ML14148A358
| ML14148A358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2014 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| Lyon C | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14148A336 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, LTR-13-0866, NRC-738, TAC MF3031 | |
| Download: ML14148A358 (24) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Columbia Generating Station Docket Number: G20130776 Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 Work Order No.: NRC-738 Pages 1-22 NEAL R GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE 7 COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION 8 +++++
9 WEDNESDAY 10 APRIL 30, 2014 11 + + + + +
12 The conference call was held, Joe Giitter, 13 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
14 15 PETITIONER: CHARLES JOHNSON 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
18 JOE GIITTER, Director, Division of Risk 19 Assessment, NRR 20 FRED LYON, Petition Manager for 2.206 Petition 21 MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 22 MICHAEL MARKLEY, NRR 23 ANTHONY McMURTRAY, Branch Chief, Mechanical and 24 Civil Engineering Branch, NRR 25 DAVID CYLKOWSKI, OGC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 ENERGY NORTHWEST:
2 J.R. TRAUTVETTER, Acting Regulatory Affairs 3 Manager 4 JOHN DOBKEN, Public Affairs 5 LAURA SCHEELE, Public Affairs 6 MEREDITH ANGWIN, Communications and Social Media 7 Consultant 8 JOHN TWOMEY, Program Manager 9 ABBAS MOSTALA, Civil/Stress Design Authority 10 11 NRC REGION IV:
12 JEREMY GROOM, Senior Resident Inspector 13 DAN BRADLEY, Resident Inspector 14 DUSTIN REINERT, Resident Inspector 15 16 ALSO PRESENT:
17 STEVEN GILBERT, Oregon and Washington Physicians 18 for Social Responsibility 19 NANCY MATELA, Alliance for Democracy 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (3:04:40 p.m.)
3 MR. LYON: I'd like to thank everyone for 4 attending this meeting. My name is Fred Lyon, and I 5 am the Columbia Generating Station Project Manager.
6 We are here today to allow the petitioners 7 representing the Oregon and Washington Physicians for 8 Social Responsibility and the Alliance for Democracy 9 to address the Petition Review Board following the 10 receipt of the Board's initial recommendation 11 regarding the 2.206 petition dated October 31, 2013.
12 I am the Petition Manager for the 13 petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Joe 14 Giitter. As part of the Petition Review Board's 15 review of this petition Chuck Johnson has requested 16 this opportunity to address the PRB.
17 The meeting is scheduled from 3:00 to 4:00 18 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being recorded by 19 the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by 20 a court reporter. The transcript will become a 21 supplement to the petition. The transcript will also 22 be made publicly available.
23 I'd like to open this meeting with 24 introductions. As we go around the room, please be 25 sure to clearly state your name, your position and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 office that you work for within the NRC for the 2 record.
3 MS. BANIC: Merrilee Banic, Petition 4 Coordinator, NRR.
5 MR. CYLKOWSKI: David Cylkowski, Attorney 6 with the Office of General Counsel.
7 CHAIRMAN GliTTER: Joseph Giitter, PRB 8 Chair.
9 MR. MCMURTRAY: Tony McMurtray. I'm a 10 Branch Chief in for Mechanical and Civil Engineering 11 Branch in the Division of Engineering of NRR.
12 MR. LYONS: Those are the folks here at 13 headquarters. J.R., would you introduce your folks 14 one more time for the court reporter?
15 MR. TRAUTVETTER: Okay, this is J.R.
16 Trautvetter, the Acting Regulatory Affairs Manager, 17 Columbia Generating Station.
18 MR. DOBKEN: John Dobken, Public Affairs.
19 MS. SCHEELE: Laura Scheele, Public 20 Affairs.
21 MS. ANGWIN: Meredith Angwin, Facebook and 22 Blogging Specialist.
23 MR. TWOMEY: John Twomey, Technical 24 Services.
25 MR. MOSTALA: Abbas Mostala, Engineering.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 MR. TRAUTVETTER: That's everyone from 2 headquarters.
3 MR. LYON: Thank you, and, Jeremy, would 4 you introduce the regional folks?
5 MR. GROOM: Yes, myself, Jeremy Groom, NRC 6 Senior Resident Inspector. We also have Dan Bradley, 7 NRC Resident Inspector.
8 MR. REINERT: Dustin Reinert, NRC Resident 9 Inspector.
10 MR. GROOM: That's all we have, Fred.
11 MR. LYON: Thank you. Chuck, if you would 12 please introduce yourself and your colleagues for the 13 record.
14 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, I'm Charles Johnson.
15 And I'm the Director of the Joint Task Force under 16 Nuclear Power for Oregon and Washington Physicians for 17 Social Responsibility. I'll let the others introduce 18 themselves.
19 MR. GILBERT: Hello, Steven Gilbert. I'm 20 a toxicologist for Physicians for Social 21 Responsibility.
22 MS. MATELA: This is Nancy Matela, I'm 23 with the Portland Chapter of Alliance for Democracy, 24 and I oversee the Nuclear Committee.
25 MR. LYON: All right, are there any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 others, such as members of the public, on the phone?
2 MR. MARKLEY : Fred, it's Mike Markley.
3 I've joined you. I'm on the phone.
4 MR. LYON: Hi, Mike. I'd like to 5 emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and 6 loudly to make sure that the court reporter can 7 accurately transcribe this meeting.
8 If you do have something that you would 9 like to say please first state your name for the 10 record. At this time I'll turn it over to the PRB 11 Chairman, Joe Giitter.
12 CHAIRMAN GIITTER: Welcome to this meeting 13 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Dr. Pearson 14 and Dr. Gilbert representing the Oregon and Washington 15 Petitions for Social Responsibility, and subsequently 16 joined by Nancy Matela, representing the Alliance for 17 Democracy.
18 I'd like to start off by sharing some 19 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 21 petition process. And I know this isn't the first 22 time around so I know you're familiar with it.
23 But the primary mechanism for the public 24 to request enforcement action by the NRC is this 25 process, the 2.206 process. And it permits anyone to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 petition the NRC, to take enforcement type actions 2 related to NRC licensees or license activities.
3 Depending on the results of its evaluation 4 NRC could potentially modify, suspend or revoke an NRC 5 issued license or take any other appropriate 6 enforcement action to resolve the problem.
7 The NRC staff's guidance for disposition 8 of 2.206 Petition Request is described in our 9 Management Directive 8.11 which, I believe, is 10 actually available on our public Web site.
11 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 12 the petitioner and opportunity to provide additional 13 explanation or support for the petition following the 14 petitioner or the Review Board's initial consideration 15 and recommendation.
16 Just a reminder, this meeting is not a 17 hearing nor is it and opportunity for the petitioner 18 to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the 19 issues presented in the Petition Request. No 20 decisions regarding the merits of this petition will 21 be made at this meeting.
22 Following the meeting the Petition Review 23 Board will conduct it's internal deliberation to make 24 its final recommendation. The Petition Review Board 25 typically consists of the Chairman, usually a manager NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 at the senior executive level at the NRC. But is also 2 has a Petition Manager and PRB Coordinator, who you've 3 heard from.
4 Other members of the Board are determined 5 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 6 information in the Petition Request. And again, you 7 heard who those individuals are in the introductions.
8 For reference, I think we already 9 introduced the Board. Do we need to do that? Okay, 10 so we're done with that. I'd like to summarize the 11 scope of the position under the consideration in the 12 NRC activities today.
13 On October 31, 2013 Dr. Pearson and Dr.
14 Gilbert, representing the Oregon and Washington 15 Physicians for Social Responsibility, responded to a 16 letter to them from Chairman Mcfarlane concerning new 17 information about seismic hazards to Columbia 18 Generating Station.
19 After reviewing the letter the NRC staff 20 decided that it should be put into the 2.206 process 21 because it specifically requested that the Columbia 22 Generating Station be shut down. In its Petition 23 Request the petitioners identified the following areas 24 of concern.
25 Number one, the petitioners requested that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 the NRC provide the data used by the NRC to continue 2 to conclude that the Columbia Generating Station has 3 been designed, built and operated to safely withstand 4 earthquakes likely to occur in its region.
5 Number two, to shut down the Columbia 6 Generating Station Nuclear Power Plant immediately 7 until it can be shown that it meets adequate 8 earthquake standards.
9 As a basis for this request the 10 petitioners provide evidence that, to their knowledge, 11 more current information available has not been 12 considered by the NRC in its seismic evaluation at the 13 Columbia Generating Station.
14 Allow me to discuss the NRC to date. On 15 December 17, 2013 the PRB discussed the petitioners' 16 request for immediate action. The PRB decided to deny 17 the request because the petitioners provided no new 18 information demonstrating an immediate safety concern 19 to the plant or to the health and safety of the public 20 as documented in the evaluation that was provided.
21 The plant is already undergoing a seismic 22 hazard review and the issues raised by the petitioners 23 are encompassed by what we call the 50.54(f) letters, 24 letters that went out to all licensees on March 12th 25 of 2012 requesting information regarding the seismic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 re-evaluation of the site.
2 The determination was approved by the 3 Deputy Director of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor 4 Regulation, Jennifer Uhle, on December 23, 2013. Then 5 on February 4, 2014 the petitioners addressed the PRB 6 prior to its initial meeting and submitted additional 7 information for consideration.
8 On, March 24, 2014 the Petition Manager 9 informed the petitioners that the initial 10 recommendation of the PRB was to reject the petition.
11 Then, on April 14, 2014, the petitioners requested to 12 address the PRB again before the PRB's final 13 recommendation.
14 As a reminder for the phone participants, 15 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as it 16 will help us ln the preparation of the meeting 17 transcript that will be made publicly available.
18 So, Mr. Johnson, I'm going to turn it over 19 to you to allow you and your colleagues to provide any 20 additional information you believe the PRB should 21 consider as part of its petition.
22 MR. JOHNSON: Oh, thank you very much. We 23 appreciate the opportunity to get one more bite of the 24 apple on this particular topic. And unfortunately it 25 doesn't seem that there's much recourse besides this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 process in dealing with the NRC.
2 And we're not terribly hopeful about the 3 outcome, although we do believed before we had a good 4 case to make and still believe that is true. Our 5 statement for requesting this meeting was as follows.
6 Given an accident caused by a beyond-7 design basis earthquake at the Waste Encapsulation 8 Storage Facility, WESF, is exactly the scenario we 9 fear for the Columbia Generating Station Nuclear Plant 10 at Hanford and that the voluble spent fuel at the CGS/
11 can not be completely emptied without shutting down 12 the reactor and waiting for several years, we believe 13 that closing the reactor now until appropriate seismic 14 upgrades can be made at the plant is the most prudent 15 course.
16 I then referenced an audit report from the 17 Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department 18 of Energy and a news article from the Tri-City Herald 19 that's dated April 23, 2013. And the Inspector 20 General stated that, excuse me, it would seem that the 21 same thing that made the U.S. DOE's Office of the 22 Inspector General concerned about the beyond-design 23 earthquake hazard at the WESF facility should be of 24 equal concern to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 25 Energy Northwest.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 Degraded concrete and earthquakes that 2 create greater than the planned for ground motion are 3 not a good combination for containing a reactor at an 4 elevated pool filled with spent nuclear fuel. To this 5 statement I would add some links to that study on the 6 behavior of dry concrete which the CGS is spent full 7 of, due to its liner, would be bombarded by high doses 8 of radiation.
9 And this testimony I have already 10 submitted to Fred Lyons. And I would ask that he put 11 it into the record. It has four links that of studies 12 of concrete under bombardment from high doses of 13 radiation and the behavior of the concrete. You will 14 notice that the first document is an NRC document and 15 the fourth is by the same two authors of the NRC 16 report.
17 While this issue of concrete is known, 18 nevertheless, it is not clear that there has been an 19 analysis of the concrete composition of the CGS' s 20 spent fuel pool and other critical places in the 21 reactor building where concrete reinforcement is 22 exposed to radiation and an assessment of the amount 23 of damage that may have been done to the concrete's 24 structural integrity.
25 Given that we know that the site has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 greater seismic potential and thus more ground motion 2 than was known when the plant was built, it would make 3 sense for the NRC to show as much caution as the 4 Office of its Inspector General for the U.S.
5 Department of Energy did when they stated in their 6 March 26, 2014 memorandum accompanying the long-term, 7 the study entitled Long-term Storage of Cesium and 8 Strontium at the Hanford Site.
9 "One possible threat is a severe 10 earthquake that may result in loss of power and/or 11 loss of water in the WESP's pool. The Department's 12 Office of Environmental Management considers WESP its 13 largest 'beyond design threat' facility and has 14 identified movement of the capsules that drive storage 15 as a potential interim measure to mitigate the risk 16 posed by these threats."
17 I want to point out that this is the 18 second time that the U.S. DOE has taken action or 19 recommended taking action based upon the revised 20 earthquake knowledge on the Hanford site, the fist 21 being the one-year delay in construction of the waste 22 treatment plant in 2005 until it could be reinforced 23 to meet the higher ground motion now known to be 24 possible on the Hanford Reservation.
25 In contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 Commission has remained content to wait until March 2 2 015, when Energy Northwest completes its seismic 3 review, before it requires any modification of the 4 seismic standards the plant needs to meet. We aks 5 that you consider this concrete degradation issue as 6 one more reason why the Columbia Generating Station 7 should be shut down until it can be positively 8 determined it can withstand a worst case earthquake.
9 In the case of potential nuclear plant 10 accidents the NRC should err on the side of caution.
11 The downside of being wrong is just too heavy a burden 12 to bear.
13 Another issue I wish to forward to you is 14 not strictly one that is earthquake related but it 15 does outline a potential pathway for a catastrophic 16 accident. In the course of organizing an independent 17 study of the CGS Nuclear plant, Oregon and Washington 18 PSR hired licensed engineering geologist Terry Tolan 19 to conduct a series of studies.
20 The first of which was an analysis of 21 current knowledge of the potential for seismic 22 activity at the CGS site which was the basis for our 23 letter to Chairwoman Allison Mcfarlane and this 2.206 24 petition process. Mr. Tolan also completed studies of 25 volcanic activity and flooding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 In the volcanic activity study Tolan found 2 the preparations at the plant to be adequate to meet 3 the potential threat. In his study of potential 4 flooding danger, which is attached along with his 5 testimony with his cover, memo and four maps, Tolan 6 found that the NRC 1 s worst case flooding scenario of 7 a terrorist completely destroying the Grand Coulee Dam 8 did not take into account two major issues.
9 One, the chaos a huge wall of water 10 completely inundating the city of Richland would 11 create in destroying the infrastructure and making 12 access to this site difficult if not impossible for 13 additional personnel and equipment.
14 And, two, the combination of elevated 15 ground water levels in a worst case dam burst at Grand 16 Coulee would raise ground water levels four feet 17 higher than the design basis ground water level for 18 the CGS 11 and put structure systems and components at 19 risk. 11 20 Please note that we are not claiming and 21 earthquake could cause this water inundation scenario.
22 As Mr. Nolan agrees with the NRC that an earthquake 23 could not release the volume of water that a terrorist 24 detonation could in that there would likely be 25 remnants of the dam in place that would reduce the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 size of the flood.
2 Finally, I want to note a couple of 3 objections to the rationale for rejecting our previous 4 appeal which you sent my by email on March 24, 2014.
5 I quote your concluding statement.
6 "The PRE's initial recommendation is to 7 reject the petition ln accordance with MD 8.11 and 8 with Part 3, Paragraph C(2), Criteria for Rejecting 9 Petitions Under 10 CFR 2.206 because the petitioners 10 raised issues that have already been subject of the 11 NRC staff review and evaluation either on that 12 facility or other similar facilities or on a generic 13 basis for which a resolution has been achieved, the 14 issues have been resolved and the resolution is 15 applicable to the facility in question."
16 We question whether the issue of GE BWR's 17 potential inability to insert control rods during an 18 earthquake has been resolved as we have been shown no 19 evidence that it has. This is a particularly serious 20 issue and I attached the Union of Concerned 21 Scientists' Web site analysis of the issue to refresh 22 the record.
23 The combination of it not being clearly 24 established at the CGS Nuclear Plant can withstand an 25 earthquake with its key cooling and power systems NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 intact and its persistent unsolved problem of control 2 rods sinking in an earthquake could lead to an 3 enormously damaging catastrophe if the reactor loses 4 coolant with no ability to shut it down.
5 When you add to all of these issues the 6 fact that the Nuclear Regulator Commission has now 7 given Energy Northwest until 2017 to complete hardened 8 vents on its containment, vents that are designed to 9 prevent a hydrogen explosion that would most likely 10 occur at the plant in a Fukushima-style loss of 11 coolant accident you have to conclude that the NRC is 12 taking a very lackadaisical approach toward the safety 13 of the workers at the plant, the people of the Tri-14 Cities and everyone downstream along the Columbia 15 River.
16 To wait six years after the Fukushima 17 accident to install vents you know are needed at this 18 plant in unconscionable. The Columbia Generating 19 Station should be shut down immediately for this 20 reason alone.
21 The message is a basic one. Shut down the 22 plant until you can make certain that it will not 23 suffer a catastrophic accident. We believe the 2.206 24 petition gives you the opportunity you need to perform 25 your function of safeguarding the public, and we urge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 you to take it.
2 And that concludes my testimony. I'm not 3 sure if Dr. Gilbert or if Nancy Matela want to make 4 additional comments at this time.
5 DR. GILBERT: This is Steven Gilbert.
6 I'll make a very brief comment here. I think a 7 precautionary approach can be taken into 8 considerations of earthquake and other potential loss 9 of coolant at the Columbia Generating Station.
10 We've seen the consequence of this at 11 Fukushima. And I think it is appropriate for the NRC 12 to shut down the Columbia Generating Station at least 13 until this stuff is more thoroughly investigated.
14 MS. MATELA: This is Nancy Matela. I'd 15 like to conclude with some general statements. It was 16 just that at least a few people on the NRC staff that 17 have not been out to the Washington/Oregon Hanford 18 site. I just want to pain a picture of what it is out 19 here.
20 It's not a desert that has been totally 21 abandoned. It's a million of us that are within 160 22 miles downriver, that would be the Columbia River, 23 from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation which includes 24 the Western hemisphere's most deadly collection of 25 nuclear waste along with, 15 miles away from that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 place is CGS.
2 Twelve earthquakes, all have been 3 identified recently, but this is not recent 4 information. In 1872 a 7.4 earthquake occurred. The 5 epicenter was only 100 miles from CGS. We in 6 Portland, 160 miles away, sit on a fault that's 7 equivalent to the San Andrea fault in California. And 8 we are overdue for the big one.
9 And next is the flooding which Chuck has 10 errorlessly uncovered. That Grand Coulee Dam is only 11 100 miles above CGS, and there are seven total dams 12 above CGS. So that is right in our backyard.
13 And lastly, come January 2022, it was 14 noted by CNN, don't know the credibility of that 15 report but basically it said that CGS was named a 16 target for terrorists right after 9/11, that that was 17 one of their other plans to attach the U.S. And CGS 18 was named specifically.
19 So I would like to underline again the 20 idea that the vents won't be in for at least another 21 year or more. It's unconscionable. We are in the 22 center of a perfect storm. We are not out in the 23 middle of the desert and a handful of people. We are 24 at least a million people that are jeopardized by this 25 situation.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 We want you to shut it down now and make 2 certain that it is safe before it is started again.
3 It only supplies 3.9 percent of the electricity for 4 the Pacific Northwest. We run a huge risk for a very 5 small amount of power. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN GIITTER: Thank you. At this 7 time does the staff here at headquarters have any 8 questions for the petitioners?
9 Okay, what about the region? Okay, let me 10 turn to Columbia, the Energy Northwest folks.
11 Okay, let me, before I conclude the 12 meeting, are there any other members of the public 13 that wish to provide comments regarding the petition 14 or to ask questions about the 2.206 petition process?
15 However, I stated in the opening, the 16 purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 17 opportunity for the petitioner or the public to 18 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 19 the petition request. So let me ask again, any 20 additional comments?
21 Okay, then, Mr. Johnson and Dr. Gilbert 22 and Ms. Matela, I want to thank you for taking the 23 time to provide the NRC staff with the additional 24 information on the position you submitted.
25 With that this meeting is concluded and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 we'll be terminating the phone connection.
2 MR. JOHNSON: Oh, one question before you 3 terminate.
4 CHAIRMAN GliTTER: Yes.
5 MR. JOHNSON: How soon do you expect to 6 respond to us, to our request? Or how soon do you 7 expect to make final determination, I should say?
8 CHAIRMAN GliTTER: That's a good question.
9 I'm going to have the Petition Manager answer that 10 question.
11 MR. LYONS: Well, a couple of things.
12 One, we will go through our process. Since you've 13 just given us new information to consider today we 14 will take that information and what you provided 15 earlier and review it and see if it is new information 16 that we need to consider for these issues.
17 And then, as you and Nancy implied, it is 18 incumbent on us, the NRC staff, to justify the 19 decision that we make. And so we will prepare our 20 final recommendation that will go up to senior 21 management. And, of course, they have the final say.
22 And as I've said before, it's not just a, 23 it may not be just a we accept your petition or we 24 reject your petition. We also have the option of 25 accepting part and rejecting part. And wh9-tever NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 decision that we make we will decide. So I would say 2 I would estimate a month to do the review and then 3 work through our process.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN GliTTER: Any additional 6 comments? Okay, that concludes this conference then.
7 I appreciate your support.
8 (Whereupon, the conference in the above-9 entitled matter was concluded at 3:32:59 p.m.)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceeding: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition in re Columbia Generating Station by Charles Johnson Docket Number: G20130776 Location: Teleconference were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction and that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.
Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com