ML13022A299
| ML13022A299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/2012 |
| From: | Andrea Russell Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Samson Lee Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0010, G10120172, NRC-1559 | |
| Download: ML13022A299 (63) | |
Text
Doerflein, Lawrence From: Russell,( ndrea Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:57 PM To: Lee, Samson; Scott, Catherine; Albert, Michelle; Ulses, Anthony; Monninger, John; Bickett, Brice; Doerflein, Lawrence; MorganButler, Kimyata Cc: Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Banic, Merrilee; Screnci, Diane
Subject:
Action: Request for review of Transcript - G10120172 - 1st Meeting with Petitioners on April 17, 2012 Attachments: 0417nrcl 559.docx Good afternoon, On behalf of Bhalchandra, please find attached the transcript from the public meeting on April 17, 2012, with Beyond Nuclear et.al. Please review the transcript and let Bhalchandra and I know by COB Wednesday April 25, 2012, if you find any discrepancies or have any edits.
Lee and Diane: I am only copying you for awareness. No action is required on your part.
Thanks for your support, Andrea 2.206 Coordinator From: Vaidya, Bhalchandra Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:01 PM To: Russell, Andrea
Subject:
FW: Transcript - G10120172 - 1st Meeting with Petitioners on April 17, 2012
- Andrea, The transcript of the 1st meeting with Petitioners on April 17, 2012, as I received it, is attached for your information.
- Thanks, Bhalchandra K. Vaidya Licensing Project Manager NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL 1-1 (301)-415-3308 (0) bhalchandra.vaidyacnrc..ov From: Solomakos, Matina Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:26 PM To: Vaidya, Bhalchandra
Subject:
Transcript Your transcript is attached.
413,'S, 1
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE James E. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Work Order No.: NRC-1559 Pages 1-59 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 PUBLIC MEETING 6 RE:
7 JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8 +++ ++
9 TUESDAY 10 APRIL 17, 2012 11 12 The meeting took place in the 13 Commissioners' Conference Room, 01F16-01G16, One White 14 Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 15 Samson Lee, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 16 presiding.
17 PETITIONERS PRESENT:
18 JESSICA AZULAY CHASNOFF, Point of Contact for the Joint 19 Petitioners, Alliance for a Green Economy 20 PAUL GUNTER, Director, Reactor Oversight Project, 21 Beyond Nuclear 22 LINDA A. DeSTEFANO, Energy Committee, Sierra Club 23 Atlantic Chapter, and Representative to the 24 Alliance for a Green Economy*
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 TIM JUDSON, Citizens Awareness Network*
2 JEAN KESSNER, Councilor at Large, City of Syracuse, New 3 York*
4 BARBARA WARREN, Citizens Environmental 5 Coalition*
6 7 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
8 SAMSON LEE, Chairperson 9 BHALCHANDRA VAIDYA, Petition Manager for 2.206 10 petition, NRR/DORL 11 ANDREA RUSSELL, 2.206 Petition Coordinator*
12 LEE BANIC, Backup 2.206 Petition Coordinator 13 CATHERINE SCOTT, Assistant General Counsel for 14 Materials Litigation and Enforcement, 15 Office of General Counsel 16 17 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF PRESENT:
18 MICHELLE ALBERT, Office of General Counsel 19 JOHN MONNINGER, Associate Director, Japan Lessons 20 Learned Directorate 21 KIM MORGAN BUTLER, NRR/DPR 22 ANTHONY ULSES, NRR/Reactor Systems Branch 23 24 NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
- v
3 NRC REGION I STAFF PRESENT:
BRICE BICKETT, Senior Project Engineer*
LAWRENCE DOERFLEIN, Engineering Branch Chief*
DIANE SCRENCI, Public Affairs Officer*
LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
DAVID MANNAI, Senior Licensing Manager for Nuclear Safety, FitzPatrick Plant/Entergy*
JOSEPH PECHACEK, Licensing Manager, FitzPatrick Plant/Entergy*
- Participating via telephone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
4 NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
D.C. 20005-3701 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, www.nealrgross.com (202) 234-4433 COURT 1323 NEAL
5 1 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-0-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 Welcome and Introductions (Bhalchandra K. Vaidya, 3 Petition Manager) .................................. 5 4 PRB Chairman's Introduction 5 (Samson Lee, PRB Chair) ...................... .... 12 6 Petitioner's Presentation 7 Jessica Azulay Chasnoff, Point of Contact for 8 the Joint Petitioners, Alliance for a Green 9 Economy .................................... 25 10 Jean Kessner, Councilor at Large, City of 11 Syracuse, New York .......................... 38 12 Tim Judson, Citizens Awareness Network ...... 41 13 Linda DeStefano, Energy Committee, Sierra Club 14 Atlantic Chapter, and Representative to the 15 Alliance for a Green Economy ................. 47 16 Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor Oversight 17 Project, Beyond Nuclear ...................... 49 18 Clarifying Questions from the NRC staff and/or the 19 licensee .......................................... 54 20 Questions from members of the public on the 10 CFR 2.206 21 petition process .................................. 56 22 PRB Chairman's Closing Remarks (Samson Lee) ....... 58 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
6 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 12:34 p.m.
3 MR. VAIDYA: Hello. Let's start. I would 4 like to thank everybody for attending this meeting.
5 My name is Bhalchandra Vaidya. I am with the Office 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating 7 Reactor Licensing.
8 We are here today to allow the petitioners, 9 Paul Gunter and others, called the joint petitioners, 10 to address the NRC Petition Review Board, PRB, regarding 11 the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated March 9th, 2012, and 12 supplements dated March 13th and March 20th, 2012.
13 I am also the petition manager for the 14 petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Samson 15 Lee, to my left.
16 In accordance with the management directive 17 MD 8.11, the petitioner may request that a reasonable 18 number of associates, people needed to assist in 19 addressing the PRB concerning the petition. As a part 20 of PRB's review of this petition, the joint petitioners 21 have requested this opportunity to address the PRB 22 through Ms. Azulay -- I hope I'm pronouncing the name 23 right -- the point of contact for all the petitioners 24 and co-petitioners that were notified about this meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 today.
2 This meeting is scheduled for two hours, 3 originally from 12:30 to 2:30. Hopefully, we'll finish 4 by 2:30 today.
5 The meeting is being recorded and 6 transcribed by the court reporter. A transcript will 7 become a supplement to the petition. A transcript will 8 also be mailed though the Agency Wide Documents Access 9 and Management System, ADAMS.
10 The meeting will also be webcast. For.
11 those at the NRC headquarters--
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:***12:36:40 I'm 13 getting a big echo now that wasn't there a minute ago.
14 MR. VAIDYA: A few administrative items.
15 Please fill out the attendance sheets so that we can 16 record your attendance. They are either being 17 circulated or they were at the door. Towards the end 18 of the meeting, we can connect them.
19 And we also have public meeting feedback 20 forms, same way, at the entrance, and we'll bring those 21 up to the table later on. These forms are forwarded 22 to our internal communications specialist. You may 23 either leave them here following the meeting, or mail 24 them back. They are post-paid.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 If you are participating by phone and would 2 like to leave an email feedback on this public meeting, 3 please forward your comments to me by email at the address 4 bhalchandra.vaidya@nrc.gov.
5 My address, I believe, was printed on the 6 public meeting notice. Therefore, if you don't catch 7 my pronunciation, you can go to the meeting notice.
8 Please note that the meeting will start with 9 the telephone line for the public participants on mute, 10 that is listening mode, and the line for petitioners 11 and others open, so they can participate during the 12 meeting.
13 I would like to open this meeting with 14 introductions of the meeting participants. I ask that 15 all the participants speak clearly, and state for the 16 record your name, your position, occupation, and your 17 organization.
18 For those here in the room, please speak 19 up or approach the microphone so that the persons on 20 the phone can hear clearly, and so that the court reporter 21 can accurately record your name.
22 I have already introduced myself. Let us 23 start with the other NRC participants here in the room.
24 Sam?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D:C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 CHAIRMANLEE: I'mSamsonLee. I'mthePRB 2 chairman.
3 MS. SCOTT: I'm Catherine Scott. I'm the 4 Assistant General Counsel for materials litigation and 5 enforcement in OGC.
6 MS. BANIC: Lee Banic, backup petition 7 coordinator for NRR.
8 MR. MONNINGER: I'm John Monninger. I'm 9 the associate director for the NRC's Japan Lessons 10 Learned Directorate in. the Office of Nuclear Reactor 11 Regulation.
12 MR. ULSES: I'm Anthony Ulses, the Branch 13 Chief of the Reactor Systems Branch in the Office of 14 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
15 MS. BUTLER: I'm Kim Morgan Butler, Acting 16 Branch Chief of the Generic Communications Branch in 17 the Division of Policy and Rulemaking in the Office of 18 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
19 MS. ALBERT: I'm Michelle Albert, an 20 attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
21 MR. VAIDYA: Looks like we have completed 22 the introductions at the NRC headquarters for the NRC 23 people. At this time, are there any NRC participants 24 from headquarters on the phone?
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 MS. RUSSELL: Hi, this is Andrea Russell, 2 petition coordinator for Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
3 MS. SCRENCI: I'm Diane Scranci. I'm the 4 Region I Public Affairs Officer.
5 MR. DOERFLEIN: Larry Doerflein, 6 Engineering Branch Chief, Region I.
7 MR. BICKETT: Brice Bickett, NRC Region I, 8 Senior Project Engineer.
9 MR. VAIDYA: Anybody else from the NRC on 10 the phone from headquarters? In the region? I think 11 we covered the regional office also here, before.
12 Are there any representatives from the 13 licensee on the phone? I heard one person.
14 MR. PECHACEK: Bhalchandra, this is Joe 15 Pechacek from the Entergy Fitzpatrick Site, licencing 16 manager.
17 MR. MANNAI: David Mannai, Senior 18 Licensing Manager, Nuclear Safety.
19 MR. VAIDYA: We couldn't catch your name, 20 sir. Can you repeat yourself?
21 MR. MANNAI: Yes, it's David Mannai, Senior 22 Management, Nuclear Safety and Licensing, Entergy.
23 MR. VAIDYA: At this time, I would like to 24 have the petitioners who are here at NRC headquarters NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 introduce themselves. I ask that all petitioners please 2 clearly state for the record your name and position and 3 organization.
4 Again, please speak up or use one of the 5 microphones at the table or at the podium located here 6 in the room.
7 Ms. Azulay, you can start. Yes, press the 8 button.
9 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: I'm Jessica Azulay 10 Chasnoff. I'm the Staff Organizer for the Alliance for 11 a Green Economy.
12 MR. GUNTER: And my name is Paul Gunter.
13 I'm Director of the Reactor Oversight Project for Beyond 14 Nuclear in Tacoma Park, Maryland.
15 MR. VAIDYA: Thank you. At this time, are 16 there any petitioners on the phone line?
17 MS. DeSTEFANO: Yes.
18 MR. VAIDYA: Again, please speak up so that 19 the court reporter can accurately record your name.
20 Go ahead and introduce yourself.
21 MS. DeSTEFANO: Okay. Linda A. DeStefano.
22 I'm a member of the Energy Committee of the Atlantic 23 Chapter of the Sierra Club, which covers all of New York 24 State. And I'm the representative from the Atlantic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 Chapter to the Alliance for a Green Economy.
2 MS. KESSNER: I am on the phone as well, 3 calling from Syracuse. My name is Jean Kessner. I'm 4 a Councilor at Large for the City of Syracuse.
5 MR. JUDSON: And this is Tim Judson. I'm 6 the President of the Citizens Awareness Network.
7 MS. WARREN: This is Barbara Warren. I'm 8 Executive Director of Citizens' Environmental 9 Coalition, a state-wide environmental group, and I'm 10 also a founding member of the Alliance for a Green 11 Economy.
12 MR. VAIDYA: Anybody else from the 13 petitioners on the phone at this time?
14 Okay. It is not required for the members 15 of the public to introduce themselves for this meeting, 16 but we would like to record your participation. Please 17 send this record of your participation to my email 18 address, again, bhalchandra.vaida@nrc.gov.
19 During the public question period at the 20 end of the meeting, if you are asking a question, we 21 will ask you to introduce yourself and state your name.
22 For those members of the public who are 23 dialing into the meeting and are not petitioners, I would 24 remind you that your lines will be on mute until the NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 public question period at the end of the meeting.
2 At this time, I just want to make sure that 3 at this time, the phone line for the general public is 4 changed to the listening mode. It is confirmed -- to 5 minimize any background noise or distractions during 6 the petitioners presentations, and will be reopen for 7 the comment period for the public.
8 I would like to reemphasize at this time 9 that we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make 10 sure that the court reporter can accurately transcribe 11 this meeting.
12 Also, if you do have something that you 13 would like to say, please state your name for the record 14 first, and then make your statement.
15 At this time, I will turn it over to PRB 16 Chairman Samson Lee.
17 CHAIRMAN LEE: Welcome to this meeting on 18 the 2.206 petition submitted by Mr. Paul Gunter and the 19 joint petitioners.
20 I would like tofirst share some background 21 on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 22 of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 23 the timely mechanism for the public to request 24 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
14 1 This process permits anyone to petition NRC 2 to take enforcement-style action related to NRC 3 licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 4 results of this evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, 5 or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other 6 appropriate enforcement action to resolve the program.
7 The NRC's staff guidance for the 8 disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in management 9 directive 8.11, which is public available.
10 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 11 the petitioners an opportunity to provide any additional 12 explanation or support for the petition before the 13 Petition Review Board's initial consideration and 14 recommendation.
15 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 16 an opportunity for the petitioners to question or examine 17 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 18 petition request. No decisions regarding the merits 19 of this petition will be made at this meeting.
20 Following the meeting, the Petition Review 21 Board will conduct its internal deliberations. The 22 outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with 23 the petitioners.
24 The Petition Review Board typically NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1
- consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the Senior 2 Executive Service level at the NRC. It has a Petition 3 Manager and PRB Coordinator. Other members of the Board 4 are determined by the NRC staff based on the content 5 of the information in the petition request.
6 At this time, I would like to introduce the 7 Board.
8 I am Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board 9 Chairman. Bhalchandra Vaidya is the Petition Manager 10 for the petition under discussion. Andrea Russell is 1 the office's PRB Coordinator, and she is on the phone 12 today. And Merrilee Banic is the backup PRB Coordinator 13 today.
14 And our technical staff includes Anthony 15 Ulses from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 16 Reactor Systems Branch; John Monniger from the Office 17 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Japan Lessons Learned 18 Project Directorate; Brice Bickett, Matthew Jennerich, 19 and Lawrence Doerflein from Region I; and we also obtain 20 advice from our Office of the General Counsel, 21 represented by Catherine Scott.
22 As described in our process, the NRC staff 23 and the licensee may ask clarifying questions in order 24 to better understand the petitioner's presentation and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject 2 the petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 3 process.
4 I would like to briefly summarize the scope 5 of the petition under consideration and the NRC 6 activities to date.
7 On March 9, 2012, as supplemented March 13 8 and March 20, 2012, Mr. Paul Gunter, and other 9 petitioners, submitted a joint petition to the NRC under 10 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.206, 11 regarding James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
12 In this petition request, the joint 13 petitioners are requesting the following actions: they 14 request that the FitzPatrick operating license be 15 immediately suspended as the result of the undue risk 16 to the public health and safety presented by the 17 operator's reliance on non-conservative and wrong 18 assumptions that went into the analysis of the capability 19 of FitzPatrick's pre-existing ductwork containment vent 20 system.
21 The joint petitioners state that the risks 22 and uncertainty presented by FitzPatrick's assumptions 23 and decisions, in regard to NRC's Generic Letter 89-16, 24 as associated with the day-to-day operations of this NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
17 1 nuclear power plant now constitute an undue risk to 2 public health and safety.
3 The joint petitioners request that 4 suspension of the operating license be, in fact, pending 5 final resolution of the public challenge to the adequacy 6 of the preexisting vent line in light of the Fukushima 7 Daiichi nuclear accident.
8 The joint petitioners do not seek or request 9 that FitzPatrick operators now install the Direct Torus 10 Vent System (DTVS) as it is demonstrated to have 11 experienced multiple failures to mitigate the severe 12 nuclear accidents at Fukushima Daiichi.
13 The joint petitioners request that the NRC 14 take action to suspend the FitzPatrick operating license 15 immediately until the following emergency enforcement 16 actions are enacted, completed, reviewed, and approved 17 by the NRC and informed by independent scientific 18 analysis:
19 1) EntergyNuclear Operations' FitzPatrick 20 nuclear power plant shall be subject to public hearings 21 with full hearing rights on the continued operation of 22 the Mark I BWR and the adequacy and capability of a 23 pre-existing containment vent which is not a fully 24 hardened vent line as recommended by NRC Generic Letter NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 89-16.
2 As such, the FitzPatrick operator uniquely 3 did not make containment modifications and did not 4 install the DTVS, otherwise known as "the hardened vent,"
5 as requested by NRC Generic Letter 89-16 and as installed 6 on every other GE Mark I in the US; 7 2) Entergy Nuclear Operations shall 8 publicly document for independent review its 9 post-Fukushima re-analyses for the reliability and 10 capability of the FitzPatrick pre-existing containment 11 vent system as previously identified as "an acceptable 12 deviation" from NRC Generic Letter 89-16 which 13 recommended the installation of the Direct Torus Vent 14 System and as outlined in the NRC Safety Evaluation 15 Report dated September 28, 1992.
16 Th publicly documented. post-Fukushima 17 analysis shall include the reassessment of all 18 assumptions regarding the capability and reliability 19 of the pre-existing containment venting and specifically 20 address non-conservative assumptions regarding:
21 a) the FitzPatrick cost-benefit analysis 22 used to justify not installing a fully hardened vent 23 system and; 24 b) "unlikely ignition points" as claimed NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 in the FitzPatrick pre-existing vent line system that 2 would otherwise present increased risks and consequences 3 associated with the detonation of hydrogen gas generated 4 during a severe accident.
5 As a basis for the request, the joint 6 petitioners state that in light of the multiple failures 7 of the GE Mark I containment and hardened vent systems 8 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in the 9 days following the March 11, 2011, station black out 10 event, the joint petitions seek the 11 prompt and immediate suspension of the FitzPatrick 12 operations because:
13 The GE Mark I BWR pressure suppression 14 containment system is identified as inherently 15 unreliable and likely to fail during a severe accident'.
16 The capability of FitzPatrick's 17 pre-existing containment vent as approved for severe 18 accident mitigation is not a fully "hardened vent" 19 system.
20 The capability of FitzPatrick's 21 pre-existing containment vent as approved relies upon 22 non-conservative and faulty assumptions.
23 The capability of FitzPatrick's 24 pre-existing containment vent system uniquely allows NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 for a severe nuclear accident to be released at ground 2 level.
3 The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe 4 dramatically and exponentially changes the FitzPatrick 5 cost-benefit analyses.
6 The continued day-to-day reliance upon the 7 significantly flawed pre-existing containment vent 8 system as would be relied upon to mitigate a severe 9 accident at the FitzPatrick Mark I reactor presents an 10 undue risk to the public health and safety.
11 The identified containment vulnerability, 12 the non-conservative if not false assumption Of "no 13 likely ignition sources" in the pre-existing vent line, 14 and the unacceptable consequences of failure of the 15 FitzPatrick pre-existing containment vent place both 16 greater uncertainty andundue risk on public health and 17 safety and are not reasonably justified by arbitrarily 18 assigning a low probability of the occurrence of a severe 19 accident.
20 In the March 20, 2012, supplement to the 21 petition, the joint petitioners state that the Temporary 22 Instruction 2515/183 provides the NRC inspection results 23 in the "Followup to the Fukushima 24 Daiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Event."
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 The joint petitioners draw attention to 2 what is described at page 8 of the enclosure as an 3 "apparent beyond design and licensing basis 4 vulnerability" involving the FitzPatrick operator's 5 refusal to install the DTVS as recommended by NRC in 6 Generic Letter 89-16.
7 To summarize the supplement, the joint 8 petitioners state that:
9 The Commission's March 12, 2012, Order 10 states that "Current regulatory requirement and existing 11 plant capabilities allow the NRC to conclude that a 12 sequence of events such as the Fukushima Daiichi accident 13 in unlikely to occur in the US. Therefore, continued 14 operation and continued licensed activities do not pose 15 an imminent threat to public health and safety."
16 The Order further states, "While not 17 required, hardened vents have been in place in U.S.
18 plants with BWR Mark I containments for many years but 19 a wide variance exist with regard to the reliability 20 of the vents."
21 The NRC inspection report identifies that 22 FitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" and 23 "current procedures do not address hydrogen consequences 24 during primary containment venting" which is further NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 identified as a "current licensing basis vulnerability. "
2 The joint petitioners further reiterate 3 that the NRC inspection finding that FitzPatrick's 4 "existing plant capabilities" as assumed by the Order 5 are in fact negated by the finding that "FitzPatrick's 6 current licensing basis did not require the plant to 7 have a primary containment torus air space hardened vent 8 system as part of their Mark I containment improvement 9 program."
10 The Commission Order timeline setting 11 December 31, 2016 for installation of the hardened vent 12 order does not address in a timely way the unique 13 condition of the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant.
14 The FitzPatrick nuclear power plant 15 uniquely does not have a fully hardened vent system on 16 the vulnerable Mark I containment.
17 As a result, FitzPatrick's current 18 capability is identified with "a beyond design and 19 licensing bases vulnerability, in that FitzPatrick's 20 current licensing basis did not require the plant to 21 have a primary containment torus air space hardened vent 22 system as part of their Mark I containment improvement 23 program."
24 Given that the FitzPatrick unit willfully NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 i refused to.-.install the DTVS, the documented discovery 2 of the "licensing basis vulnerability" of its chosen 3 pre-existing vent now uniquely warrants the suspension 4 of operations pending closer scrutiny, public hearings, 5 and full disclosure for its adequacy and capability in 6 the event of a severe accident.
7 The additional identified "vulnerability" 8 and the relatively remote and uncertain mitigation 9 strategy places'the public health and safety unduly and 10 unacceptably at risk by the continued day-to-day 11 operations where "current procedures do not address 12 hydrogen considerations during primary containment 13 venting" and will not for nearly five (5) more years.
14 Please allow me to discuss the NRC 15 activities to date.
16 On March 13, 2012, the petition manager 17 contacted Mr. Gunter via e-mail to discuss the 10 CFR 18 2.206 petition process and offered him an opportunity 19 to address the PRB by phone or in person.
20 On March 13, 2012, Mr. Gunter provided the 21 petition manager an acknowledgment via email and 22 indicated that Ms. Jessica Azulay is the 23 point-of-contact for the joint petitioners and submitted 24 a supplement to the March 9, 2012, petition.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 On March 14, 2012, the petition manager 2 contacted the point-of-contact for the joint 3 petitioners, via e-mail, to describe the 10 CFR 2.206 4 petition process and offered her an opportunity to 5 address the PRB by phone or in person.
6 On March 16, 2012, the point-of-contact for 7 the joint petitioners provided the petition manager an 8 acknowledgment, via e-mail, and also requested the 9 public meeting and teleconference details to enable the 10 petitioners to address the PRB.
11 On March 20, 2012, the PRB met internally 12 to discuss the request for immediate action. The PRB 13 denied the request for immediate action on the basis 14 that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant, 15 or to the health and safety of the public.
16 From March 22 through April 2, 2012, 17 additional petitioners contacted the petition manager, 18 via e-mail, to indicate that each of them wish to co-sign 19 the petition, they agree to the 10 CFR 2.206 process, 20 and that Ms. Jessica Azulay is their point-of-contact.
21 The petition manager subsequently 22 contacted each co-petitioner via e-mail to acknowledge 23 the respective emails.
24 On March 27, 2012, the petition manager NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 contacted the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners 2 via email to inform her about the PRB decision for the 3 immediate action.
On March 27, 2012, the point-of-contact for 5 the joint petitioners confirmed the date of the public 6 meeting to address the PRB.
7 As a reminder for the phone participants, 8 please identify yourself if you want to make any remarks, 9 as this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 10 transcript that will be made publicly available.
11 Thank you very much.
12 MR. VAIDYA: Well, at this stage, Ms.
13 Azulay is the point of contact for joint petitioners.
14 And I'll turn it over to you to coordinate 15 petitioner's presentations to address the PRB and to 16 provide any additional information you and other 17 petitioners believe PRB should consider as a part of 18 this petition.
19 Because we started late, you probably have 20 about 70 minutes to do the presentations. If any 21 petitioners feel that they did not have an adequate 22 opportunity to address the PRB during this meeting, 23 because of time constraints, then we welcome any 24 supplemental information that they can provide in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 writing to the PRB for consideration.
2 This supplemental information for the PRB 's 3 consideration should be mailed to the Executive Director 4 of Operations, EDO, at NRC, by April 24th, which is 5 another week, so that it will be part.
6 At this time -- well, you can go ahead now 7 and start the presentation.
8 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: Thank you. I just 9 want to ask Jean, if you're on the line, if you want 10 to speak first, you can, if your schedule needs to.
11 MS. KESSNER: I am fine following your --
12 whoever's going first. I don't want to go first, because 13 I'm not really laying out --
14 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: Okay.
15 MS. KESSNER: -- the issue, if that's your 16 -- so if I could speak (phonetic)***l:05:39 second --
17 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: Yes.
18 MS. KESSNER: -- that should work, okay?
19 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: Okay. Great. I 20 will start then.
21 MS. KESSNER: Thank you.
22 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: So my name again is 23 Jessica Azulay Chasnoff, and I'm here representing the 24 Alliance for a Green Economy. We're a primary NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 petitioner in this petition.
2 We work for safe, affordable energy and the 3 development of a green economy in New York State. Our 4 member organizations, which are also primary 5 petitioners, are CNY chapter of Citizens Awareness 6 Network, Syracuse Peace Council, Peace Action of Central 7 New York, Peace Action New York State, Center for Health, 8 Environment, and Justice, and Citizens' Environmental 9 Coalition.
10 On March 9, the Alliance for a Green Economy 11 and its member organizations, along with Beyond Nuclear, 12 filed a 2.206 petition with the NRC requesting an 13 emergency enforcement action to suspend power operations 14 at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Reactor in Scriba, 15 New York.
16 Many of the members of the Alliance for a 17 Green Economy and its member organizations live within 18 50 miles of the FitzPatrick Nuclear Plant, among 19 approximately 910,000 people.
20 We are calling on the NRC to protect our 21 community's safety, health, and economy by suspending 22 operations at this dangerous plant.
23 We do not take lightly this request to 24 suspend operations at a major power source. Our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.om
28 1 concerns about the safety of the FitzPatrick plant are 2 not superficial. We have identified serious flaws with 3 the FitzPatrick plant design that make it vulnerable 4 to containment failure and accident mitigation failure 5 in the case of a severe accident at the plant.
6 Severe nuclear accidents are rare, but they 7 do happen. Unforseen circumstances, acts of nature, 8 equipment failure, operator error, these can lead to 9 an accident. That is why nuclear power plants in the, 10 US have a containment structure.
11 If there's an accident at a plant, the 12 containment structure is the last line of defense between 13 the nuclear reactor and the public. A containment 14 failure at FitzPatrick would allow radiation to escape 15 into the surrounding environment, which includes Lake 16 Ontario, multiple population centers including Scriba, 17 Oswego, and Syracuse, and important agricultural areas.
18 Based on the documents that we submitted 19 with our petition, we are concerned about the containment 20 design at the FitzPatrick Nuclear Reactor.
21 Another threat during a nuclear accident is the 22 buildup of explosive hydrogen gas. Proper management 23 of hydrogen is critical to prevent explosions that could 24 breach the containment structure.
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 Hydrogen explosions could also damage the 2 fuel pool at FitzPatrick, which contains many times more 3 radioactive material than the reactor core, and poses 4 a potentially larger threat to the surrounding public 5 and the environment.
6 Based-on the documents we submitted with 7 our petition, we are concerned about the potential for 8 hydrogen explosions at FitzPatrick.
9 Containment failure at the FitzPatrick 10 plant or damage to the fuel pools in a severe accident 11 scenario could have catastrophic consequences for our 12 region. The exact repercussions of the radiation 13 exposure from an accident at FitzPatrick are of course 14 unknowable, because they would depend on the amount of 15 radiation released, weather conditions, etcetera.
16 But large swaths of the surrounding land 17 could become unliveable and unfarmable, and the precious 18 fresh water of Lake Ontario could be forever ruined.
19 Thousands of cancer deaths and other 20 radiation-related illnesses could occur, and the cleanup 21 could cost taxpayers billions of dollars, not to mention
.22 the cost to our local and state economy that could result 23 from an accident.
24 It is not our intention to predict the exact NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 consequences of an accident at FitzPatrick, but it is 2 our intention to remind the NRC and the public that the 3 consequences could be extremely serious and 4 irreversible. That is why we have brought this petition 5 to the NRC.
6 Based on the record of documentation on the 7 plant's design and the plant's emergency venting plan, 8 we are concerned that FitzPatrick does not have a
.9 reliable containment structure, or a reliable mitigation 10 plan, to protect workers or the public from the 11 consequences in the event of an accident at that plant.
12 FitzPatrick is a GE Mark I boiling water 13 reactor. Internal NRC documents as early as the 1970s 14 show the agency's concern with the containment structure 15 with this type of reactor. The containment structure 16 is relatively small, making it more vulnerable to 17 hydrogen explosions and containment breach during an 18 accident.
19 The vulnerabilities in the Mark I 20 containment design were further acknowledged when in 21 1989, the NRC requested that operators at all Mark 1 22 plants voluntarily make modifications, quote, "to both 23 prevent and mitigate the consequences of serious 24 accidents."
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 These modifications included the 2 installation of a reliable hardened vent system. All 3 of the Mark I reactors in the US complied with this 4 request, save one, FitzPatrick.
5 As noted in our petition, the NRC allowed 6 the FitzPatrick operator to instead rely on a 7 pre-existing venting system, one not designed for the 8 purpose o flventing during an accident.
9 The plant event (phonetic)***l:ll:09 the 10 Mark I reactors to protect containment integrity poses 11 a threat to the public, since the vent itself would 12 release untold amounts of radiation into the 13 environment.
14 This cannot be seen as true containment.
15 However, in theory, it could prevent a larger release 16 of radiation that could happen if containment was 17 breached through an explosion. The FitzPatrick nuclear 18 disaster illustrates what can happen if a venting plan 19 fails to protect containment integrity.
20 In that disaster, the venting plan did not 21 work to relieve the rising pressure within those Mark 22 I boiling water reactors, and as a result, containment 23 was breached, and dangerous levels of radiation escaped 24 the plants.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 This is why the NRC in March ordered 2 operators of Mark I and Mark II reactors to install a 3 reliable hardened vent by 2016. But what this means 4 is that for the next four years, FitzPatrick will operate 5 with its existing vent, unless the NRC accepts our 6 petition for suspension.
7 During the next four years, if there is an 8 unforseen accident at the plant, the proper functioning 9 and operation of this vent could make the difference 10 between life and death for workers at the plant and the 11 population surrounding the plant. It could make the 12 difference between health and radiation-related 13 diseases and cancers.
14 It could make the difference between 15 whether Lake Ontario continues to be the crucial 16 freshwater resource it is today, or an unsafe body of 17 water carrying radioactive materials to lake communities 18 in the US and Canada.
19 It could make the difference between 20 whether the land around Scriba, New York, remains home 21 to those who live there, or becomes a no-go zone for 22 hundreds or thousands of years to come.
23 Whether the FitzPatrick venting plan will 24 work is a critical question that could deeply affect NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 the lives of central New Yorkers. There are several 2 reasons to doubt the reliability of the FitzPatrick vent.
3 4 First, the vent was not designed to be used 5 in an accident scenario. It has not been tested under 6 accident conditions.
\
7 Second, the ductwork is not designed to 8 withstand the iigh':pressures it would be under if it 9 was used during an accident scenario. As described in 10 a 1992 NRC letter to the FitzPatrick operator at the 11 time, the New York Power Authority, the plan is to send 12 steam radiation and gas through ductwork into the standby 13 gas treatment system, which is located in a building 14 adjacent to the reactor building.
15 Once the gas and steam mixture reaches that 16 building, the ductwork is expected to fail. The 17 building is expected to fill with pressure until he doors 18 to the outside also fail.
19 It should be noted that the described plan 20 will mean the release of radiation, steam, and explosive 21 gases right into the environment at the ground level 22 near the reactor building.
23 The 1992 letter does not indicate that the 24 operator or the NRC performed any assessment as to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 impact that that release may have on workers in the nearby 2 vicinity. It also does not detail any assessment that 3 may have been done on increased radiation exposure to 4 the public that might be caused by releasing the steam 5 mixture at the ground level, rather than through the 6 300-foot-tall vent stack as indicated in the 7 recommendations by the NRC.
8 It does note in one line, quote, 9 "modifications to the piping configuration could reduce 10 the off-site dose, but would not decrease the core damage 11 frequency."
12 Third, the vent plan was approved by the 13 NRC using non-conservative assumptions about whether 14 there could be a hydrogen explosion in the vent. In 15 approving the plan in 1992, the NRC accepted the 16 operator's assessment that combustion in the existing 17 vent path was quote, "not a significant risk."
18 The document notes that a hardened pipe 19 bypass that could prevent any deflagration within the 20 standby gas treatment system room could be built for 21 $680,000, but the NRC did not require one to be built.
22 Then, almost 20 years later, in an April 23 29, 2011 post-Fukushima inspection report, both Entergy 24 and the NRC seemingly acknowledged that hydrogen in the NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 event is a concern.
2 'In the report, Entergy and the NRC note an 3 apparent beyond design and licensing basis vulnerability 4 in that current procedures do not address hydrogen 5 considerations during primary containment venting.
6 Since the venting system that is supposed 7 to prevent hydrogen explosions at the plant could itself 8 be vulnerable to hydrogen explosions, the vent cannot 9 be considered reliable.
10 Given this concern, has the NRC or Entergy 11 addressed the consequences of a hydrogen explosion 12 within this vent? If they have, the public has not been 13 provided the details of this assessment.
14 This was one of the reasons we are calling 15 for a thorough and public post-Fukushima reassessment 16 of the Fitzpatrick vent system.
17 The April 29, 2011 report indicates that 18 Entergy was concerned enough about the potential for 19 a hydrogen explosion that it provided a quote, "caution 20 for operators to consider the presence of hydrogen."
21 This brings me to my fourth reason to doubt 22 the reliability of the FitzPatrick venting plan.
23 Providing caution to operators to consider the presence 24 of hydrogen 'introduces. uncertainty in the use of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
36 1 vent.
2 It could mean that in an accident scenario, 3 the vent may not be used properly or in time, leaving 4 the plant vulnerable to hydrogen buildup within the 5 primary containment structure, and increasing the 6 possibility of containment breach. If operators are 7 cautious about using the vent, it cannot be considered 8 reliable.
9 We have been informed that on March 20, 10 2012, the Petition Review Board met internally to discuss 11 our request for an immediate suspension of power 12 operations at the plant.
13 We were told that the NRC would not take 14 immediate action, quote, "because there was no immediate 15 safety concern to FitzPatrick or to the health and safety 16 of the public."
17 When we asked for more information about 18 that decision, we were sent an April 3rd email from NRC 19 Petition Manager Bhalchandra K. Vaidya, which I am 20 submitting into the record.
21 The email states that a, quote, "report 22 dated July 12, 2011, issued by the Near-Term Task Force 23 established by the NRC in response to the Fukushima 24 Daiichi nuclear event concluded that continued nuclear NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
337 1 reactor operation and licensing activities do not pose 2 an imminent risk to the public health and safety and 3 are not inimical to the common defense because of the 4 low likelihood of an.event beyond the design basis of 5 a US nuclear power plant and the current mitigation 6 capabilities at those facilities."
7 We disagree with this assessment. First 8 of all, the July 12th, 2011 Near-Term Task Force report 9 erroneously states that, quote, "Eventually, all boiling 10 water reactor facilities with Mark I containment designs 11 voluntarily installed a hardened vent in response to 12 the 1989 recommendation that all Mark I boiling water 13 reactors be retrofitted with the installation of a 14 hardened wet-well vent."
15 Contrary to that statement, the NRC 16 documents we submitted with our petition show the 17 FitzPatrick plant was not installed with a truly hardened 18 vent. Therefore, the Task Force's analysis of current 19 mitigation capabilities at Mark 1 boiling water reactors 20 cannot be applied to FitzPatrick.
21 The Task Force was mistaken in its survey 22 and/or representation fo the Mark I venting systems.
23 The FitzPatrick plant's unique mitigation capabilities 24 have not been thoroughly assessed in the post-Fukushima NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
38 1 context.
2 Again, this is why we are calling for 3 suspension of operations until such an assessment is 4 done and made public.
5 The only FitzPatrick-specific document we 6 have seen that addresses the issue as illustrated by 7 the Fukushima nuclear disaster is the April 29, 2011 8 inspection report, which raises concerns about an 9 apparent beyond design and licensing basis 10 vulnerability. This is not reassuring.
11 The April 3rd email from Mr. Vaidya also 12 states that the quote "low likelihood of an event beyond 13 the design basis of a US nuclear power plant and 14 unlikelihood of a sequence of events such as the 15 Fukushima Daiichi accident in the US were used as reasons 16 for the NRC Petition Review Board to conclude that the 17 continued operation of FitzPatrick is not an imminent 18 threat."
19 How can the NRC use the unlikelihood of an 20 accident as justification for not immediately addressing 21 an unreliable accident mitigation' plan?
22 Unless the NRC is sure that an accident will 23 not happen before the danger posed by the containment 24 vulnerabilities and unreliable venting system have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 1 addressed, the NRC is gambling with public health and 2 safety.
3 The history of nuclear disasters and 4 near-disasters in the US and throughout the world 5 illustrates that accidents can have a variety of causes, 6 most of which are deemed unlikely, and many of which 7 are not as extreme as the earthquake and tsunami that 8 damaged the Fukushima reactors.
9 The Near-Term Task Force itself noted in 10 its report that the NRC has a policy that recognizes 11 that serious fuel damage accidents may not be completely 12 prevented. That is why it requires containment 13 structures and safety features to prevent radioactive 14 releases.
15 Yet the NRC is so far allowing FitzPatrick 16 to operate with vulnerable containment and a vulnerable 17 vent.
18 Our communities need real protection from 19 the risks of nuclear power. We need public 20 accountability and information about the design and 21 assessments of the FitzPatrick power plant.
22 We believe the concerns over public health 23 and safety warrant the suspension of operations at 24 FitzPatrick until these problems are addressed and NRC NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
40 1 conducts public hearings and publishes a transparent 2 analysis of the remedies needed to address these risks.
3 We are asking the NRC to enforce its 4 regulations, and not gamble with our lives, our health, 5 our homes, or our livelihood.
6 Thank you.
7 This is the email that I want to submit to 8 the record.
9 I'll now ask Jean Kessner to speak.
10 MS. KESSNER: Thank you very much. I'm 11 Jean Kessner. I'm a Councilor at Large for the City 12 of Syracuse.
13 Speaking for myself, and for Councilor at 14 Large Kathleen Joy, First District Councilor Jake 15 Barrett, and Fifth District Councilor Nader Maroun, the 16 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant should have been 17 required to follow NRC regulations from 1989 that all 18 Mark I boiling water reactors install hardened vents.
19 Those regulations were promulgated in the 20 belief that a hardened vent would relieve pressure and 21 help prevent core meltdown during an accident.
22 FitzPatrick was the only US nuclear plant that did not 23 make that change.
24 The FitzPatrick venting solution, which NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 would vent dangerous hydrogen and radiation through 2 ductwork into an auxiliary building, making the vent 3 the doorway to the outside, shows poor judgement at a 4 minimum, and a disregard for life and property around 5 Nine Mile Point.
6 The NRC should not have accepted 7 FitzPatrick's rationale for refusing to install the 8 vent. It is disturbing that such a non-conservative 9 and flawed decision was allowed to proceed on the basis 10 of saving, less than $1 million when so much is at stake.
11 Fukushima then showed us that in three out 12 of four cases, the hardened vent failed. Three reactors 13 melted down, and many nearby residents can never go home 14 again.
15 Syracuse is just 36 miles from the 16 FitzPatrick Reactor. As a political representative of 17 the people of Syracuse, we have strong and vested 18 interest in the safe operations of the atomic reactors 19 at Nine Mile Point, and we ask the NRC to share that 20 interest.
21 I agree with the petitioners, having signed 22 the petition myself, that the FitzPatrick nuclear power 23 plant's license to operate should be suspended until 24 a way is found to mitigate the potential danger.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
42 1 I agree that there should be public hearings 2 on the safety of the plant, and I join in the call for 3 a public release of a post-Fukushima reassessment.
4 Following Fukushima, the NRC listed 12 5 actions that must be taken at Mark I BWRs in the United 6 States. All of those must be implemented at FitzPatrick 7 before the plant can restart.
8 According to Dave Lochbaum of the Union of 9 Concerned Scientists, you recently notified reactor 10 operators to design and install a reliable vent system.
11 12 I know that my next comment is not 13 necessarily germane to this petition, but as part of 14 the full picture, I ask you to require qualifications 15 to reliable vent systems: first, that the' vents are 16 capable of being opened when needed, even during a 17 station blackout when normal pneumatic pressure is 18 unavailable; and secondly, that gases flow through real 19 filters, not merely the water in the torus, before being 20 discharged to the atmosphere.
21 Noble gases, iodine, and krypton do much 22 harm to human health. Iodine is dangerous for three 23 months, but krypton has a half-life of ten years and 24 presents a danger over generations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
43 1 These should never, never be vented at 2 ground level, or through a reliable vent system without 3 qualification (phonetic)***.l:25:29. Filters are 4 provided on these vents at European reactors, and the 5 people of New York, and in particular, Syracuse, New 6 York, deserve equal protection.
7 Thank you.
8 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: I'll now ask Tim 9 Judson to speak.
10 MR. JUDSON: Hi. My name is Tim Judson, 11 and I'm the President of Citizens Awareness Network.
12 CAN is a grassroots organization based in New York and 13 New England with over 6,000 members. We represent 14 people living near at least four Mark I boiling water 15 reactors, the Pilgrim reactor in Massachusetts, Vermont 16 Yankee in southern Vermont, and Nine Mile Point and 17 (phonetic) ***l:26:09 FitzPatrick in Oswego County, New 18 York.
19 The flaws in the Mark I containment design 20 are a great and immediate concern to us. However, of 21 these reactors, it is clear that the FitzPatrick I is 22 a unique case unaccounted for in the NRC's current 23 approach to dealing with the post-Fukushima Mark I 24 containment issues, and dmpletelyv-;outside of,: NRCd:'sý NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 requirements for licensed reactors to operate.
2 Had FitzPatrick's vulnerability been known 3 before it was licensed, it would have never been allowed 4 to start up in the first place. The NRC assures the 5 public that their safety is protected by what the agency 6 calls, quote, "defense in depth" approach to nuclear 7 safety regulations and reactor designs.
8 Safety systems are supposed to be backed 9 up by yet more safety systems, all to protect the reactor 10 core from being uncovered with water, to prevent the 11 fuel from overheating, burning, melting, and breaching 12 the reactor vessel, and to protect the public and the 13 environment from the massive amounts of radioactive 14 material escaping the reactor and being released into is the environment.
16 All of these systems failed in the Fukushima 17 nuclear accident. And why is that? I mean, because, 18 for all of this, this is an engineering problem.
19 The reactor safety systems had to be 20 designed to handle certain kinds of accidents happening 21 within certain estimated parameters, what NRC calls, 22 quote, "design basis accidents," that is, types of 23 accidents that fall within the range of things the 24 reactor was designed to handle.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
45 1 All of this is supposed to be undergirded 2 by one last, final, absolute barrier of protection, in 3 case everything else goes wrong, a containment system 4 built to withstand the incredible forces and pressures 5 of a nuclear accident to make sure that even if the 6 reactor fails, the radiation is contained within the 7 plant and does not escape to harm the public.
8 NRC has acknowledged flaws in the Mark I 9 containment, which ultimately boil down to the fact that 10 the containment is simply too small to withstand the 11 force of a nuclear accident.
12 NRC has decided that is it is within its 13 regulations to deliberately vent steam and radioactive 14 material during an accident at a Mark I reactor to prevent 15 the whole containment system from rupturing and losing 16 all ability to contain a release of radiation.
17 What makes that compromise feasible is the 18 ability to vent the radiation in a way that doesn't 19 directly threaten the safety of workers and the 20 habitability of the reactor site, so that they can 21 continue to work to mitigate the accident and shut the 22 plant down safely.
23 But the NRC's original recommendation was 24 to install a hardened vent strong enough to handle the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 1 high pressure of an accident, to bypass containment and
.2 vent steam, hydrogen gas, and radioactive material out 3 through the reactor's 300-foot-tall out-gas 4 (phonetic)***l:28:31 stack,ý.a. giant filtered chimney 5 normally used to release relatively small amounts of 6 radioactive gases that build up in the cooling system 7 during routine operation of the reactor.
8 The design of those vents has proven 9 tragically flawed by the accidents at Fukushima Daiichi.
10 However, as the evidence the petitioners has submitted 11 shows, FitzPatrick never even installed such a vent to 12 protect the containment from rupturing, and instead 13 relies upon a venting scheme that inspectors -- NRC 14 inspectors noted last year as quote "outside the design 15 basis," meaning that it is untested and unproven and 16 6uatsideof NRC reguiations.
17 Entergy's plan in case of an accident at 18 FitzPatrick, if it can even:be called a plan, is to vent 19 the containment through an unhardened pipe, which is 20 expected to rupture under pressure, releasing the steam, 21 hydrogen gas, and radioactivity into a building next 22 to the reactor building.
23 The containment would then be quote 24 "vented" as the pressure rises in that building. The NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
47 1 doors to the outside are eventually blown off, and this 2 whole plan rests on the critical assumption that there 3 will be nothing to ignite the hydrogen and cause the 4 kind of massive explosion that ripped apart the reactors 5 at Fukushima and which has complicated all of the 6 mitigation and recovery efforts since.
7 FitzPatrick was the only Mark I reactor in 8 the country, and who knows, possibly, the world, that 9 did not even install a hardened vent. And why was that?
10 According to the explanation provided by the reactor's 11 owner at the time, the New York Power Authority, to save 12 an estimated $680,000.
13 Entergy bought this decision along with the 14 rest of the plant over ten years ago when it purchased 15 FitzPatrick from NYPA. That $680,000 now is less than 16 $1.2 million in today's money. That's a savings of $1.2 17 million when Entergy has earned upwards of $500 million 18 per year from operating FitzPatrick over the last ten 19 years -- $500 million per year over the last ten years.
20 21 CAN was an intervenor in the transfer of 22 the operating license from NYPA to Entergy at 23 FitzPatrick, and we had an opportunity to review the 24 licensee's financial qualifications to operate the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
48 1 reactor.
2 And what we can say is that the -- that the 3 action that we' re requesting by NRC to have the reactor 4 shut down until it can be brought within compliance with 5 the regulation is well within the financial 6 qualifications that Entergy demonstrated in the course 7 of the license transfer.
8 Entergy submitted evidence that it has 9 lines of credit from its parent corporation, and you 10 know, and in fact, the operations at the reactor have 11 exceeded all of the performance projections that were 12 anticipated to -- which undergirded its financial 13 qualifications at the time.
14 So there are certainly no excuses for the 15 NRC not to follow the actions that are reflected here, 16 and certainly there's no reason to think that this --
17 that the impact on the licensee of its finances should 18 be considered.
19 Thanks.
20 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: I'll now ask Linda 21 DeStefano to speak.
22 MS. DeSTEFANO: I'm the representative 23 from the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club to the 24 Alliance for a Green Economy.
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 1 The Atlantic Chapter covers New York State 2 and has 37,500 members. Chapter is 3 (phonetic) ***l:31:44 part of the National Sierra Club.
4 The National Sierra Club has a long history of speaking 5 out about the problems with nuclear energy.
6 These problems include the intractable one 7 of nuclear waste, the record of serious accidents, both 8 in the US and other countries, the possibility fo a 9 terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, the prohibitive 10 cost of nuclear energy that is subsidized with our taxes 11 while renewable forms of energy receive relatively 12 little government assistance.
13 The nuclear power plant in question before 14 us today, FitzPatrick, has all these problems, plus 15 additional ones. It is a GE Mark I boiling water 16 reactor, the same as those which failed at Fukushima 17 with disastrous consequences.
18 There are several other such facilities in 19 the US, but FitzPatrick has the additional drawback of 20 being the only one which has not followed the 21 longstanding advice of the NRC to install a hardened 22 vent. The existing venting system is woefully 23 inadequate.
24 In an accident, its so-called solution is 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 to release radioactivity at ground level into the 2 environment. FitzPatrick should not be put into the 3 same category as the other Mark I reactors in terms of 4 license renewal until 2016, as it is the only one without 5 the hardened vent.
6 More than 900,000 people live within 50 7 miles of FitzPatrick. Syracuse is only 36 miles away 8 from FitzPatrick. As someone who lives just outside 9 Syracuse, I feel personally threatened, and I worry for 10 all living things that would be faced with dangerous 11 doses of radioactivity.
12 Our area has farmland and beautiful natural 13 areas. We have Lake Ontario, one of the largest bodies 14 of freshwater in the US.
15 I don't understand how Entergy's interest 16 in saving a relatively small amount of money by refusing 17 to install a hardened vent can be weighed against the 18 economic health and environmental disaster that a 19 serious accident or terrorist attack would entail.
20 The Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club asks 21 that the NRC regard our safety as more important than 22 Entergy's bottom line.
23 Thank you.
24 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: I'll now have Paul NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
51 1 Gunter speak.
2 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. Again, my name is 3 Paul Gunter. I'm Director of the Reactor Oversight 4 Project for Beyond Nuclear. We're out of Tacoma Park, 5 Maryland.
6 And my colleagues and I have basically 7 presented you with a clear contradiction of the -- which 8 regards public health and safety and the continued 9 operation of the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant.
10 As has been pointed out, and I think 11 reiterated appropriately, this plant was allowed to 12 continue operation following the issuance of Generic 13 Letter 8916 and the request for a severe accident 14 mitigation strategy.
15 They proceeded on what was identified as 16 an acceptable deviation from Generic Letter 8916, and 17 the Boiling Water Reactor Owner Group criteria that was 18 set out.
19 So, I think it's important for this Board 20 to recognize, first of all, that to date, there's been 21 no distinction made from what the Near-TermTask Force 22 has represented that all Mark Is eventually install a 23 reliable hardened vent system. And reliable hardened 24 vent is the words that are used in Generic Letter 8916.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
52 1
2 So this is not -- reliability has always 3 been an issue. This is not something that's new that's 4 come out of the Fukushima disaster and the demonstration 5 of the unreliable containment and the unreliable vents 6 that were subsequently installed.
7 But what we're here to impress upon you and 8 reiterate is that FitzPatrick is an outlier, even from 9 the Near-Term Task Force's own representation.
1 And as such, it being an outlier, it does represent 11 this contradiction that they were given the approval 12 on this acceptable deviation in September 28, 1992, and 13 then in a subsequent inspection on May llth, 2011, it 14 was identified that they basically are operating on a 15 -- they have been all along, and continue to operate 16 on a vulnerability within their licensing basis.
17 Now, basically, what that contradiction 18 does is that it puts your integrity on the line. This 19 Board has a responsibility now to address what is clearly 20 identified as an outlier from the Near-Term Task Force 21 and the day-to-day operations of the FitzPatrick plant.
22 And the' public looks to you, it looks to 23 this agency, for its safety. And so, you've got this 24 contradiction now before you.
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neallrross.om
53 1 And, you know, it's really -- you're sort 2 of the last line of defense for an unreliable containment 3 in a plant that never even bothered to put a vent, a 4 hardened vent.
5 And you're also -- it's also the 6 responsibility of this Board to consider that as the 7 current scenario plays out for the Near-Term Task Force 8 and the orders that have been issued, is that we 're going 9 to wait another four, five years before, you know, we 10 see, you know, an order take effect -- and maybe not 11 even then.
12 It's not really clear right now that this 1 is a hard and fast date to us, that we've seen orders 14 come and go without any enforcement action. And I mean, 15 that's been an issue that I brought up before the 16 Commission, and it's been an issue that we've been 17 dealing with through previous 2.206 petitions.
18 So even this December 31st, 2016 date, when 19 the criteria is supposed to take effect and these new 20 reliable hardened vents are supposed to be in place, 21 you know, that's not a reliable chronology, as far as 22 we're concerned.
23 So, the task before you is is that, you know, 24 we know now that this plant was provided an opportunity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
54 1 to continue operation on deviations from your 2 recommendations, on deviations even from the Boiling 3 Water Reactor Owner Group, and their criteria that was 4 established.
5 And now, we understand that even that 6 approval for an acceptable deviation basically provided 7 that the -- you know, the NRC inspection of May llth, 8 2011, said that the current licensing basis did not 9 require the plant to have a primary containment torus 10 air space or air space hardened vent system.
11 So, you know, we're puzzled by the 12 willy-nilly-ness that public safety is being tossed 13 around between. And the fact that you don't -- you know, 14 I mean, obviously, nobody thinks that a tsunami is going 15 to come out of Lake Ontario. But the fact is is that 16 station blackout, the prolonged station blackout, that's 17 what the issue is, and fire protection is an issue that 18 can lead to that.
19 There are any number of scenarios that could 20 lead to. a prolonged station blackout, and we believe 21 that it's not just about, you know, having some sense 22 of guarantee or some sense of reliability that your 23 number won't come up on the wheel of misfortune, as we've 24 seen in Japan, but that in fact there are reliable NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.:,N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
55 1 mitigation strategies that have been approved and put 2 in place. And that's simply not the case.
3 So I think that what we're expecting from 4 this Petition Review Board is an explanation on how this 5 plant basically provides no guarantees, and still 6 continues to operate. No reasonable assurance, I think 7 is a key term here, if you can't provide for the fact 8 that there is no reasonable assurance because there is 9 no reasonable mitigation strategy in place now for either 10 a beyond design basis or the licensing basis, we think 11 that you should take action as we've requested, and 12 suspend this operation until you can make that request.
13 But again, you know, our plea to you is that 14 this Board has the responsibility now to use its steady 15 judgement, and in that process, we believe that you put 16 your integrity on line, so -- and the whole agency.
17 So the agency has an opportunity now to 18 build public confidence, to address an outlier, or, we 19 can all be strung along again, and that could have 20 consequences.
21 So, now, we would' like to take this 22 opportunity also to request a second Petition Review 23 Board meeting after you've addressed the -- what me and 24 my colleagues have said today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
56 1 But your responsibility is heavy, and we 2 again put our trust in you, and in a formal process, 3 that this undue risk that's been identified by your own 4 documents be addressed through the suspension of the 5 operation of this plant, until there is some reasonable 6 assurance.
7 Thank you.
8 MS. AZULAY CHASNOFF: I think that's all 9 the speakers we have today.
10 MR. VAIDYA: Thank you.
11 At this time, does the NRC staff here at 12 headquarters have any questions for Ms. Azulay and others 13 from those who are present in the room, either through 14 PRB Board or NRC staff or PRB Board members?
15 Well, if none, how about the Region, those 16 who were on the phone from the Region, NRC staff? Does 17 anybody have any questions for the joint petitioners 18 at this time?
19 MR. DOERFLEIN: This is Larry Doerflein.
20 I don't.
2 MR. VAIDYA: Okay. Thank you.
22 As I previously stated, the licensees are 23 not part of the PRB's decision-making process. However, 24 does the licensee have any clarifying questions for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
57 1 NRC's PRB or for the petitioners at this time?
2 MR. MANNAI: Yes, this is Dave Mannai.
3 Entergy has no questions.
4 MR. VAIDYA: Okay. Well, we go to the next 5 phase. Before I conclude the meeting, members of the 6 public may ask questions about the 2.206 process at this 7 time.
8 However, as stated at the opening, the 9 purpose of this meeting does not include the opportunity 10 for the petitioner or the public to question or examine 11 the PRB regarding the merits of the petition request.
12 As a reminder, if members of the public 13 believe they did not have the opportunity to ask their 14 questions about the 2.206 petition at the end of the 15 question session because of time limitations, then they 16 can submit their questions in writing to me, the Petition 17 Manager, Bhalchandra Vaidya, at my email address, 18 bhalchandra.vaidya@nrc.gov.
19 We will now change the public line from the 20 listening mode to the open mode. I could not identify 21 sitting here whether there were any members of the public 22 on the line or not, but at this time, I'm looking at 23 the control room to see whether they can switch the public 24 line to the open board, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
58 I Is there anybody on the public line?
2 MS. WARREN: This is Barbara Warren with 3 Citizens' Environmental Coalition. I would appreciate 4 it if, as you suggested, that you could review the next 5 steps that you will be taking on this petition? You 6 know, the process?
7 MS. BANIC: This is Lee Banic, the 8 coordinator. Next will be getting the transcript and 9 reviewing it and sending it out to the Board for review, 10 and then the Board will have a closed meeting to make 11 an initial recommendation considering the supplemental 12 information in the petition.
13 After that, we'll inform the petitioners 14 of our initial recommendation. You'll get a second 15 chance to address the Board, as similarly as today.
16 And another transcript will be made and reviewed, and 17 then the Board will meet again for its final 18 recommendation, and you will be informed of that 19 recommendation.
20 The transcript should arrive here -- this 21 transcript, within a week, and we'll have another week 22 to review it probably, and then maybe the third week, 23 have our internal meeting to make a recommendation. So, 24 within a month, I would say you'd get our initial NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
59 1 recommendation.
2 MR. VAIDYA: Okay. Mr. Gunter had 3 indicated that he had a couple of questions, so.
4 MR. GUNTER: Yes. Thank you. I guess my 5 question has to do with the internal deliberations of 6 the PRB and if they are - it's my understanding they're 7 not transcribed, but we have some concerns and questions 8 about the transparency that we would request that the 9 deliberations -- is there a process by which we can make 10 the deliberations of this Petition Review Board a matter 11 of public record, so perhaps a question more directly 12 to the Office of General Counsel, are the deliberations, 13 the internal deliberations of the Petition Review Board 14 a matter of availability through the Freedom of 15 Information Act?
16 MS. SCOTT: The deliberations themselves 17 are not made public, as part of the Management Directive 18 8.11. However, if there are documents that are 19 generated by that, then if there is a Freedom of 2 Information Act request, then we would look through that 21 to see if they could be provided.
22 MR. VAIDYA: Any other questions from the 23 public at this time? I guess not. So, well, at this 24 time, I'll turn it over back to the Chairman.
NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealmross.com v
60 1 CHAIRMAN LEE: Yes, I'll make some closing 2 remarks.
3 Ms. Azulay and Mr. Paul Gunter and 4 participating petitioners, thank you for taking the time 5 out to provide the NRC staff with clarifying information 6 on the petition you've submitted.
7 And before we close, does the court reporter 8 need any additional information?
9 COURT REPORTER: I'll have a few questions 10 after the meeting.
11 CHAIRMAN LEE: Okay. We'll handle that 12 after the meeting.
13 Okay, with that, this meeting is concluded, 14 and we will be terminating the telephone connection.
15 Thank you.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 17 concluded at 1:51 p.m.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 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