11 to resolve a problem. The NRC Staff Guidance for the 12 disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in our 13 Management Directive 8.11, and that's a publicly 14 available document.
15 The purpose of today's meeting is to allow 16 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide the Board with 17 additional explanation or support for the petition, and 18 this would be before the PRB's consideration and a 19 recommendation how to proceed. The meeting is not a 20 hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioner to 21 question or examine the Petition Review Board on the 22 merits of the issues that are presented as part of the 23 petition request.
24 At today's meeting, we will not make any 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
decisions regarding the merits of this petition. And 1
following the meeting we will have an internal meeting 2
where we'll take the information provided in the petition 3
and the information that we have received today and 4
review that information. Once we have completed our 5
internal meeting we will discuss the results of that with 6
the Petitioner.
7 The Petition Review Board typically 8
consists of a Chairman, usually this is a manager at the 9
Senior Executive Service Level at the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission, has a Petitioner Manager, a Petition Review 11 Board Coordinator, and other members of the Board which 12 are determined by the NRC based on the content and the 13 information provided in the request.
14 I know we did introductions but just for 15 clarity for the Petition Review Board, I'll just 16 reiterate who the members of the Board are. Again, I'm 17 Allen Howe. I'm the Petition Review Board Chairman. John 18 Lamb to my right is the Petitioner Manager for the 19 petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 20 Petition Review Board Coordinator. Technical staff 21 supporting the Petition Review Board are John Hughey who 22 is the Acting Branch Chief in the Division of Operating 23 Reactor Licensing in NRR. Gordon Hunegs who is on the 24 telephone. He is a Branch Chief in Region I in 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 9
Division of Reactor Projects, and he has Oyster Creek 1
under his responsibility. Doug Tifft is the State Liaison 2
Officer in Region I, and we also have advice from our 3
Office of General Counsel who is Christopher Hair.
4 As described in our process, we might ask 5
some clarifying questions during your presentation today 6
in order to better understand the information that you're 7
providing to us, and to reach -- and this will allow us 8
to reach a reasoned decision on whether to accept or 9
reject the Petitioner's request for review under the 10 2.206 process.
11 Let me just a take a moment. I want to 12 summarize the scope of the petition under consideration 13 and some of the NRC activities that have taken place to 14 date.
15 On November 19 th, 2012 Mr. Webster submitted 16 to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding Oyster Creek.
17 At a high level, this petition request raised concerns 18 regarding offsite emergency preparedness in the 19 aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Protection of equipment 20 from external flooding and indications which were 21 identified by the licensee during routine inspections of 22 the control rod drive, return nozzle safety and pipe 23 welds.
24 In this petition request, Mr. Webster 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 requests that the NRC ensures that Oyster Creek does not 1
restart until the following conditions are met. The 2
Evacuation Plan is updated to reflect the new reality 3
post Sandy including evacuation shelters, blocked roads, 4
emergency responders farther away and more distracted, 5
et cetera, and sirens are repaired, the design storm for 6
flood defense purposes is updated to reflect the recent 7
spate of storms and climate change, and additional flood 8
protection is put in place as appropriate, the 9
indications, cracks or precursors are investigated, and 10 the public is assured through the release of additional 11 data and analysis they pose no additional risk of a 12 nuclear catastrophe; Exelon reviews whether the 13 indications were predicted by its modeling and whether 14 it can predict that no problematic indications will 15 develop before the next inspection cycle, and proof of 16 ability to predict fatigue accurately is released to the 17 public. And to ensure transparency, a public meeting with 18 NRC is held in which staff can satisfactorily answer the 19 public's concern including the above.
20 Some of the NRC activities to date, on 21 November 23 rd after receiving the petition, the Petition 22 Manager contacted Mr. Webster to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 23 process and to offer an opportunity to address the 24 Petition Review Board by phone or in person. 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 11 requested to address the Petition Review Board prior to 1
its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation 2
to accept or reject the petition for review, and that's 3
the meeting that we're holding today.
4 However, because the petition requests 5
immediate action, the Petition Review Board met 6
internally on November 26 th to review the request. The 7
Petition Review Board after making that initial review 8
denied your request for immediate action on the basis 9
there was no immediate safety concern to Oyster Creek or 10 to the health and safety of the public for the following 11 reasons. And I'm going to go through these several 12 reasons.
13 The first reason was on November 13 th, 2012, 14 the Federal Emergency Management Agency conducted or 15 concluded rather that offsite radiological emergency 16 preparedness was adequate to provide reasonable 17 assurance and that appropriate measures can be taken to 18 protect the health and safety of the public in the event 19 of a radiological emergency at Oyster Creek in Ocean 20 County, New Jersey. Now, the information that they 21 provided is publicly available, and I can provide you, 22 although I think you already have it, the ADAMS accession 23 number for that document.
24 Second reason for our conclusion was that 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 current, and this is information as of the last day or 1
so, there's one emergency notification siren which is 2
inoperable out of a total of 42 emergency notification 3
sirens. This does not exceed Exelon's reporting 4
threshold of 25 percent or more of the sirens out of 5
service. Exelon is working to restore the one inoperable 6
7 In addition, FEMA's assessment determined 8
that in the areas where the sirens were determined to be 9
inoperable the FEMA-approved backup notification method 10 of route alerting could be conducted, if needed.
11 Number three, Hurricane Sandy did not 12 exceed Oyster Creek's maximum flood level due to the 13 probable maximum hurricane. As reported in the Oyster 14 Creek Final Safety Analysis Report, Subsection 2.4.5, 15 the maximum flood level for the probable maximum 16 hurricane will be at an elevation of 22 feet mean sea 17 level. The plant grade is 23 feet mean sea level, which 18 means it's one foot above the probable maximum hurricane 19 flood level. Therefore, the flood will not find its way 20 into the plant buildings. Also,the flood levels which are 21 generally about 6-inches above the grade so that would 22 be 23 feet 6 inches.
23 The circulating water intake structure with 24 its deck elevation of 6 feet would be under water. 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 13 deck supports apart from other equipment the circulating 1
water pumps and the emergency service water pumps. During 2
a probable maximum hurricane flood the circulating water 3
and service water pumps would be inoperable and, thus, 4
emergency plant procedures have been instituted which 5
would require the plant to be shut down when flood water 6
reached a predetermined level as to ensure the capability 7
for safe shutdown under either normal or abnormal 8
conditions.
9 Four, during a planned routine inspection 10 program Exelon discovered control rod drive return 11
-- I'm sorry, control rod drive return nozzle safe end 12 to pipe weld indications. These indications were 13 determined to be surface in nature and did not result in 14 any leakage. Exelon completed a structural weld overlay 15 in accordance with the ASME Code, that's the American 16 Society for Mechanical Engineering.
17 You were informed on November 26 th via an 18 email of the PRB's decision to deny your request for 19 immediate action. On November 28 th you requested a public 20 meeting to address the PRB and to provide supplemental 21 information. You followed up with a formal request on 22 November 30 th, and you also requested that the meeting be 23 held close to Oyster Creek. In addition, you also 24 supplemented your November 19 th petition on November 30 th.
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 NRC responded to you on November 30 th and 1
December 6 th of 2012 regarding arrangements for the 2
meeting. At that time you were informed that the public 3
meeting would be held at the NRC headquarters here in 4
Rockville, Maryland. We also informed you that the 5
purpose of the public meeting is to allow you an 6
opportunity to provide additional explanation or support 7
for the petition before the petition -- prior to the 8
Petition Review Board's initial consideration and 9
recommendation.
10 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an 11 opportunity for you to question or examine the Petition 12 Review Board on the merits of the issues presented in the 13 petition. No decisions regarding the merits of the 14 petition will be made at the meeting.
15 On December 12 th, 2012 we issued the public 16 meeting notice for this meeting and placed it on the NRC 17 public web page.
18 December 31 st, 2012 you requested that NRC 19 provide you all the documents that the NRC Staff reviewed 20 in its decision making. Regional Inspectors reviewed 21 licensee documents such as procedures, root cause 22 reports and work packages. These documents belong to the 23 licensee and are not available to the public. Regional 24 Inspectors factor into NRC inspection reports numerous 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 licensee documents as a part of our inspection program.
1 On January 2 nd, the NRC informed you that the 2
public meeting would be held again here at the 3
headquarters in Rockville, and we also outlined 4
information similar to what we have provided to you in 5
communications on November 30 th and December 6 th.
6 The next steps in the meeting will be a 7
presentation by the Petitioner, and that will be followed 8
by questions from the NRC Staff. Before the meeting 9
closes we will open up for an opportunity for public 10 comments or question to the 2.206 process.
11 Just as a quick reminder to phone 12 participants, if you do make a comment please identify 13 yourself, and also this will help us in making the meeting 14 transcript which will be made publicly available.
15 Mr. Webster, I'll turn over the meeting at 16 this point to allow you to provide any information that 17 you believe the PRB should consider as a part of this 18 petition.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Again, Richard Webster, Public Justice on behalf of New 21 Jersey Environmental Federation and Beyond Nuclear.
22 We're here because we have serious concerns 23 about the ongoing safety of the Oyster Creek Nuclear 24 Power Plant. The NRC appears to be failing to enforce its 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 regulations, and that lack of enforcement is leading to 1
a lack of adequate protection at the power plant.
2 Most of these concerns came to light during 3
the refueling outage that commenced before the plant was 4
hit by Hurricane Sandy, but continued through the 5
Hurricane Sandy event.
6 I have three substantive points today and 7
one significant procedural issue. The substantive points 8
are, as we've just heard in broad summary, that Exelon 9
discovered unacceptable indications near the control rod 10 drive return level on the reactor pressure vessel, and 11 we have some concerns about how this was dealt with. I'll 12 talk about that in detail later.
13 The second is that during Hurricane Sandy, 14 we understand that the plant came within 6 inches of 15 losing the service water pumps. Certainly, although 16 there's been some dispute about whether it was 6 inches, 17 there certainly wasn't a lot of margin there. I had a look 18 at the alert, and I'll discuss that in more detail later.
19 But just like to note that what we've heard is that the 20 plant is under the maximum flood on the service water 21 pumps to be out of action, shut down would not take care 22 of this spent fuel pool, nor will it take care of residual 23 heat, so that's an issue that I think we need to discuss 24 in more detail.
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 Finally, we believe Exelon failed to report 1
a major loss of offsite emergency response capability in 2
violation of 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(viii).
3 Now, to come to the procedural issue there's 4
a major problem here with transparency, as we've just 5
heard. Broadly, despite our repeated requests, the NRC 6
has provided us with no documents whatsoever beyond a few 7
emails which provided cursory information.
8 We've heard that the NRC has shielded or 9
believes it has shielded the critical documents from the 10 public by the subterfuge of leaving them on site. To be 11 clear, there is absolutely no reason why NRC cannot bring 12 these documents to headquarters. They are not -- they may 13 be in the possession of the licensee, but they are in the 14 control of NRC. NRC has the right to bring these documents 15 to headquarters, and I think there's no argument that if 16 these documents do come to headquarters they are subject 17 to the Freedom of Information Act and become public 18 records. So, I think it's misleading to characterize 19 these documents as licensee's documents that somehow are 20 out of reach of the public. They're only out of reach of 21 the public because the NRC Staff decided to make them out 22 of reach of the public.
23 I
further understand that most 24 communications on this occurred by a conference call.
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 Once again, the public was not invited to participate in 1
these conference calls. The conference calls as far as 2
I understand it do not create records that are subject 3
to the Freedom of Information Act. So, here we have a 4
situation where we are asked to make a presentation about 5
NRC's decisions but we have no way of finding out what 6
those decisions were based upon.
7 It basically places us in an untenable 8
Catch-22. Now, trying to get out of this Catch-22 a little 9
bit, I do note in Management Directive 8.11 that there's 10 a provision for a Staff presentation to the PRB. May I 11 ask has that Staff presentation been done or will it be 12 done today?
13 MR. HOWE: A Staff presentation has not been 14 done to the PRB. That will be done as part of our internal 15 meeting.
16 MR. WEBSTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, on page 8, 17 that's under preparation for the PRB meeting. Is this not 18 the PRB meeting?
19 MR. HOWE: One of the actions that we have 20 before we meet is to allow the Petitioner to provide 21 additional information. That's the purpose of today's 22 meeting.
23 MR. WEBSTER: Oh, so to be clear then, under 24 Management Directive 8.11, this is the pre-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 19 review before the PRB meeting.
1 MR. HOWE: Yes.
2 MR. WEBSTER: So, is the Staff going to make 3
a presentation today to the PRB?
4 MR. HOWE: At this meeting today, the purpose 5
of the meeting is to allow you to present information to 6
the PRB.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. When will the Staff make 8
its presentation to the PRB?
9 MR. HOWE: We will need to schedule that 10 meeting.
11 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Will the public be 12 invited to view that presentation?
13 MR. HOWE: Per Management Directive 8.11, 14 that's an internal meeting. All right. I just want to 15 remind you --
16 (Simultaneous speech.)
17 MR. HOWE: Pardon me, I'm still trying to 18 make a comment here. I want to remind you this is a 19 presentation for the NRC Staff. You appear to have read 20 Management Directive 8.11. We can talk about the process 21 but, basically, at its basic high-level process the Board 22 will take the information provided in writing as a part 23 of the petition, will take the information which is 24 provided by you today. We will review that and consider 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 that, and make a decision on whether or not to accept or 1
reject the petition. This is not an opportunity for you 2
to quiz the Staff or question the Staff on the merits of 3
the petition itself, or any of our deliberations 4
associated with the petition. We will do that as a part 5
of our process which is outlined in Management Directive 6
8.3, I'm sorry, 8.11.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Could you enlighten me, where 8
in Management Directive 8.11 does it say that this is 9
purely an internal process that the public are not 10 invited to view this presentation?
11 MR. HOWE: Tanya, would you please help me 12 out with that paragraph?
13 MS. MENSAH: If you'd like to continue your 14 presentation, I can find it.
15 MR. HOWE: Yes.
16 MR. WEBSTER: I mean, let me be clear. Let 17 me make a statement about this, which is that there is 18
-- if this is supposed to be -- one of the Agency goals 19 as well as safety and security is transparency. If the 20 NRC is attempting to meet that goal -- let's put it this 21 way. At the moment, it appears the NRC is not meeting that 22 goal because what we're hearing is that many of the 23 documents upon which the decision is based are out of the 24 reach of the public, but there's no provision whatsoever 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 for the public to hear what the Staff have to say about 1
it. So, it is totally -- the Agency is totally failing 2
in this respect to meet its goal of transparency. And in 3
the absence of such transparency it makes this process, 4
as I said, a Catch-22, an untenable Catch-22. I've said 5
before, the NRC processes appear to have been designed 6
by the interesting combination of Franz Kafka and Joseph 7
Heller, where we go through interminable meetings. We 8
have the pretense of a process, we have a pretense of a 9
trial but actually there's no chance for the public to 10 do anything effective because all of the important 11 information is hidden.
12 MR. HOWE: Okay. In response to your question 13 about the Management Directive 8.11, it's in Part 3. This 14 is on page 13. "The PRB meeting is a closed meeting 15 separate from any meetings with the Petitioner and the 16 Licensee, during which the PRB members develop their 17 recommendations with respect to the petition.
18 At the meeting, the Petition Manager briefs 19 the PRB on the Petitioner's request, background 20 information, the need for independent technical review 21 and a proposed plan for resolution including target 22 completion dates." That's the paragraph at the bottom of 23 page 13.
24 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, and that doesn't seem 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 22 be quite the same thing as the presentation to the PRB, 1
which has additional requirements. If you look on page 2
8, there are six requirements of the presentation to the 3
PRB which are different to those mentioned on page 13, 4
so I'm not sure that's the same briefing.
5 MR. HOWE: Okay. I understand that. We'll 6
take a look at that.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Well, let me put in a request.
8 I would request that the briefing, the presentation 9
that's provided to the PRB by the Staff that is discussed 10 in 8.11 on page 8, I'd request that the public be allowed 11 to view that presentation.
12 MR. HOWE: Okay, I understand that request, 13 also.
14 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. I might note at this 15 point that despite all these requests for information 16 none has been provided, or very little has been provided.
17 Mr. Lamb did provide some -- had some information by 18 phone. Will any reason ever be provided for that?
19 MR. HOWE: Will any?
20 MR. WEBSTER: Well, de facto we're at this 21 meeting and no information has been provided, so de facto 22 those information requests have been denied. But I've 23 seen no reason that there's been a denial.
24 MR. HOWE: In our petition review process, 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 the Petitioner has the responsibility to bring in the 1
information that is associated with the concern to the 2
NRC. We will take a look at that information, evaluate 3
that and make a decision.
4 MR. WEBSTER: I understand that, but as I've 5
said, I've made requests for information. They have been 6
de facto denied, but I have received no piece of paper 7
that tells me why they've been denied.
8 MR. HOWE: Okay.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Will I ever receive a piece of 10 paper that tells me why they've been denied?
11 MR. LAMB: Once again, I think Allen said it 12 earlier, is that the information that was reviewed by the 13 residents that you're requesting the root cause report, 14 procedures and work packages reviewed by the Regional 15 Inspectors, and were not removed from the site so, 16 therefore, I do not have any documents. Exelon has not 17 submitted any documents on the docket; therefore, that 18 information is not publicly available.
19 COURT REPORTER: Speaker, please identify 20 yourself.
22 MR. WEBSTER: As discussed, Mr. Lamb, I do 23 believe that you have the right to request those 24 documents, so your decision not to request them de facto 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 meant they were not publicly available. Is that correct?
1 MR. HOWE: Mr. Webster, I understand that you 2
have some questions about the public availability of 3
documents and we've noted your request for review of the 4
Petition Review Board meeting, whether or not that should 5
be a public meeting. What I'd ask at this point is if you 6
could go ahead and proceed with your presentation of the 7
information that you have that you want the Petition 8
Review Board to consider.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Just to clarify, my request is 10 not to look at the PRB meeting, it's to look at the 11 Petition Manager's presentation to the PRB which I 12 believe is a separate presentation to the PRB meeting 13 itself. We acknowledge that the PRB meeting is a private 14 meeting, but the Staff's presentation to the PRB should 15 be public. I mean, if we look at the parallel with the 16 ASLB process, in the ASLB process the Staff may 17 participate as a party. Everything the Staff submits 18 during the ASLB process is available for the parties.
19 Really what you're telling me here is that under your 20 process, the way you envision it, at least, that ex parte 21 contact is not only allowed, it's encouraged.
22 Once
- again, you
- know, fundamental 23 principles of justice are that if we're going to have a 24 decision, that all parties should understand who has 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 25 what to the decision maker. Here the Petition Manager 1
makes, particularly makes a presentation to the PRB. The 2
Petition Manager is in the position it seems of being 3
judge and jury on these things, but clearly it's a 4
presentation to the PRB. It's not a PRB meeting, so I just 5
want to clarify that.
6 MR. HOWE: The petition review process is a 7
different process than the one that youre allowed before 8
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. That is a hearing 9
and it's a different process than what we're talking 10 about today.
11 MR. WEBSTER: I understand that. That's why 12 I read Management Directive 8.11 quite carefully so I 13 understand what the process was. And, as I say, a fair 14 reading I think of 8.11 is that the presentation -- the 15 Petition Manager's presentation to the PRB is separate 16 to the PRB meeting.
17 MR. HOWE: Okay. Well, certainly we'll take 18 a look at that as a part of our deliberations.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I guess I'm asking for 20 a pre-adjudication of that issue so then you can decide 21 whether we can view the Petition Manager's presentation 22 to the PRB.
23 MR. HOWE: As part of our internal meeting 24 we will discuss that request.
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 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. Okay. Now, to move 1
on to the substantive issues. The basic law on adequate 2
protection is that it's up to the applicant to carry a 3
policy of burden showing safety, not up to the Staff to 4
prove the lack of safety. The OIG Finding 3 on Davis-Besse 5
stated that the NRC appears to have informally 6
established an unreasonably high burden of requiring 7
absolute proof of a safety problem versus lack of 8
reasonable assurance of maintaining public health and 9
safety before it will act to shut down a power plant.
10 The NRC response to that finding given by 11 Richard Meserve in a memo dated January 8 th, 2003 is that 12 the NRC Staff's actions at Davis-Besse were clearly and 13 appropriately focused on maintaining reasonable 14 assurance of public health and safety. The issuance of 15 an order on this basis does not require absolute proof.
16 So, what the Staff is looking for here should be lack of 17 proof of reasonable assurance of adequate protection.
18 The Staff does not have to prove that there is no adequate 19 protection. The licensee has to prove that there is 20 adequate protection.
21
- Now, NUREG/BR-558 does provide some 22 guidance. I'm sorry, it's BR-58, does provide some 23 guidance on the kind of analysis that needs to be done.
24 Basically, the analysis is -- the basic analysis 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 27 adequate protection is to see whether design basis is 1
being complied with. Having done that, the secondary goal 2
is to insure that the reactor, the core damage frequency 3
is less than 10 to the minus 4 per reactor year. I would 4
add that the BR-58 does not mention the spent fuel pool, 5
but I hope that the Staff does also consider safety issues 6
with regard to the fuel pool, as well as safety issues 7
with regard to the reactor core.
8 Now, with regard to the reactor pressure 9
vessel indications, Exelon acknowledged that these 10 indications were unacceptable and, therefore, we 11 understand required repair. I understand from the Staff 12 that the explanation as to why these indications 13 occurred, the Root Cause Report discusses chlorides that 14 were introduced into the containment by the fitting of 15 strain gauges.
16 As far as we understand it, the Aging 17 Management Plan for the reactor pressure vessel assumed 18 a lack of chlorides in containment. So, we have two 19 fundamental questions. One is, if the chlorides were 20 there, what are the standards that the AMP has been 21 revised to reflect those -- the presence of those 22 chlorides. So, there are two fundamental questions; one 23 is, if the chlorides are there, how can the Staff have 24 assurance that the reactor pressure vessel will not 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 develop unacceptable
-- further unacceptable 1
indications before the next inspection in the absence of 2
an adequate Aging Management Plan?
3 And, second, if the chlorides are determined not to be 4
there did the Aging Management Plan that's currently in 5
place predict these indications? And if not, doesn't that 6
show that it needs to be revised?
7 We also discussed the need for ultrasonic 8
inspection of these indications. Since the repair has 9
been done, I guess I'm going to assume that those 10 ultrasonic inspections have been done, but I'm going to 11 note that we have received absolutely no assurance from 12 the Staff about that. We received no documentation about 13 that. We received nothing whatsoever about that. So, you 14 see my problem here, Mr. Chairman, it's just hard for me 15 to make a definitive presentation on these issues in the 16 absence of critical information, again illustrating that 17 the process here is fundamentally deficient. If we're 18 going to have a real process with real public oversight 19 there must be some provision for disclosure of 20 information to the public about issues of genuine public 21 concern.
22 Now, with regard to flooding the general 23 design criterion which is Appendix A to Part 50 discusses 24 the design basis for protection against natural 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 phenomena in Criterion 2. And it says, "Structures, 1
systems and components important to safety shall be 2
designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena 3
such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, 4
tsunami, and seiches [a standing wave in an enclosed or 5
partially enclosed body of water] which I must say I must 6
say I'm not sure what those are, but with that lot a 7
capability to perform their safety functions. This is 8
important.
9 The design bases for these structures, 10 systems and components shall reflect one, appropriate 11 consideration of the most severe of the natural 12 phenomenon that have been historically reported at the 13 site and surrounding area with sufficient margin for 14 uncertainty. And what I understand from the Staff is that 15 actually the Staff, far from revising -- well, let's take 16 it step by step.
17 What is known from the Staff is that no 18 revision to the probable maximum flood has occurred due 19 to the Hurricane Sandy. We find this surprising because 20 Hurricane Sandy is the worst even ever to hit the planet, 21 the worst event recorded as far as I understand on the 22 Jersey shore. But doesn't that mean then that under 23 general design criteria that the basis of the design 24 needs to change because it now needs to take account, now 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 needs to take appropriate consideration of the most 1
severe natural phenomenon have been reported. The most 2
severe phenomenon has been reported is Hurricane Sandy, 3
so under the general design criteria this means that they 4
have to -- that the Staff now has to improve the change 5
the probable maximum flood and make sure the plant can 6
withstand the revised probable maximum flood. Failing to 7
do that violates NRC's regulations.
8 And we understand from the Staff that they 9
have precisely failed to do that, that they have relied 10 on the old probable maximum flood, not a new flood. To 11 be clear, the Staff's explanation of well, the flood 12 wasn't bigger than the probable maximum flood is 13 completely irrelevant.
14 MR. HOWE: Let me just ask a clarifying 15 question here. So, your concern is that the licensee 16 needs to reevaluate. Is that what you're requesting, that 17 they need to reevaluate their probable maximum flood 18 based on the current knowledge of the storm surge during 19 Hurricane Sandy? Is that what you're asking?
20 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I mean, I think in this 21 process we don't get to ask -- I don't think we get just 22 to ask Exelon anything in this process. Right? We only 23 get to ask the Staff things. Well, we're asking that the 24 Staff should not permit operation of the reactor until 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 they understand the need, at least have some 1
understanding of how the probable maximum flood changes 2
in the light of Hurricane Sandy, and whether the plant 3
can withstand that probable -- with that revised 4
probable maximum flood.
5 Now, I would hope that the Staff might ask 6
Exelon to assist in that process, but we believe this is 7
an analysis that should have been done before the reactor 8
reopened. At the moment we're just functioning on what 9
I call faith-based safety initiatives, which is we are 10 hoping that another big storm doesn't hit until the NRC 11 goes through its process of thinking about flooding.
12 As we know from the Fort Calhoun situation 13 that process can occur over a period of 20 years. That's 14 just not adequate. We shouldn't be sitting around praying 15 for a lack of a big flood for 20 years. This Agency should 16 be taking action to insure that the plant can withstand 17 the probable maximum flood on a reasonable basis, and it 18 should be taking urgent action -- we should have already 19 taken -- let me make it very clear, it should have already 20 taken action to at least do some preliminary calculations 21 before allowing restart of the reactor. It failed to do 22 that. That violated NRC's regulations. And we believe the 23 reactor is currently operating outside of general design 24 criteria, Appendix A to Part 50, Criterion 2.
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 Therefore, it naturally follows that until this analysis 1
is done the reactor should stop operating.
2 Okay. Finally, we believe Exelon violated 3
50.72 which requires immediate notification for -- of 4
requirements for operating power plants. In particular, 5
50.72(b)(3)(viii) states that "it must notify of any 6
event that results in a major loss of emergency 7
assessment capability, offsite response capability, or 8
offsite communications capability." Then it says [e.g.
9 significant portion of control room indication, 10 emergency notification system, or offsite notification 11 system].
12 Now, looking at the event reports it does 13 appear that Exelon issued two event reports; both were 14 concerned exclusively with the sirens, or sireens 15 depending on how you want to say it. I'll call it sirens 16 but to be clear we're talking about the same thing. During 17 the Hurricane Sandy not only were the sirens inoperable, 18 but also the infrastructure was majorly degraded, roads 19 were impassible, huge flooding occurred, gas leaks were 20 occurring, all sorts of things were occurring, 21 evacuation was in process. All of these things inhibited 22 offsite response capability.
23 The e.g. clearly is not an exclusive list 24 of things that Exelon has to report. It's merely an 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 example of the kind of things they have to report. Well, 1
here Exelon violated this reporting requirement and the 2
Staff apparently did absolutely nothing beyond relying 3
on a single conclusory email from FEMA.
4 So, in summary substantively we ask the PRB 5
to determine (a) that the -- until the Aging Management 6
Plan for the reactor pressure vessel is updated to 7
reflect current conditions the reactor should not 8
operate. Until the Staff insures that there is 9
compliance, until the licensee assures the Staff that it 10 has reevaluated the probable maximum flood and, 11 therefore, there is compliance with general criterion, 12 general design criterion 2, the plant should not 13 operate. And, finally, Exelon should be found in 14 violation of the notification requirements in 50.72.
15 Thank you for your time. I'll take any questions if you 16 have them.
17 MR. HOWE: All right. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
18 Let me open it up at this time for anyone from the NRC 19 Staff here at headquarters to provide any questions to 20 Mr. Webster. Okay, Region I?
21 MR. HUNEGS: No questions from Region I. This 22 is Gordon Hunegs.
23 MR. HOWE: All right. Thank you, Gordon. Is 24 there any other NRC Staff on the telephone line that has 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 any questions for Mr. Webster?
1 Okay. I also understand that the licensee 2
was listening to this call. Does the licensee have any 3
questions at this time?
4 Okay, hearing none let me open up at this 5
point in time before I conclude the meeting to allow 6
members of the public to provide any comments or to ask 7
questions of the NRC Staff regarding the 2.206 process.
8 But let me just reiterate, as I said at the beginning of 9
this, the purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 10 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to question 11 or examine the PRB regarding the merits of the petition 12 request. And also as a reminder to phone participants if 13 you would please identify yourself when you make any 14 remarks, this will help us with insuring that we have an 15 accurate transcript.
16 So, with that let me see if any of the members of the 17 public have any questions or comments.
18 MS. TAURO: Hi, how are you? This is Janet 19 Tauro. Can you hear me?
20 MR. HOWE: Yes, Janet, we can hear you.
21 MS. TAURO: Oh, good. All right. I'm from New 22 Jersey Environmental Federation and from GRAMMIES and 23 we've had, you know, extensive relationship going back 24 and forth with NRC over Oyster Creek. So, I just wanted 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 to -- so, yes, we have a couple of questions. And I just 1
want to refer back to when you opened the meeting and you 2
made, you know, a few statements. And you said that the 3
risk of flooding due to climate change and safety 4
requirements, that this has been reevaluated in terms of 5
climate change.
6 But I wanted to direct your attention to an 7
internet news article that was published on December 24 th, 8
and the name of the publication is called "Truthout," and 9
the story was entitled, "Nuclear power plant flood risk, 10 Sandy was just a warmup."
11 So, I wanted to say I'm a little confused 12 because Neil Sheehan is quoted in the article. And I'll 13 read it for you. It said, "Sheehan, the NRC spokesperson 14 said the Agency has not factored in the effects of climate 15 change on nuclear plants for flood safety." According to 16 Sheehan, the new NRC Chief, Alison Macfarlane recently 17 told the Agency Staff that she wants to start taking into 18 account climate change in nuclear plant safety; however, 19 she has issued no official call, schedule or process to 20 include it in the NRC's current or future regulations.
21 "We're not at that point yet," Sheehan said. And Sheehan 22 was referring to Oyster Creek. So, I wanted to make that 23 point about Chief, have you factored in climate change 24 or not?
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 Now, I don't know if you're going to answer 1
questions but that's certainly a question that we have.
2 Also now, in terms of taking into account Sandy and, you 3
know, the reality here of what it's like, I'm with 4
GRAMMIES and I'm with a group of GRAMMIES right now, and 5
all of us were greatly impacted by Sandy. Some of us are 6
even displaced and not able to live in our homes.
7 Our staff member, Peggy Sturmfels, who is 8
with NJEF spoke directly with FEMA, the FEMA Regional 9
Director, and the Assistant Director, Bill Cullen. You 10 know, we were officially told that there is no formal 11 report updating evacuation taking into account Sandy, 12 and we were officially told that, in fact, the sirens did 13 not work before the storm, and as we know they didn't work 14 during the storm. So, I guess we're a little confused 15 about, you know, exactly what official reports you got 16 from FEMA saying all was well, and that the evacuation 17 plan is, in fact, in tact to reflect a post-Sandy reality 18 here.
19 I have another question. I don't know 20 whether or not any of you are going to answer it, but I'll 21 ask it. You know, since those sirens didn't work during 22 Sandy, and everyone living in that area -- many, I won't 23 say everyone but majority of people living in that area 24 had lost power so they did not have access to radio or 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 television, cell phones couldn't be charged, the 1
internet. Had something happened, you know, those sirens 2
really would have meant the difference between life and 3
death.
4 I mean, to really serious think that you 5
could send some guy out with a bullhorn in the midst of 6
a tropical storm or hurricane with downed trees and 7
downed wires to alert the public to an emergency 8
certainly, I mean, really can anyone take that seriously?
9 So, I guess I'm asking will NRC require a 10 battery backup to the sirens at Oyster Creek? Certainly 11 in light of what happened during Sandy will you require 12 battery backup? I don't think that that's a lot for the 13 public to ask. How much could it cost? Do you even -- do 14 you know how much it costs? That would be interesting 15 because Exelon has said in the past in print it's too 16 expensive.
17 All right. Now, Richard did talk about the 18 UT testing, and was UT testing done on -- in the areas 19 where the collapse or the precursors to cracks were 20 found? And, again, you know, I'd like to reiterate that 21 the public would like to know if that UT testing was done, 22 where it was done, how extensive it was, will the results 23 be released? And, also, in reference to the pinhole leak 24 which was found in the recirculation pipe was UT testing 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 performed there? Are there any other leaks, and how 1
extensive was the analysis?
2 And I'd also like to ask that in light of 3
what happened in the intake canal with the flooding was 4
there any permanent damage done? Was there -- did you go 5
into the canal and look? Has there been any analysis of 6
any damage in that area? And that also brings us to the 7
service pumps.
8 So, now the service pumps were almost 9
submerged or, you know, by how much, I guess, is in 10 question. But do you think the Agency -- that it behooves 11 the Agency to require Exelon to install submersible pumps 12 that would operate if they were submerged under water, 13 I mean, given now that we have climate change and that 14 we, you know -- you know, it really is -- well, if you 15 listen to the scientific community we will be having more 16 severe storms, and they will become more frequent. So, 17 do you think it would behoove the Agency to require Exelon 18 to install submersible pumps? Then we wouldn't have to 19 worry about it, that would operate under water. So, you 20 get water in the intake canal and it floods, you wouldn't 21 have to worry about the pumps because they'd operate.
22 Also, how much would they cost? We would like to know 23 that.
24 So, that's about it. I hear nothing but 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 silence on your end, but thank you for this opportunity.
1 Thank you for having Richard and Paul there, and that's 2
it on our end. Thank you, Richard.
3 MR. HOWE: Thank you, Ms. Tauro. Yes, we've 4
been furiously jotting some notes down while you were 5
talking, so let me just stop here for a second and see 6
if there was anyone from the NRC Staff that had any 7
clarifying questions on your remarks or comments. Any NRC 8
Staff on the phone?
9 MR. HUNEGS: Yes, this is Gordon Hunegs from 10 Region I. We don't have any questions regarding Ms.
11 Tauro's questions.
12 MR. HOWE: All right, thank you. Are there 13 any other members of the public that would like to make 14 any comments or ask any questions at this point in time?
15 MS.
STURMFELS:
- Yes, this is Peggy 16 Sturmfels. I'm with New Jersey Environmental Federation, 17 Clean Water Action. And I had a concern, I don't know how 18 you would put it as a question or how you're going to 19 address it, but here we've been told -- you know, Sandy 20 was -- has been identified as a Category I hurricane 21 and/or even Super Storm because you don't want to use the 22 word hurricane for damage purposes for insurance 23 collection, so that goes back and forth. So, we're 24 dealing with what they're saying Category I, the most 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 hurricane.
1 Well, the design basis supposedly, my 2
understanding for this was to take a Hurricane Category 3
- 5. This certainly -- Category 5 would have wiped us all 4
out, and I'm really concerned that this design basis has 5
not been revised.
6 Also, the fact that going forward, you know, 7
the Barrier Islands which were really protective of the 8
coast and had a lot to do with protecting and keeping the 9
storm surge down, well, they're a mess. Some of them are 10 gone, and I'm wondering if the NRC has been taking that 11 into consideration in any kind of revision at all.
12 And I did speak with FEMA. I'll just say that 13 I -- they didn't send anyone from their group up in New 14 York down there. They had folks there on the ground who 15 were dealing with the evacuation of people during a 16 hurricane, not necessarily looking at the evacuation of 17 an nuclear power plant having problems in a hurricane.
18 We've got thousands and thousands of miles 19 of road and infrastructure gone, and we have people who 20 can't get even back to their homes yet. And the gas is 21 off in Seabright, in Point Pleasant, and going south. And 22 I just really curious as to what the NRC is doing in 23 looking at the aftermath also to go forward. Thank you.
24 MR. HOWE: All right, thank you. I'm sorry, 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 I didn't catch your name. Could you repeat your name, 1
please?
2 MS. STURMFELS: Sure, Peggy Sturmfels, 3
S-T-U-R-M like in Michael, F like in Frank, E-L-S like 4
in Sam.
5 MR. HOWE: All right, thank you. I think 6
there was someone else who wanted to make some comments?
7 MS. GOTCH: Yes, Paula Gotch, GRAMMIES. The 8
overarching thing that disturbs me, and I'm sure a lot 9
of other people, is the lack of transparency and the lack 10 of due process for the public. We understand you have your 11 due process, and Exelon has their due process, but the 12 public -- the process of the public isn't due. And I'm 13 afraid since so much is hidden from the public, and I even 14 know that in Fort Calhoun things were hidden from the 15 public about the flood problem there years before that 16 flood hit. It was deliberately withheld. So, I'm afraid 17 this problem is so severe with the NRC right now that 18 nothing less than a Congressional oversight and more 19
-- in other words, I think we're going to have to go to 20 Congress. This is beyond belief that there is -- that the 21 public -- to hear you tell Mr. Webster that you can't ask 22 this, and we can't ask that, and where is his paper 23 showing why he's -- why we're upset about something is 24 because the stuff is at Exelon, and Mr. Lamb did not give 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 is to us.
1 This is beyond belief, and I don't know if 2
the NRC is even capable of doing anything about this. Now, 3
I'm afraid we're just going to have to go to Congress.
4 That is my comment. Good afternoon.
5 MR. HOWE: All right. Thank you, Ms. Gotch.
6 MR. LACHAWIEC: Hello, my name is Joseph 7
Lachawiec. Can you hear me?
8 MR. HOWE: Yes.
9 MR. LACHAWIEC: Yes, good day, ladies and 10 gentlemen. Again, my name is Joseph Lachawiec, and it's 11 spelled L-A-C-H-A-W-I-E-C. I am a former two-term mayor 12 of the Township of Ocean which lies just to the south of 13 the plant. I'm also the Emergency Management Coordinator 14 for the town, and I have just been recently reelected to 15 a three-year term as a committeeman with 99 percent of 16 the vote.
17 The reason I'm calling is last time I was 18 on one of these webcasts was a few months ago where the 19 discussion had to do with dry cask storage. And I asked 20 the Commission or whoever the people there were whether 21 a local planning board should approve some 70 town houses 22 less than three-eighths of a mile away from dry cask 23 storage. And I was met with silence, and nobody said 24 anything. So, what the local planning board did was they 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 approved the 70 houses some three-eighths of a mile 1
across the creek from the dry cask storage.
2 Now, my first question is, I was very 3
surprised when you said that the water level almost 4
reached a critical level of some sort at the plant. The 5
question is, what level did it reach in relationship to 6
the dry cask storage that is already there? And the 7
follow-up is whether the salt water is going to affect 8
any of the metal that is used to keep those dry casks in 9
place. That's my first question.
10 The next comment I have is that I'm 67-years 11 old, a military veteran, college graduate, and a Vietnam 12 veteran. And I want to tell you that during the Tet 13 Offensive in 1968, which we're coming up on an 14 anniversary, I wasn't as much scared then as I was when 15 I saw the storm surge coming at me from Super Storm Sandy.
16 If you have never experienced that, then take it from me, 17 I was damned scared. Okay?
18 And my concern is this, I've been around for 19 many years. What I find is that FEMA classifies flooding 20 as A Zones, and B Zones, and whatnot. I think one Zone 21 is a 100-year storm, and another zone is a 500-year storm.
22 Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've been having 100-year 23 storms more frequently, like every four or five years, 24 and we've been having these 500-year storms even more 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 frequently, like every five, or eight, or nine years. And 1
I'll tell you, prior to Storm Sandy, I would have bet my 2
house that that storm level water would have never ever 3
gotten to where it was when we experienced it. I would 4
have bet my house, but now I'm afraid.
5 And the question very simply is this, FEMA 6
which is an arm of the federal government as you are tells 7
us now that we have a new zone called a V Zone, a 8
Vulnerability Zone. And any houses that are to be rebuilt 9
can no longer receive flood insurance unless they go some 10 five to eight feet higher than they were prior to this 11 new V Zone.
12 Now, the question is how does that impact 13 your dry cask storage, and how does that impact the fact 14 that the water level almost reached those critical points 15 that you talked about. I don't know they were pumps or 16 whatever they were.
17 And, next, I have a question about the fact 18 that after the water subsided the local building 19 inspector was around and started red tagging houses 20 because of any electrical outlets that were under water.
21 Well, I had a contractor come in prior to the guy arriving 22 and I had him replace the outlets before the inspector 23 could get there. And I showed him that they were all done, 24 so I didn't get red tagged. But the question is what 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 happened at the plant? Was any electrical conduits, or 1
outlets, or anything under water, and did they all have 2
to get replaced? Because it's my understanding they might 3
work good now, but after a while salt water affects the 4
metal and it could cause fires and such.
5 Now, next, my problem is this, back in 6
November of 2010 the plant experienced severe tritium 7
leaks. And they have been going on for many years, and 8
from what I read in the paper it was basically hidden from 9
the public; in fact, hidden from you, too. In fact, in 10 the end the solution to the problem was solution by 11 dilution. In other words, a million or so gallons of 12 tritium was to be pumped into the intake of the plant and 13 then discharged into Oyster Creek and everyone would be 14 happy. But it was my understanding at the time it would 15 only be 1 million gallons. And I recently found that it 16 was up to four or five million gallons, and the pumping 17 was continuing.
18 So, the question is this, did the storm 19 surge reach those contaminated wells, and did it do 20 something like recontaminate all the water for the whole 21 area? Remember my town shares Oyster Creek with the 22 plant. And if you've got this tritium coming down the 23 plant, it acts just like water. And it flood people's 24 homes and everything, should they be concerned? That's 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 a good question, I think.
1 And, next, we've been worried about the 2
plant for a long time. It's like an old car with a bad 3
motor. You know, you probably all had an old car with a 4
motor where you've got a lot of knocking in it. What do 5
you do for it? Well, you don't fix it, you don't put a 6
lot of money into it. You put a can or two of STP into 7
it and sell it somebody else. And in my personal opinion, 8
this is what's going on with this plant. You've got 9
band-aid approaches to everything.
10 And I'm fearful of the whole thing because 11 during Super Storm Sandy, we had to evacuate thousands 12 of people from the north side of Waretown along the creek.
13 And the evacuation route which we have applied for to the 14 State of New Jersey is called Volunteer Way, but that is 15 going to be the evacuation route in case something 16 happens at the plant. But we as a small town with a $10 17 million budget, we don't have the money to spend two or 18 three million dollars to fix the road to put it in so that 19 we can get the people out if something goes wrong with 20 the plant, especially if another super storm comes and 21 floods the plant. Well, the tritium will be flooding all 22 the roads, and what are we to do? I mean, we just can't 23 die in place. I mean, that's not acceptable.
24 So, the last question I have is this. We've 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 been told that the plant is going to be closed in 2019; 1
although, it's my understanding that you as a Commission 2
have not changed the licensing from 2029 to 2019. Unless 3
you tell me I'm wrong, it's still licensed to 2029, even 4
though I'm told it's supposed to close.
5 The question is this, can anyone tell me if 6
the plant is to be decommissioned in 2019, or is it merely 7
to be moth balled, because it's my understanding that 8
decommissioning means making it safe again as it was 9
before, even though it might take a long time. But moth 10 balling just means putting a lock on the gates and walking 11 away.
12 Now, I know I had a lot of questions and 13 maybe they weren't appropriate, but I'm only a common man 14 who lives here under the shadow of Oyster Creek, and now 15 under the influence of Super Storm Sandy, and maybe more 16 storms like that to come. So, I'm sorry if I asked too 17 many questions but maybe somebody can help me. Thank you.
18 MR. HOWE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lachawiec.
19 Let me stop again and see if anybody from NRC has nay 20 clarifying questions at this point in time. Okay.
21 MR. LACHAWIEC: Does that mean there is no 22 comments, or nothing?
23 MR. HOWE: We have been taking notes. We also 24 have a transcript of this meeting, and this is part of 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 48 what we will evaluate as we consider what to do with the 1
petition.
2 MR. LACHAWIEC: Well, I wish you would let 3
me know because this is the same blank basic stare that 4
I got when I was in the webcast a few months ago regarding 5
the dry cask storage. And I never had anybody tell me is 6
it okay to build house three-eighths of a mile away from 7
dry cask, which they're only supposed to not leak for 25 8
years.
9 MR. HOWE: Like I said, we've noted your 10 questions and we will have the transcript. And as a part 11 of the output of this, we will provide feedback to the 12 Petitioner, who is Mr. Webster.
13 MR. LACHAWIEC: Thank you.
14 MR. HOWE: Are there any other members of the 15 public that have any comments or questions? Okay, we have 16 Mr. Gunter here.
17 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. My name is Paul 18 Gunter. I'm Director of Reactor Oversight Project for 19 Beyond Nuclear. I just want to supplement Mayor 20 Lachawiec's request with regard to the transparency of 21 reporting on Oyster Creek and the storm surge to include 22 that all electrical vaults that were below grade 23 containing electrical conduit not qualified for being 24 submerged, that this petition process include all 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 49 reporting and Staff response to how the inspections for 1
these vaults with electrical cabling unqualified for 2
being submerged were cleared for restart. Thank you.
3 MR. HOWE: All right, thank you. Any other 4
comments at this time? Let me check and see if there is 5
anyone else on the phone lines. Okay, thank you, Mr.
6 Webster. I think you had one more comment that you wanted 7
to make.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. I mean, I started off 9
talking about transparency and information flow and so 10 forth, and I think the public comment period has vividly 11 illustrated that people who have the most information say 12 absolutely nothing during these proceedings. The people 13 with the least information are the ones ironically who 14 are required to make the presentation and required to 15 respond to questions from those with the most 16 information.
17 All I can say is that this is a bizarre 18 process, and it doesn't appear to be one designed to shed 19 light on safety issues. It doesn't appear to be one 20 designed to make public participation as meaningful as 21 possible. I, therefore, trust that the Board will at 22 least attempt to fully address these questions and make 23 what is perhaps an imperfect process a little bit more 24 perfect. Thank you.
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 50 MR. HOWE: All right, thank you. I want to 1
thank you, Mr. Webster, and also the members of the public 2
who have participated in this meeting today, and also for 3
the NRC Staff who has participated in this meeting.
4 Before we close, let me just ask the court 5
reporter, do you need any additional information at this 6
point in time to construct your transcript?
7 COURT REPORTER: At this time, sir, no, but 8
I will need a list of correct spellings of all the 9
participants who are participating in this call.
10 MR. HOWE: Okay. I think you shook your head 11 no, so I'll take that as a no.
12 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?
13 MR. HOWE: Okay. Again, thank you for being 14 here today, and at this point we will conclude the 15 meeting.
16 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 17 record at 12:16:09 p.m.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25