ML15181A225
| ML15181A225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/2015 |
| From: | Watford M Plant Licensing Branch IV |
| To: | |
| Watford M | |
| References | |
| NRC-1653, TAC MF6268 | |
| Download: ML15181A225 (24) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Columbia Generating Station Docket Number:
50-397 Location:
teleconference Date:
Friday, June 12, 2015 Work Order No.:
NRC-1653 Pages 1-23 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL RE:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION
+ + + + +
FRIDAY JUNE 12, 2015
+ + + + +
The conference call was held at 1:30 p.m.,
George Wilson, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
PETITIONERS: CHARLES JOHNSON & PEGGY MAZE JOHNSON PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
GEORGE WILSON Deputy Director Division of Operator Reactor Licensing
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 C O N T E N T S Page Introduction of Participants.......................3 Introduction of Proceedings........................7 Chairman Wilson Remarks............................7 Summary of the Petition............................9 Presentation by Charles Johnson...................11 Presentation by Peggy Maze Johnson................15 Presentation by Charles Johnson...................17 Public Comment....................................19 Comment by Mr. Gregoire...........................20 Summary of Comments...............................21 Closing Remarks...................................22
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:31 p.m.
2 MS. WATFORD: Okay, I'd like to thank 3
everybody for attending this meeting today. My name 4
is Maggie Watford and I am an NRC Project Manager in 5
the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing at the U.S.
6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
7 We are here today to allow the Petitioners, 8
Chuck -- Charles or Chuck Johnson and Peggy Johnson, 9
to address the Petition Review Board regarding the 10 2.206 Petition dated March 13, 2015.
11 I am the Petition Manager for this 12 Petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is 13 George Wilson. As part of the Petition Review Board's 14 or PRB's review of this Petition, Chuck Johnson and 15 Peggy Johnson have requested this opportunity to 16 address the PRB.
17 This meeting is scheduled from 1:30 p.m.
18 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern. The meeting is being recorded 19 by the NRC Operations Center. And will be transcribed 20 by a Court Reporter.
21 The transcript will become a supplement to 22 the Petition. The transcript will also be made 23 publically available.
24 I'd like to open this meeting with 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 introductions. The PRB Chair is George Wilson. I'd 1
like the rest of the Petition Review Board to introduce 2
themselves.
3 As we go around the room, please be sure 4
to clearly state your name, your position, and the 5
office that you work for within the NRC for the Record.
6 So, I'll start off.
7 Again, this is Maggie Watford. I'm the 8
Petition Manager, and I'm with NRR [Office of Nuclear 9
Reactor Regulation].
10 CHAIRMAN WILSON: George Wilson, I'm the 11 Deputy Director of the Division of Operating Reactor 12 Licensing. And I'm the PRB Chair.
13
- MR. SHERMA: Amen Sherma, Nuclear 14 Security Branch, NRR.
15 MR. GULLA: Gerry Gulla, Enforcement 16 Specialist, Office of Enforcement.
17 MS.
BANIC:
Lee
- Banic, Petitioner 18 Coordinator, NRR.
19 MS. WATFORD: All right. That is 20 everyone at NRC Headquarters. Are there any NRC 21 participants from the Regional or from the Headquarters 22 first on the phone?
23 MR. MARKLEY: Mike Markley, NRR Branch 24 Chief, DORL [Division of Operating Reactor Licensing].
25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SINGAL: This is Balwant Singal, 1
Project Manager for Columbia from Headquarters 2
[Division of Operating Reactor Licensing].
3 MR. PURTSCHER: And this is Pat PURTSCHER.
4 I'm a member of DE, the Department of Engineering, EVIB 5
[Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch in NRR].
6 MS. JEHLE: Patricia Jehle, Office of the 7
General Counsel with NRC.
8 MR. POEHLER: Yes, this is Jeff Poehler 9
from NRR, Division of Engineering, Vessel and Internals 10 Integrity Branch.
11 MS. WATFORD: Are there any other NRC 12 participants from Headquarters on the phone?
13 MR. STEVENS: Yes. There's a Gary 14 Stevens, NRR Vessel and Internals Integrity Branch.
15 MS. WATFORD: All right. Are there any 16 NRC participants from the Regional Office on the phone?
17 MS. GEPFORD: Heather Gepford, Branch 18 Chief for Plant Support, Branch 2 in Region IV.
19 MR. DRAKE: Jim Drake, Senior Reactor 20 Inspector, Region IV.
21 MS. WATFORD: Are there any other NRC 22 members that I missed?
23 (No response) 24 MS. WATFORD: Okay, are there any 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 representatives for the Licensee on the phone?
1 MR. GREGOIRE: Yes. This is Don 2
Gregoire, Regulatory Affairs Manager. And I'm also 3
here joined with John Dobken from our Public Affairs 4
organization and Steve Richter from our Engineering 5
organization.
6 MS.
WATFORD:
Are there any 7
representatives from the public on the line today?
8 MS. NEWELL: This is Nancy Newell from 9
Oregon Green Energy Coalition.
10 MS. WATFORD: All right. I think that's 11 all for the introductions unless I missed anyone.
12 Okay, so Chuck Johnson and Peggy Johnson, would you 13 please introduce yourselves for the record?
14 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Hang on just a 15 second. Sorry, what was -- what did you just ask?
16 MS. WATFORD: Just a quick, little 17 introduction and then I'll proceed with the rest of our 18 intro.
19 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So, yes, I'm Chuck 20 Johnson. And I'm with the Oregon and Washington 21 Chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the 22 Joint Task Force on Nuclear Power.
23 MS. JOHNSON: My name is Peggy Maze 24 Johnson. I'm Project Manager for Heart of America 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Northwest in the State of Washington.
1 MS. WATFORD: Okay, thank you. I'm going 2
to continue on. It is not required for members of the 3
public to introduce themselves for this call.
4 However, if there -- oh, we already did this.
5 If there are any members of the public that 6
wish to do so at this time, please state your name for 7
the record. And I think we already did that.
8 I'd like to emphasize that we need -- we 9
each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that 10 the Court Reporter can accurately transcribe this 11 meeting. If you do have something that you would like 12 to say, to please first state your name for the record.
13 For those dialing into the meeting, please 14 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 15 noise or distraction. If you do not have a mute button, 16 this can be done by pressing the keys star six. And 17 to unmute you can press star six again. Thank you.
18 At this time we'll turn it over to the PRB 19 Chairman, George Wilson.
20 CHAIRMAN WILSON: I want to welcome 21 everybody to this meeting regarding the 2.206 Petition 22 submitted by Charles Johnson and Peggy Johnson. I'd 23 first like to share some background on our 2.206 24 process.
25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 1
Federal Regulations describes the Petition process, 2
the primary mechanism for the public to request 3
enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
4 This process permits anyone to petition the NRC to take 5
enforcement type action related to NRC licensees or 6
licensed activities.
7 Depending on the results of its 8
evaluations, the NRC could modify, suspend or revoke 9
an NRC issued license. Or take any other appropriate 10 enforcement action to resolve a problem.
11 The NRC staff's guidance for the 12 disposition of the 2.206 Petition requests are located 13 in Management Directive 8.11, which is publically 14 available.
15 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 16 the Petitioners an opportunity to provide any 17 additional explanation or support the Petition before 18 the Petition Review Board's initial consideration and 19 recommendation.
20 This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 21 opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 22 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 23 Petition request. No decisions regarding the merits 24 of this Petition will be made at this meeting.
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Following the meeting, the Petition Review 1
Board will conduct its internal deliberations. The 2
outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with 3
the Petitioners.
4 The Petitioner Review Board typically 5
consists of a Chairman, a Manager at the Senior 6
Executive Service level, and that's myself. It has a 7
Petitioner Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
8 Other members of the Board are determined 9
by the NRC staff based on the content of the information 10 requested. The members have already introduced 11 themselves.
12 As described in our process, the NRC staff 13 may have clarifying questions in order to better 14 understand the Petitioners' presentation. And to 15 reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject 16 Petitioners' request for review under the 2.206 17 process.
18 At this time I'd like to summarize the 19 scope of the Petition under consideration and the NRC 20 activities to date.
21 On May 13, 2015, you submitted to the NRC 22 a Petition under 2.206 regarding Columbia Generating 23 Station, on which you requested a number of actions.
24 The major actions included concern modifying the 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 operating license and/or suspend the restart of the 1
Columbia Generating Station until a known crack in the 2
jet pump riser well is repaired.
3 Allow me to discuss at this time the NRC 4
activities to date. On May 27, 2015, the PRB reviewed 5
your request for immediate action to prevent Columbia 6
Generating Station restart and determined that there 7
were no significant concerns to prevent the plant from 8
restarting as scheduled.
9 The NRC has reviewed the licensee's 10 evaluation of the crack in the jet pump riser to riser 11 brace well (RS9) for jet pump repair 17 and 18 in the 12 report dated April 14, 2015 and concluded that it does 13 not pose a threat to the reactor or other plant 14 components.
15 Based on the review of the licensee's 16 evaluation related to the crack in the jet pump riser 17 weld, there were no immediate safety -- no immediate 18 significant safety concerns to prevent the plant from 19 restarting as scheduled.
20 Your request for the immediate actions to 21 prevent Columbia Generating Station restart did not 22 have adequate basis. Therefore your request to 23 prevent the [Columbia Generating Station] -- from 24 restarting was denied.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 You were informed of this decision on June 1
1, 2015 from the PRB's decision to deny your request 2
for immediate action. On May 22, 2015 and June 1, 2015, 3
the Petition Manager contacted you to discuss the 10 4
CFR 2.206 process and to offer you an opportunity to 5
address the PRB.
6 You requested to address the PRB by phone 7
prior to its internal meeting to make initial 8
recommendation to accept or reject the Petition review.
9 As a reminder for the phone participants, 10 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as this 11 will help us in the preparation of the meeting 12 transcript that will be made publicly available.
13 I will at this time thank you for 14 listening. And Charles Johnson, I will turn this over 15 to you and allow you the opportunity to add any 16 additional information you believe the PRB should 17 consider as part of your Petition.
18 You have approximately 40 minutes for your 19 presentation.
20 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you very much, 21 Mr. Wilson. The main thing that I would ask the PRB 22 to consider in reconsidering your decision about having 23 the Energy Northwest repair this crack in the riser 24 inside the -- that holds the jet pumps inside the 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 reactor vessel, would be the additional earthquake 1
information that has recently been reported through the 2
Fukushima required earthquake reevaluation process.
3 There was a hearing [public meeting] on 4
June 5 that took place after your June 1 decision, in 5
which the results were presented to the public. And 6
during that hearing [public meeting], I noticed that 7
there was considerable discussion between the NRC and 8
Energy Northwest's contractors about the question of 9
the magnitude and frequency of potential ground motion 10 at the site.
11 It's clear from what the decision was in 12 terms of how -- that the NRC is requiring that Energy 13 Northwest come back in two years with some sort of a 14 discussion of what they intend to do about the fact that 15 there appears to be more a potential for larger ground 16 motion then the plant was originally designed to 17 withstand.
18 That is a -- to me is a factor that really 19 needs to be more -- taken more seriously when 20 considering questions like this crack in this riser 21 inside of the reactor vessel.
22 If we had an earthquake, a sizable 23 earthquake, greater -- a beyond design earthquake that 24 caused numerous problems, including some additional 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 damage to the riser, you potentially could have water 1
draining from the reactor vessel and an inability to 2
cool it in the way that the plant was designed to 3
operate.
4 And that combined with a potentially other 5
additional problems at the site could lead to an 6
accident. And so therefore, for that reason, I think 7
you really need to take every one of these problems that 8
have been identified, extremely seriously. And 9
address them.
10 You don't want to cut into your safety 11 margin when you know that the plant is already operating 12 in an area that in the -- with a potential for beyond 13 design earthquakes that wasn't known when the plant was 14 originally approved.
15 So, that's really the -- that's the crux 16 of why we're indicating you ought to do this. Ideally, 17 you would do some sort of an ultrasound inside the 18 reactor vessel to see if there's additional cracking 19 beyond what you've already identified inside the 20 reactor vessel.
21 For example, when you did -- when this was 22 found in 2011, it was later determined in looking at 23 back photographs that there were signs that this crack 24 was appearing as early as 2001.
25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 It's possible that there are additional 1
cracks or weaknesses inside the reactor vessel that 2
haven't been detected yet. And its still in the 3
susceptibility for this to happen in this case.
4 And therefore, I think it really needs to 5
be looked at more broadly throughout the entire reactor 6
vessel. We're not asking for that with this particular 7
2.206 Petition.
8 We're asking simply that a known crack be 9
fixed rather then using work around of the -- adding 10 additional hydrogen to the water. Although we don't 11 know because its proprietary, we don't know exactly 12 what you're doing to compensate for the fact that you 13 have a crack in a place where it shouldn't be.
14 And therefore, we can't forward this onto 15 experts at Union of Concerned Scientists or Fairwind 16 Associates for their evaluation. And that puts us at 17 a disadvantage of really understanding upon what basis 18 you chose to say that it's okay to continue to operate 19 the plant and not fix the crack.
20 At this point, I think that's really all 21 that I have to add. I believe Peggy has some additional 22 concerns to express as well.
23 And then perhaps some members of the 24 public. I think I heard that Steve Gilbert from WPSR 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
[Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility] was 1
on. I'm not sure. But, perhaps he would want to make 2
a statement as well.
3 Thank you for your time.
4 CHAIRMAN WILSON: Peggy, do you have some 5
statements that you would like to make also?
6 MR. JOHNSON: Maybe she got bounced off 7
somehow.
8 MS. JOHNSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I had -- I was 9
obeying and I had my -- I was on mute.
10 My name is Peggy Maze Johnson. And I'm 11 with Heart of America Northwest.
12 We're an organization that's been around 13 20 years. And the reason for our existence was 14 checking out what was going on at the Hanford 15 Reservation as far as the cleanup.
16 Even though U.S. DOE [Department of 17 Energy] does not claim the Columbia Generating Station, 18 it indeed sits right in the middle of the Hanford 19 Reservation. And has, according to a report issued by 20 Robert Alvarez, has as much waste generated by the plant 21 as the whole rest of the Hanford Reservation.
22 We find that that is very serious when you 23 consider the safety of this plant. We believe that you 24 are essentially saying that the reactors are operating 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 outside of the license.
1 And we don't understand why you think 2
that's okay. This sits right at the mouth -- this sits 3
right on the Columbia River, which we find is a precious 4
resource for our northwest.
5 The NRC knew about the crack in 2011. But 6
we believe that they knew that it existed in 2001. And 7
we can't prove it.
8 But they have a history of not being 9
transparent. And we believe that cutting corners on 10 safety by this operator is unacceptable.
11 We have a membership in the northwest of 12 about ten thousand people that we communicate with on 13 a regular basis. And they have expressed their 14 concerns about the operation of this plant.
15 After Fukushima, it was said by various 16 people that this plant very closely replicates the 17 Daiichi plant at Fukushima. And that there was no 18 additional inspections because of that.
19 And because of the fact that it sits on this 20 earthquake fault that their safety is at risk. And we 21 find that very troubling that the NRC thinks that this 22 is okay.
23 So we are asking to please take another 24 look at this. To not allow them to operate outside of 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 your safety standards. And wait another five years for 1
another inspection. You know, what's going to happen 2
between now and then?
3 So, please take another look at it. And 4
allow us the information so that the Union of Concerned 5
Scientists and Fairwind Associates can indeed say yes, 6
this is safe.
7 So, I will stop at that. And I thank you 8
for the opportunity to present our case to you. We find 9
that the NRC, and I know personally that the NRC's 10 standards are very high. And that it is unusual for 11 you to allow somebody to operate below that.
12 So, thank you very much for this 13 opportunity.
14 MR. JOHNSON: I have one more thing to add 15 as well. This is Chuck Johnson again.
16 The -- I do want to mention that there's 17 an additional factor that you ought to take into 18 consideration in -- as to whether or not you reverse 19 your position about allowing the continued operation 20 without fixing the crack in the riser, RS9 riser.
21 It's basically Energy Northwest's 22 operation -- current operating mode in that they're --
23 Energy Northwest seems to be showing signs these days 24 of caring more about maintaining an image of efficient 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 operation.
1 And it looks as though in the case of this 2
crack and in the case of the lack of adherence to the 3
emergency plan, which the NRC is going to be holding 4
a hearing [public meeting] with Energy Northwest next 5
week. These are examples of Energy Northwest 6
emphasizing production and downplaying some of the 7
safety needs of the plant.
8 To some degree, they are being pressured 9
regionally to show that they are economic. And we 10 believe that consequently, they're ignoring making 11 repairs and following procedures that are critical to 12 the safety of the plant.
13 And this is an extremely important example 14 of that. So, I'd ask you to consider that. There are 15 a variety of things that could go wrong in an earthquake 16 at the site.
17 There's this continued problem with the 18 control blades of sticking in the GE BWR [General 19 Electric Boiling Water Reactor] reactors. There's a 20 couple of -- the ultimate heat sink for the plant itself 21 is -- are two spray ponds which are linked together.
22 And if one were somehow punctured, would 23 actually drain the other. So you potentially could 24 lose the ultimate heat sink in an earthquake if it were 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 bad enough.
1 So, there are things -- a bad combination 2
of things going wrong could make this plant extremely 3
dangerous in an earthquake. And we don't think that 4
you should ignore repairs that need to be done.
5 That's it. With that I conclude our 6
statement.
7 CHAIRMAN WILSON: At this time does the 8
staff here at Headquarters or anybody in the Region have 9
any questions? Or need any clarifications?
10 (No response) 11 CHAIRMAN WILSON: Does the Licensee have 12 any questions?
13 MR. GREGOIRE: No, we have no questions.
14 CHAIRMAN WILSON: If there's any members 15 of the public before I conclude the meeting, does --
16 the members of the public may provide comments 17 regarding the Petition and ask questions about the 18 2.206 process.
19 However I ask that it be opened. Go ahead.
20 MR. GILBERT: Yes, this is Steven Gilbert.
21 I am also with Washington Physicians for Social 22 Responsibility and live in Seattle.
23 And I just had a couple of quick comments.
24 I'm a toxicologist very interested in public health.
25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And we're a small non-profit institute and an affiliate 1
professor at the University of Washington.
2 In my review of a risk assessment and 3
looking at cost benefits, you know, how we look at the 4
Columbia Generating Station and the issues that 5
continue to be raised, it seems like the risks are 6
greater than the benefits.
7 So, in the effort to keep my comments 8
short, I just want to encourage the NRC to really 9
examine the risk from multiple angles. And consider 10 the benefits.
11 And remembering the operating conditions 12 of Columbia Generating Station. And whether the 13 continued operation of an old reactor, Mark II style, 14 is really worth the risk.
15 So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
16 MR. GREGOIRE: This is Don Gregoire with 17 Energy Northwest. I just want to state that we do 18 appreciate the concerns of these organizations.
19 They are things that we concern ourselves 20 with each day living and working in the area. And we 21 appreciate the NRC's consideration into the factual 22 matter of the considerations there in making their 23 decision.
24 I won't say that we agree with many of the 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 conclusions or comments made. But we do understand and 1
appreciate that people do have concerns.
2 And they have the right to demand that the 3
plant is operated safely. And we expect that of 4
ourselves.
5 And so, I would just again, thank the NRC 6
for taking a look at the effects surrounding this. And 7
make sure that a fair decision is made with regard to 8
the Petition. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN WILSON: Before we go, I want to 10 summarize the additional comments that were made for 11 us to consider. First was additional earthquake 12 information of the new Earthquake information and 13 assessment of the Columbia Generating Station based on 14 the post-Fukushima evaluation.
15 Also, the associated effects on the plant 16 if an earthquake would happen. The proprietary 17 commission control associated with that and 18 potentially trying to get information to get it 19 independently evaluated.
20 Another factor was the current operating 21 mode of Columbia Generating Station maintaining 22 efficient operations of the plant. And the last was 23 the risk of the plant being there, is greater than the 24 benefits of the plant for an older reactor, Mark II 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 containment.
1 Did I catch all the additional concerns 2
that were raised?
3 MR. JOHNSON: I believe so.
4 MS. JOHNSON: This is Peggy Maze Johnson.
5 And one of the things I wish you would address is the 6
location of this plant and the fact that it sits in the 7
middle of the Hanford Reservation.
8 The amount of waste that is there not only 9
from the reactor but from the Hanford Reservation 10 itself. And I think that must be taken into 11 consideration when you're talking about safety.
12 CHAIRMAN WILSON: I understand. And I 13 also had another one, is exactly the placement of the 14 plant and the associated surrounding conditions of the 15 plant with the materials that's associated around the 16 plant if something should happen.
17 Before we close, does the Court Reporter 18 need any additional information for the meeting 19 transcript?
20 COURT REPORTER: I do not.
21 CHAIRMAN WILSON: Charles and Peggy and 22 Steven, I want to thank you for taking time to provide 23 the NRC staff with the clarifying information on the 24 Petition that you submitted. And that I've 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 characterized it total.
1 With that, this meeting is concluded. And 2
we'll be terminating the phone connection.
3 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
4 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you.
5 MR. GILBERT: Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 7
went off the record at 1:58 p.m.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24