ML15216A047
| ML15216A047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2015 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Pickett D | |
| References | |
| NRC-1742 | |
| Download: ML15216A047 (58) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 Docket Number:
05000247 Location:
Teleconference Date:
Wednesday, July 15, 2015 Edited by:
Douglas Pickett Work Order No.:
NRC-1742 Pages 1-58 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL RE INDIAN POINT
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY JULY 15, 2015
+ + + + +
The conference call was held, Christopher Miller, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
PETITIONER: PAUL BLANCH PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS DOUG PICKETT, Petition Manager for 2.206 petition BENJAMIN BEASLEY DAVID BEAULIEU 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 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF DAVID CYLKOWSKI MICHAEL DUDEK ANDERS GILBERTSON JENNIFER HAUSER MICHAEL McCOPPIN TERRI SPICHER RAO TAMMARA WILLIAM THOMPSON JOHN WRAY ROBERT CARPENTER NRC REGION I STAFF ARTHUR BURRITT THOMAS SETZER PAUL KROHN 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
2:41 p.m.
2 MR. PICKETT: Good afternoon. I'd like 3
to thank everybody for attending this meeting. My 4
name is Doug Pickett, and I am the Indian Point 5
project manager. We are here today to allow the 6
Petitioner, Mr. Paul Blanch, assisted by Mr. Richard 7
Kuprewicz of Accufacts Incorporated, to make a second 8
presentation in support of his petition before the 9
Petition Review Board, also referred to as the PRB.
10 I am the petition manager for the petition. The PRB 11 chairman is Mr. Christopher Miller.
12 As part of the PRB review of this 13 petition, Mr. Paul Blanch has requested this 14 opportunity to address the PRB. In accordance with 15 NRC Management Directive 8.11, the purpose of today's 16 second presentation is to allow the Petitioner to 17 comment on the initial recommendation of the PRB and 18 to provide additional information that supports the 19 original petition.
20 Today's meeting is scheduled from 2:30 to 21 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting is being 22 recorded by the NRC Operation Center and will be 23 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 24 become a supplement to the petition, and the 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
4 transcript will also be made publicly available. I'd 1
like to open this meeting with introductions. As we 2
go around the room in here, in NRC headquarters, in 3
Rockville, Maryland, please be sure to clearly state 4
your name, your position, and the office that you 5
work for within the NRC. I'll start with myself.
6 I'm Doug Pickett. I'm the NRR project manager for 7
Indian Point, and I'm the petition manager for this 8
petition.
9 CHAIR MILLER: My name is Chris Miller.
10 I'm the PRB chairman, and I'll be speaking with you 11 in a minute.
12 MR. BEASLEY: Ben Beasley. I'm a board 13 member. I'm also a branch chief in the Division for 14 Operating Reactor Licensing.
15 MR. CYLKOWSKI: This is David Cylkowski.
16 I'm an attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
17 MR. THOMPSON: William Thompson. I'm a 18 senior special agent with the Office of 19 Investigations.
20 MR. BEAULIEU: I'm David Beaulieu. I'm 21 a board member. I'm the project manager in the 22 Division of Policies and Rule Making.
23 MR. TAMMARA: I'm Rao Tammara. I'm a 24 technical reviewer in NRO [Office of New Reactors].
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
5 MR. MCCOPPIN: Mike McCoppin, chief of 1
the Radiation Protection and Accident Consequence 2
Branch, Office of New Reactors.
3 MR. GILBERTSON: Anders Gilbertson, 4
reliability and risk analyst, Office of Research.
5 MS. HAUSER: Jenny Hauser, project 6
manager, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
7 MR. WRAY: John Wray, along with Robert 8
Carpenter, from the Office of Enforcement.
9 MR. DUDEK: Michael Dudek, acting chief 10 for Project 1 Branch.
11 MR. PICKETT: Okay, we've completed the 12 introductions of the NRC headquarters. At this time, 13 are there any NRC participants from headquarters on 14 the phone?
15 MS. SPICHER: Yes, Terri Spicher from IG 16
[Office of the Inspector General].
17 MR. PICKETT: Okay, are there any NRC 18 participants from the regional office on the phone?
19 MR. SETZER: Yes, this is Tom Setzer, 20 senior project engineer for Project Branch 2.
21 MR. BURRITT: Art Burritt, branch chief 22 responsible for inspections at Indian Point.
23 MR. KROHN: Paul Krohn, branch chief, DRS 24 engineer.
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
6 MR.
PICKETT:
Are there any 1
representatives for the Licensee on the phone?
2 MR. WALPOLE: Yes, Doug. It's Bob 3
Walpole, regulatory assurance manager. With me is 4
Steve Prussman, and also John Skonieczny, and we have 5
more people from Entergy listening in.
6 MR. PICKETT: Mr. Blanch and Mr.
7 Kuprewicz, would you please introduce yourselves, 8
along with anyone else assisting you, for the record?
9 MR. BLANCH: At the time, there's no one 10 else. Dave Lochbaum, if he has time, may be calling 11 in.
12 MR. PICKETT: Okay. I'd like to 13 emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and 14 loudly, to make sure that the court reporter can 15 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you have 16 something that you would like to say, please first 17 state your name. At this time, I'll turn this over 18 to the PRB chairman, Chris Miller.
19 CHAIR MILLER: Good afternoon, and thank 20 you for joining us. We appreciate the information 21 we've received so far during this process, as the 22 Board is using the information to make our decision.
23 We look forward to the information you've provided us 24 today. I'd like to first share some background.
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
7 Section 2.206 of Title 10, Code of Federal 1
Regulations, describes the petition process, the 2
primary mechanism for the public to request 3
enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
4 As Doug mentioned, our guidance for 2.206 comes from 5
Management Directive 8.11, and that's publicly 6
available. The focus of today's meeting is a follow 7
up to get any information that the Petitioner wants 8
to provide us so that we can make our final decision, 9
and for the Petitioner, with any other support that 10 he has, to provide that information, and any other 11 perspectives on our decision process so far.
12 The public will be provided the 13 opportunity to provide comments regarding the 14 petition.
15 (Telephonic interference.)
16 CHAIR MILLER: The purpose of the 17 meeting is not to provide an opportunity for 18 questioning the PRBs decision so far, but more to 19 gain additional information to help support and make 20 the decision. It's not a hearing. It's not an 21 opportunity to go into the merits of, as I said, the 22 decision making, other than to provide additional 23 information into that decision making.
24 We're not going to make a decision in 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
8 this forum here. We're going to seek information and 1
have a separate PRB meeting to consider the 2
additional information that has been cited.
3 Following this meeting, the Petition Review Board 4
will conduct a deliberation, and the outcome of the 5
internal meeting will be provided to the Petitioner.
6 The PRB typically consists of a chairman, a manager 7
at the senior executive level, a petition manager, 8
and a PRB coordinator. As described in our process, 9
the NRC may ask clarifying questions in order to 10 better understand the Petitioner's presentation and 11 reach our reasoned decision whether to accept or 12 reject the Petitioner's request.
13 At this time, I want to summarize the 14 scope of the petition that we are considering within 15 the Board. On October 15, 2014, Mr. Blanch submitted 16 a 2.206 petition to the NRC regarding the 50.59 Site 17 Hazards Analysis prepared by Entergy, the Licensee 18 for Indian Point. A 50.59 analysis was performed by 19 the Licensee to determine the safety impact on the 20 Indian Point plant due to Spectra Energys proposed 21 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline that is planned 22 to traverse a portion of the owner-controlled 23 property at the Indian Point facility.
24 In the petition, Mr. Blanch requests that 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
9 the NRC take enforcement action against Entergy, the 1
Licensee, for a violation of 50.9, Completeness and 2
Accuracy of Information, for providing inaccurate or 3
incomplete information in the 50.59 Site Hazards 4
Analysis. In violation of 10 CFR [Code of Federal 5
Regulations] 50, Appendix B -- that's the quality 6
assurance criteria -- they're relying on a contractor 7
who is not qualified in accordance with Appendix B 8
requirements, who is not qualified in accordance with 9
Entergy's quality assurance program, and as a result, 10 was not qualified to perform an analysis for such a 11 significant safety-related issue in violation of 10 12 CFR 50.59 that's our
- changes, tests and 13 experiments chapter -- for failing to perform the 14 necessary safety evaluation requirements.
15 The Petitioner supplemented his petition 16 with a number of documents that address the 17 following: the need for an independent assessment 18 of the proposed pipeline, the assumed three-minute 19 closure time for the pipeline isolation valves, the 20 impact of the proposed West Point Partners 21 high-voltage, direct-current transmission cable, 22 deficiencies with the NRC's Independent Confirmatory 23 Blast Analysis, including the status use of the ALOHA 24 computer code, and improprieties by the NRC staff.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 The latter concern has been forwarded to the NRC 1
Inspector General's office.
2 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 3
date. There's been a number of communications with 4
Mr. Blanch, but let me highlight the ones that are 5
pertinent to this process. On January 28th, the 6
Petitioner, with the assistance of Mr. Richard 7
Kuprewicz, of Accufacts, made their first 8
presentation before the PRB. On April 28th, the 9
Petitioner was informed that the initial 10 recommendation of the PRB was to reject the petition 11 on the basis that the NRC staff has previously 12 reviewed and resolved the issues identified in the 13 petition.
14 Subsequently, the petitioner was 15 offered, and accepted, a second opportunity to 16 address the PRB. There's just a couple of final 17 things and I'll wrap up. As a reminder for the 18 participants, please identify yourself if you make 19 any remarks, as this will help us in the preparation 20 of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly 21 available, just like the last transcript was made 22 available.
23 At the end of the meeting, members of the 24 public may provide comments regarding the petition 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
11 and ask questions about the 2.206 petition process.
1 However, as discussed in the opening, the purpose is 2
to provide information that helps the board render a 3
decision, not necessarily on the merits or agreement 4
with the decision making so far. Mr. Blanch and Mr.
5 Kuprewicz, with that being said, I'll turn it over to 6
you to provide additional information you believe the 7
PRB should consider as part of this decision. Thank 8
you very much.
9 MR. BLANCH: Okay, thank you. This is 10 Paul Blanch. Can you hear me?
11 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, we can, very clear.
12 MR. BLANCH: I believe that you made a 13 statement at the beginning relative to Management 14 Directive 8.11 that said I'm not allowed to ask 15 questions. Is that an accurate portrayal of your 16 statement?
17 MR. PICKETT: The purpose of today's 18 meeting, according to the Management Directive, is 19 for you to comment on the initial recommendation of 20 the PRB, --
21 (Telephonic interference.)
22
-- petition, and to provide additional 23 information.
24 MR. BLANCH: I'm not sure I heard an 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
12 answer to my question. Am I allowed to have a 1
dialogue and ask questions and receive answers from 2
the NRC?
3 MR. PICKETT: No, you are not.
4 MR. BLANCH: And could you tell me where 5
in 8.11 it says that?
6 MR. PICKETT: It doesn't say that in as 7
many words, but it's clear the purpose of the meeting 8
is for you to provide additional information in 9
support of your position.
10 MR. BLANCH: Again, this is a primary 11 point. The Management Directive says the NRC can ask 12 questions, the Licensee can ask questions, but it 13 does not preclude --
14 (Telephonic interference.)
15
-- I guess what I'm hearing is I'm not 16 allowed to ask any questions of a regulator who 17 supposedly serves the public and the environment.
18 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller, Mr.
19 Blanch. I think what you're hearing is we're trying 20 to have an efficient process here. What we're trying 21 to do is get through and hear the additional 22 information that the Board has to consider. If you 23 have clarifying questions to say, "I'm not really 24 sure what you meant by in your decision to date," or 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
13 whatever, and that helps, and then you say, "Here's 1
my information related to that," that might be 2
useful.
3 We don't have the purpose of this meeting 4
to have a dialogue on whether or not, for example, a 5
particular calculation is accurate or not, but if you 6
want to provide more and say, "I didn't understand 7
how you got to that assumption. Let me tell you what 8
my take on the calculation is. I'd like you to look 9
at this," that would be useful. I think if we stray 10 from that too far, we're not going to get through 11 your additional information for the Board to 12 consider.
13 MR. BLANCH: I respectfully disagree, 14 and there are some absolutely vital questions that I 15 need responses to to determine whether Entergy is 16 making accurate statements, and whether the NRC is 17 making accurate statements. There's a question I 18 tried to ask before. Could you tell me who from OI, 19 Office of Investigation, is there, and who from the 20 Inspector General's office is there?
21 MR. THOMPSON: This is Will Thompson from 22 the Office of Investigations.
23 MR. BLANCH: Thanks, Will.
24 MS. SPICHER: And Terri Spicher from IG.
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
14 MR. BLANCH: Hi, Terri. Nice to talk to 1
you again. My understanding is I cannot ask any 2
questions. Is that a good portrayal?
3 CHAIR MILLER: I think you just asked 4
some questions. As they help you provide us 5
information, and we'll ask you if we need clarifying 6
information, but the purpose of the call is for you 7
to give us information, so that we have more to make 8
our decision on.
9 MR. BLANCH: This is why I wanted a 10 dialogue. Let me just -- Rick, I'll introduce you 11 in one second, if you can bear with me.
12 MR. KUPREWICZ: No problem.
13 MR. BLANCH: Here's my first statement, 14 ladies and gentlemen. My petition alleged that 15 Entergy provided inaccurate and incomplete 16 information to the NRC. Not only was the information 17 provided inaccurate, it was materially false with 18 respect to the three-minute closure time. Material 19 in that first place approval of the AIM [Algonquin 20 Incremental Market] project on this false information 21 supplied by Entergy and its consultants.
22 This alone should be a firm basis for 23 granting my petition. These facts are discussed in 24 the NRC's internal email dated April 27, 2015. The 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
15 NRC, in defense of Entergy, recalculated the impact 1
of prolonged gas discharge by modifying its equations 2
for the PIR [potential impact radius]. This is the 3
second time Entergy has been exposed for making false 4
statements to a regulatory agency.
5 I have further follow-up questions on 6
that. My second statement, and then Rick can take 7
over. The NRC has threatened the safety of more than 8
20 million residents and the infrastructure of the 9
greater New York metropolitan area, and is risking 10 trillions of dollars of damage, and possibly the U.S.
11 economy, by basing its safety assessment on a 12 calculation that was recently obtained from the NRC 13 under FOIA. This new information confirms that this 14 NRC "calculation", which was partially handwritten, 15 unapproved, undated, unsigned, used fictitious, 16 false, and unsupported assumptions. This NRC 17 calculation supported the FERC [Federal Energy 18 Regulatory Commission] approval of the AIM project in 19 the transportation of thousands of pounds of TNT 20 equivalent across and in the vicinity of the nuclear 21 power plant.
22 This back-of-the-envelope 23 calculation -- as I say, handwritten -- which misled 24 congressional representatives, misled FERC, and that 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
16 misled the general public, must be invalidated, and 1
an independent, transparent, structured risk 2
assessment, as outlined in OSHA [Occupational Safety 3
and Health Administration] 29 CFR, methodology must 4
be undertaken. With that, I will -- I have a long, 5
long list of questions which the NRC won't respond 6
to, and I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kuprewicz.
7 Rick.
8 MR. KUPREWICZ: Thank you. You can't 9
see me, and I can't see you, so that may sometimes 10 cause for pauses in our discussion while someone's 11 trying to transcribe here. I'm going to focus my 12 comments on the analysis related to the gas 13 transmission pipeline rupture and the possible 14 resulting impact associated with that. I want to 15 first say that I'm going to honor the CEII [critical 16 energy infrastructure information] non-disclosure 17 agreement I signed under the FERC providence, so 18 please, all parties, respect my obligation to not 19 disclose certain critical energy information covered 20 by these agreements. Those agreements, however, I 21 must state categorically, do not prevent me from 22 commenting on information readily in the public 23 domain. Based on that and information that I studied 24 that is public, my filing observations regarding the 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
17 analysis concerning the 42-inch gas pipeline rupture 1
in proximity or close proximity to the Indian Point 2
nuclear power plant are as follows.
3 I reviewed a series of rupture analysis 4
statements concerning the AIM 42-inch transient 5
pipeline rupture near the Indian point plant. These 6
analyses include the most recent FOIA study that Paul 7
just recently mentioned. I've got to come to the 8
conclusion that they do not represent the transient 9
dynamics associated with a 42-inch gas transmission 10 rupture should it fail near the Indian Point nuke 11 plant.
12 For
- example, based on extensive 13 experience, pipe fracture mechanics will demonstrate 14 that gas transmission pipeline ruptures are always 15 full-bore ruptures, even buried. Pressure drop will 16 not be a timely indicator of pipe rupture, even for 17 a 42-inch pipeline. Assumptions about closure within 18 three minutes to cut off gas flow near the plant are 19 unrealistic and unscientific. A further recent 20 analysis conclusion that a rupture release of one 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> on the 42 inch pipeline does not impact the nuke 22 plant needs further explanations, as it makes no 23 sense for this system. The above key assumptions, 24 as stated in agency studies, ignore proximity to a 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
18 compressor station upstream and ignore system 1
dynamics associated with a gas transmission pipeline 2
rupture that increases gas releases well above 3
pipeline flow before the rupture.
4 Quite
- simply, agency studies are 5
violating the basic laws of science concerning gas 6
pipeline rupture and associated forces that result in 7
massive cratering, pipe shrapneling, and violate the 8
science associated with such releases, especially a 9
42-inch pipeline. It is not that hard to set up a 10 base case for transient rupture analysis near the 11 nuke facility for this gas transmission system.
12 It appears that various agencies are 13 attempting to dismiss risk as low when gas pipeline 14 rupture may drive the nuke facility to non-safe 15 shutdown in a highly sensitive area. Agency studies 16 create the appearance of risk management tampering to 17 favor a project agency decision and raise the 18 question, Are involved agencies capable of performing 19 a scientifically neutral study for such a sensitive 20 issue? This just isn't that hard near the plant.
21 Lastly, I must comment that a truly independent 22 safety analysis should be performed, subject to a 23 reasonable open peer review. Security claims should 24 not be permitted to shelter malfeasance in a 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
19 scientific method involving incomplete risk analysis 1
for such a highly sensitive infrastructure. Again, 2
I thank you for your patience in introducing my 3
comments today.
4 MR. BLANCH: This is Paul Blanch. Rick, 5
thank you so much for your valued statements. Just 6
following up, Rick has considerable experience in 7
pipeline
- dynamics, pipeline explosions, 8
investigations, national transportation board, all 9
kinds of credentials. The Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission has no one whose name I have seen that has 11 any credentials, published documentation, national 12 committees, related to gas dynamics and pipeline 13 transportation.
14 We know that a Mr. Tammara did a 15 paperwork study on Calvert Cliffs, Cove Point, but 16 this was a study, no real experience. Entergy's 17 consultant, Mr. David Allen, conducted a paperwork 18 study, no documented experience. The NRC has 19 considerable expertise in nuclear safety; however, 20 has no expertise in gas line investigations, 21 ruptures, dynamics, and response times and emergency 22 response to such. Given a vote, I would put my money 23 on Mr. Kuprewicz's opinions, rather than the opinions 24 of a paid consultant by Entergy, who was told to come 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
20 up with an outcome, and from a consultant or from an 1
engineer with Entergy, who used to work for another 2
contractor, who has no documented experience on 3
pipeline dynamics.
4 We have a significant risk here, and we 5
desperately need an independent risk assessment, 6
using established OSHA procedures. I have 20 7
questions. Is it even worth discussing the 8
questions, or are you just going to say, "No comment"?
9 I will be submitting these questions to the NRC in 10 writing anyway, but I expect some type of non-answer 11 to the questions, as has happened before.
12 MR. PICKETT: Paul, this is Doug Pickett 13 here. I would appreciate you sending those questions 14 to me.
15 MR. BLANCH: Okay, I am going to ask the 16 questions. My first question is what justification 17 does the NRC have for modifying the equation for the 18 distance in Reg Guide 1.97 by throwing in a factor 19 that is undefined?
20 CHAIR MILLER: Paul, this is Chris 21 Miller.
Those kinds of questions we don't 22 necessarily have the people here to discuss it or to 23 weigh in to the merits of it. I don't think that's 24 going to get us through the commentary -- or the 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
21 questioning and information period. I think it might 1
be more productive if we ask the questions of what is 2
represented so that we can get more information based 3
on what, for example, Mr. Kuprewicz said and what you 4
said. But yes, that question wouldn't be one that 5
we'd entertain in this forum.
6 MR. BLANCH: Okay, according to the NRC, 7
we, the public, are your customers. As a customer, 8
if I go into a store or go to buy something, or an 9
auto dealer, if I want to ask a question, I expect an 10 answer. Again, I have 20-some questions. Do you 11 want me to read off -- I'll just read off the 12 questions. If you think they --
13 CHAIR MILLER: What would be useful is 14 if you would send those questions in to us 15 (Simultaneous speaking).
16 MR. BLANCH: I'd like to read the 17 questions.
18 CHAIR MILLER: (Simultaneous speaking) 19 with the right people, so that the right people could 20 get the answers. Then you could get accurate answers 21 to your questions.
22 MR. BLANCH: I'd like to ask the 23 questions, such as the members of the public can hear 24 what my concerns are with respect to nuclear safety.
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
22 If you choose to answer them, fine. If you choose 1
to ignore them, let us know. No. 1, NRC's 2
conclusions on isolation times and blast radius are 3
contradicted by its own document references and 4
historical experience documents by the National 5
Transportation Safety Board.
6 The NRC has ignored the requirements of 7
10 CFR 192.935 for risk analysis. The NRC and 8
Entergy have misrepresented closure times -- what I'm 9
talking about, from the time of the accident to the 10 time the gas flow terminates. This is a major, major 11 concern stated in a proposed rejection letter. The 12 NRC has totally relinquished its exclusive 13 responsibility for nuclear safety to the Department 14 of Transportation.
15 How can they do that? The Atomic Energy 16 Act forbids that. For example, they trust the 17 Department of Transportation to ensure those valves 18 will close, that there's proper redundancy, that the 19 condition of the 63-year-old pipe is not degraded, 20 such that it's going to rupture within the next year 21 or next day. We just don't know. I don't think the 22 NRC knows. So in essence, the NRC has turned over 23 its responsibility for nuclear safety and protecting 24 the public to the Department of Transportation, and 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
23 we know the recent history of the Department of 1
Transportation. A gas line rupture in one of 2
Spectra's pipelines in
- Arkansas, crossing the 3
Arkansas River, recently required more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 4
to detect, which totally contradicts the reference by 5
the NRC to Spectra's Resource Report No. 11.
6 The NRC employed unauthorized computer 7
programs to calculate
- risk, flow, vapor gas 8
explosion, jet fire explosion. They used ALOHA, 9
which is prohibited for the use in this type of event.
10 The NRC, and I'm referring to Reg Guide 1.91, has 11 changed and misused its own calculations.
12 Calculations have been conducted by inexperienced NRC 13 and Entergy persons. The NRC failed to consider 14 historic ruptures in its time to isolate and 15 terminate gas flow.
16 The NRC continues to ignore the potential 17 impact of vapor clouds. The NRC fails to consider 18 the possibility of flammable gasses entering the 19 plant and control rooms, the same type of events that 20 contributed to the explosions of the secondary 21 containment at Fukushima.
Whether that's a
22 possibility or not, I'm not sure. I'm just saying 23 it was not considered. The NRC provides misleading 24 responses to direct questions on the content of a 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
24 fuel oil tank. That's a significant issue. I've 1
asked three times, from Neal Sheehan to Doug Pickett 2
to Scott [Stewart], senior resident inspector, do 3
those large, multi-million-gallon tanks contain any 4
flammable materials which are inside the impact zone?
5 All I get is statements, "To the best of my knowledge, 6
we don't think so."
7 I cannot get a definitive answer whether 8
those large multi-million-gallon tanks contain 9
flammable material? No direct answer. Spectra 10 proposes to enhance new pipelines while ignoring 11 63-year-old existing pipelines within the Indian 12 Point property. Neither the Licensee, nor the NRC 13 as Indian Point operations -- personnel are not 14 aware or have any procedure to combat and -- yes, 15 combat and impose any requirements on the piping or 16 the gas transmission line system within the 17 protected -- I shouldn't say protected area, but 18 owner-controlled area of Indian Point.
19 The NRC refused to issue an informal 20 letter to me proposing to reject my petition. The 21 NRC issued to the Licensee and the world a letter 22 specifically addressed to me, dated June 29, 2015, 23 but for some reason -- and this still holds true 24 today, unless it's in the mail -- the NRC has ignored 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
25 even sending that letter to me. I got it from a 1
friend. What kind of game is the NRC playing here 2
that they won't sign letters, they'll address letters 3
to me, but they won't send them either by email or by 4
snail mail? My bottom line is we desperately need 5
congressional and public support and demand the NRC 6
sanction or require an independent -- and I do mean 7
independent -- risk assessment of the gas line at 8
Indian Point. I think those are the majority of the 9
questions. There could be more.
10 MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Blanch, this is Ben 11 Beasley of the NRC. It would be very helpful for us, 12 when you send us your questions, that you send as 13 much specific information as you can. I didn't take 14 a lot of notes, but on things like you identified 15 contradictions at that point, 191. If you could give 16 us some specific information on where you see the 17 contradictions, that would be very helpful for us to 18 give you a fuller response.
19 MR. BLANCH: I sent that information to 20 Doug Pickett today. It outlines exactly the equation 21 that for some reason the NRC decided to modify to get 22 its desired outcome.
23 MR. BEASLEY: Okay, thank you.
24 MR. BLANCH: Without any justification, 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
26 whatsoever.
1 MR. BEASLEY: Thank you. The request 2
was the more information you give us, the better we'll 3
be able to give you a faster response.
4 MR. BLANCH: I'm just talking about your 5
own documents, not my documents. You've got them 6
all. Take a look at all the FOIAs that I filed and 7
the responses to the FOIAs. Some of them are 8
different. I haven't seen any communication where 9
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has even 10 given you any flow diagrams to perform an independent 11 risk assessment of the pipeline system. We don't 12 know what valves have to be closed, whether there are 13 multiple valves. I assume there have to be multiple 14 valves. We, in the nuclear industry, require 15 redundancy. We require inspections. We require 16 quality assurance. How can you delegate this 17 responsibility to the Department of Transportation 18 and rely on them to protect the health and safety of 19 millions of residents? This is inexcusable to me.
20 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, Mr. Blanch, we have 21 those questions and statements that you just 22 provided. Is there other material you want to 23 provide the Board? I know that there's some 24 questions that the Board would want to ask you and 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
27 Mr. Kuprewicz, but before we do that, I wanted to see 1
if there's any other information that you have, that 2
you'd like to provide?
3 MR.
BLANCH:
That's the primary 4
information that I have, but I'd like to have you 5
ladies and gentlemen ask Mr. Kuprewicz, with his 6
numerous years of recognized gas line investigations 7
and studies -- if you have any questions for him.
8 CHAIR MILLER: We will do that. If I 9
could just ask you one question related -- this is 10 Chris Miller. I want to ask you one question related 11 to your -- in your list of questions and statements 12 about your June 29th letter. Do you want us to send 13 you an email -- I'm assuming that the hard copy did 14 not come to you. Would you like an email of 15 the -- with an attachment of that letter? We can 16 provide that?
17 MR. BLANCH: No, I don't need it. I 18 obviously got it from a friend. It's just very 19 upsetting to me that you have a signed letter, dated 20 letter, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt 21 that maybe it was a mistake, but given all the other 22 evasive statements I've received from the NRC, it 23 just seems to be a pattern. That question about do 24 the tanks contain flammable material, I can't get a 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
28 straight answer from the NRC. When I get an answer, 1
to the best of my knowledge. I'm not a politician.
2 I'm an engineer. I don't take kindly to political 3
answers. This is from your Office of Public Affairs.
4 I really, really -- I've said it 100 times.
5 Everyone's saying it. We need an independent risk 6
assessment. We need to sit down.
7 I've asked Senator Gillibrand's office to 8
see if her office could arrange a meeting between 9
myself and Entergy to try to resolve our differences 10 of opinion. I haven't heard back yet. I don't have 11 any questions. I'd certainly like answers sometime.
12 I could restate these questions, but I read them as 13 I had written them. They were very brief. I'm 14 pretty much done. I'm not overly pleased at what I'm 15 hearing, especially on the question answering.
16 CHAIR MILLER: On that one issue with the 17 letter, we'll go ahead and send an attached letter, 18 assuming that's the mail that hasn't arrived there 19 yet or something. I don't know what happened. It 20 certainly was inadvertent. If the June 29th letter 21 didn't arrive by July 14th, I don't know what 22 happened, but we'll send you an electronic version.
23 You should be able to get that shortly.
24 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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
29 CHAIR MILLER:
If you had any 1
more -- before we go on to Mr. Kuprewicz -- and I'll 2
ask the rest of the team -- you made an initial 3
statement about false statements that were made 4
to -- fictitious false assumptions. I'm wondering 5
is that something that we can get from you the 6
specifics of that, or is that something you can 7
provide us when you provide your list of questions, 8
or is that something that Mr. Kuprewicz can provide 9
your beliefs on those? That would help us out a lot, 10 as well.
11 MR. BLANCH: I had, last Friday, a very 12 long conversation, very cordial and professional 13 conversation with Mr. Art Burritt, who I think is a 14 senior NRC person on here. I think we will both 15 agree it was a very good conversation. We got into 16 some of these questions last week about probability 17 assumptions and the basis for that.
18 Again, I told Mr. Burritt last week that 19 there were errors where Indian Point is operating 20 outside of their design basis with respect to the 21 existing gas lines because your gas expert said that 22 a failure of these 63-year-old gas lines is not 23 feasible, which is, to me, a false statement. That's 24 one example. There's many examples throughout these 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
30 documentations that I got within FOIA. Another false 1
statement is that the gas rupture, if it pursues, 2
will not significantly increase the blast radius, 3
inconsistent with the equation in Reg Guide 1.91. I 4
don't know how one comes to that and how one can make 5
these statements that, on the surface, appear to be 6
inaccurate and false.
7 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, I've got those two 8
listed. If you have any more, it would be useful if 9
you provide them with the other questions you're 10 providing. That would be useful to us.
11 MR. BLANCH: I've got 100 people in the 12 room here. With respect to that June 29th letter, 13 don't bother sending it. I have it obviously. I've 14 gotten it from numerous people. I don't care. It's 15 just an example of how the NRC is treating us and 16 ignoring us and not giving us direct answers to direct 17 questions and not signing documents, not dating 18 documents. It seems like they're almost playing a 19 game with me, and nuclear safety is not a game to me.
20 CHAIR MILLER: It's not a game with us 21 either, and we have a very thorough process for 22 putting things in our ADAMS [Agencywide Documents 23 Access and Management System] system, so they're made 24 publicly available. I take concern when somebody 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
31 says that something is not appropriately sent or 1
documented or whatever, so we'll make sure you get 2
another copy of that letter, and that the information 3
is available when it's able to be put in the public 4
space.
5 MR. BLANCH: I tend to disagree with you 6
that you have procedures in place to assure safety 7
when the NRC doesn't even have a procedure for doing 8
safety-related calculations and does not have a 9
quality assurance procedure that it imposes on 10 licensees. When I see a calculation, which I call a 11 back-of-the-envelope calculation, with handwriting 12 in it, I would be put in jail if I submitted that to 13 the NRC if I were working for a licensee. I disagree 14 with your statement that we are concerned about 15 safety. I believe more concerned about the 16 continuance of the nuclear industry. I'm done.
17 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. Let me ask 18 the Board, is there any more questions for Mr. Blanch 19 before we move on to questions for Mr. Kuprewicz?
20 No? Okay, anything from the regional people or other 21 headquarters people that want to ask a question of 22 Mr. Blanch?
23 PARTICIPANT: No thank you, Chris.
24 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, we'll move on to 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
32 questions for Mr. Kuprewicz.
1 MR. BEASLEY: I did have one. This is 2
Ben Beasley. Mr. Kuprewicz, you said that it makes 3
no sense that a release from the gas lines -- release 4
and explosion would not affect the plant. I just was 5
curious if you have some test data or some examples 6
of where there was a blast and how far the one psi 7
pressure wave extended from that blast? If you have 8
some data like that that you could send to us that 9
would be informative, it would be helpful just to 10 back up your statement that it makes no sense there.
11 MR. KUPREWICZ: Let me clarify here.
12 What I think I said -- maybe I'll have to go back and 13 look at the transcript -- is that the analysis had 14 indicated that a one-hour gas release is just going 15 to be as effective as the early gas release. That 16 makes no sense because the mass releases are 17 substantially different. As to whether or not it 18 affects the plant, I don't know that. That's an 19 issue -- and I want everybody to be clearly 20 understood -- I can't make that analysis because I 21 don't know the details of the plant.
22 All I can tell you is the statements I'm 23 hearing and reading in the analysis and studies 24 related to gas pipeline rupture, on a 42-inch 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
33 pipeline that ruptures at this point, in this 1
proximity to the nuke facility, has no justification 2
in the scientific method. There's the difference.
3 What I would clarify is you need to get a hold of 4
somebody who really understands gas transmission 5
pipeline rupture.
They can do a
analysis -- okay, the pipeline ruptured at Second 0.
7 It's now Minute 2, Minute 3, Minute 4, Minute 60.
8 This is a mass release, and you need to decide when 9
does it -- will it ignite or not? Will it detonate 10 or not? Then assign probabilities to those, if you 11 wish.
12 But regardless of the probability, if you 13 have a significant, large enough gas release, and it 14 does detonate, will it affect the plant, and more 15 importantly, not so much affect the plant, but will 16 it affect the plant's ability to shut down in a 17 failsafe mode? That's always been the question I've 18 had. I'm not trying to answer that. Am I clear?
19 MR. BEASLEY: Yes, I guess I was just 20 interested -- the way you said it, I thought you might 21 have some specific information about a blast radius 22 that was larger than was calculated by our analysis, 23 but it sounds like you don't have anything specific.
24 MR. KUPREWICZ: No, you're correct. My 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
34 analysis, based on what I see of the plant 1
structures -- again, I'm not the detailed expert on 2
your structures at Indian Point -- is my suspicion 3
would be while blast radius would do a lot of damage, 4
it may not affect the plant's ability to failsafe 5
shutdown. Blast is probably not the controlling 6
factor in this analysis. It's heat radiation.
7 MR. BEASLEY: Yes, our analysis did 8
calculate the heat flux, also. Again, I just was 9
interested if you had something specific that you 10 were thinking about.
11 MR. KUPREWICZ: No. To be fair to you, 12 I would have to do a specific calculation for a 13 specific site, and I have not done that, just looking 14 at the general maps. I haven't reached that 15 conclusion. My suspicion would be -- your nuclear 16 reactors, they'll survive blast, no big deal, but 17 it's the auxiliary failsafe equipment that you have 18 to be sure someone's performed an analysis on. My 19 experience would tell me most likely heat radiation 20 is your biggest risk.
21 MR. BEASLEY: Okay, thank you.
22 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, appreciate that.
23 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett and 24 I'd like to ask Mr. Blanch if you could provide as 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
35 much detail in your concerns, that would be 1
appreciate, of course. One thing I wrote down that 2
you said --
3 MR. BLANCH: Could you speak up a little 4
louder please?
5 MR. PICKETT: Okay, I was asking Mr.
6 Kuprewicz if he could provide as much detail as you 7
could on the individual concerns that he mentioned in 8
his statement. That would be beneficial to the 9
Board. One of the things I wrote down for Mr.
10 Kuprewicz, I wrote down risk management tampering.
11 That certainly sounds like an impropriety by the 12 staff, if you could talk a little bit more about that.
13 MR.
KUPREWICZ:
That's a
general 14 observation I've seen in too many criminal 15 investigations lately that I've had to assist in. I 16 don't like using that word in public very often, nor 17 am I implying that's the situation here. But we tend 18 to find, in the application of risk management 19 techniques, which have become a more favorable effort 20 in regulatory processes, that sometimes we see 21 processes where the science is either ignored or not 22 applied appropriately, such that it drives to a 23 pre-ordained conclusion.
24 So I make that statement with my 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
36 impression is -- I get the impression that someone's 1
driving towards a decision to site the facility. I 2
can't reach that conclusion, whether that's fair or 3
not. All I can look at is the scientific principles 4
related to gas pipeline ruptures and say holy crying 5
out loud, they're not capturing the scientific 6
principles here. Again, these are transient 7
releases. They're a little more complex, but they're 8
not that hard to do if someone knows what they're 9
doing.
10 MR. PICKETT: Okay, thank you.
11 MR. BLANCH: This is Paul Blanch again.
12 Another one of the documents that I got under FOIA 13 actually shocked me when it said that there's 376,000 14 kilograms of natural gas released during the first 15 minute, and then a couple hundred thousand for the 16 next hour. That's a phenomenal amount of gas. When 17 I look at 376,000 kilograms of gas in a minute, that's 18 close to a nuclear weapon. Within about three 19 minutes, the energy released would be close to that 20 of a nuclear weapon.
21 Natural gas on a
per-pound or 22 per-kilogram basis contains ten times more energy 23 than TNT. We're not talking about a small break 24 here, with a small amount of energy being released.
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
37 This is not -- and I realize that TNT versus natural 1
gas is quite a bit different because of the time 2
involved, but we're not talking a small amount of 3
gas. This is a very serious safety issue. If the 4
NRC wants to reject my position and think this is the 5
end of it, it will not be the end of it. I'm done.
6 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. Hang on one 7
second. Let me just -- one more question for Mr.
8 Kuprewicz. This is Chris Miller with the NRC. You 9
looked at our analysis, and I realize you didn't 10 do -- calculate the blast radius and that and the 11 heat flux that came -- similar to what we did. My 12 question was I thought I heard in your discussion 13 that you did question the amount of gas that we -- the 14 gas flow that we used in our calculation.
15 I was wondering if you had any numbers 16 that you used, or you think were more appropriate 17 than the numbers we used to calculate the gas flow 18 that leads to the mass -- the kilograms and the energy 19 potential that we're talking about here?
20 MR. KUPREWICZ: To answer your question, 21 the answer is no, but based on a wealth of 22 investigation and other calculations on other 23 pipelines, I've got to tell you a 42-inch, when it 24 ruptures, is going to release -- I'm not going to 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
38 jump to Paul's numbers, but there are going to be a 1
lot of numbers. They're going to be big numbers.
2 When I hear things like we can cut off the gas flow 3
within three minutes, that's clearly a violation of 4
the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you close the 5
valves within three minutes, it's not going to cut 6
off the gas flow. But, and that -- my experience 7
would say this: the credibility tends to go out the 8
window when I start seeing statements on key 9
assumptions, and it just may kind of get back to that 10 earlier question that was raised, where gee, it looks 11 like these are kind of lining up to give a 12 pre-ordained answer. Look, just run the transient 13 analysis, make your statements for what they are, and 14 then let them be what they are. Then they'll take 15 you where you need to be.
16 You're going to find that a 42-inch gas 17 line is going to release a lot of gas for a long time, 18 and you won't -- by the time you see pressure drop, 19 the damage is already done. It won't be a few 20 minutes. That's just a qualification statement.
21 The details -- run a transient analysis on a 42-inch 22 gas pipeline rupture a few miles from a gas 23 compression station. They're not going to see 24 pressure drop, not for a while.
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
39 CHAIR MILLER: So we did do the numbers 1
on the flow. I hear you think they may not be 2
accurate (Simultaneous speaking).
3 MR. KUPREWICZ: I'm not here to punish 4
you guys or challenge everything you guys do or make 5
you the bad guys. My function is to be neutral. I'm 6
just saying this. If your calculations didn't look 7
at gas flow going up significantly in the first couple 8
minutes after a pipeline rupture, your approach is 9
probably in error.
10 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, thank you for that.
11 Any other questions for Mr. Kuprewicz? Any more 12 questions from the region or from other headquarters 13 offices?
14 MR. BEASLEY: No, Chris, thank you.
15 CHAIR MILLER: Is there any questions 16 from the pipeline -- from Entergy, let's put it that 17 way?
18 MR. WALPOLE: No comments from Entergy, 19 Chris.
20 CHAIR MILLER: Okay. We know that there 21 are members -- that's all that we have for the 22 questions back and forth for the Board, the 23 information the Board would need. We know that there 24 are members of the public invited. I guess I would 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
40 like to include them by saying, are there any members 1
of the public that would like to make a comment or 2
question regarding the process we're using? If you 3
do, again, I'll remind you, back to the beginning, 4
that you need to press star-1, so that the moderator 5
can get you off of mute and into the call. Let's go 6
to that portion of our meeting.
7 MR. BLANCH: I have Linda Puglisi, who's 8
the town supervisor for the Town of Cortlandt, who 9
would like to ask another question. Linda, thank 10 you.
11 MS. PUGLISI: Thank you so much for 12 allowing me to make a statement, and I want to ask a 13 question. I'm the supervisor of the Town of 14 Cortlandt, and Indian Point has been in our town and 15 our Village of Buchanan. The mayor of Buchanan is 16 also here. We've been partnering for two and a half 17 years to fight this Spectra-Algonquin expanded 18 pipeline, from 26 inches to 42 inches, and even more 19 importantly, a point to make, it's a 25 percent 20 increase in pressure.
21 A couple of months ago, there was a fire 22 at a transformer on the Indian Point grounds. I 23 received a phone call on a Saturday night regarding 24 that incident. If this pipeline, 100 feet from 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
41 Indian Point, was under construction or constructed, 1
God forbid that there was an impact to that gas line.
2 Bottom line here, I will be very simple 3
and clear in my comment and my request. We need your 4
help, NRC, to go to FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory 5
Commission, that has the authority to render a 6
decision on the expanse of this pipeline, and 7
unfortunately they did on March 3, 2015. We got 8
together with State, with our task force, with our 9
assemblywoman, Sandy Galef, with many other people in 10 our community and elected officials, and we asked 11 for -- to revisit this, and to hear our many, many 12 concerns and issues. This is one of the most 13 important issues, the close proximity to Indian 14 Point. We need your help to go to FERC to ask them 15 to re-open that premature decision that they made on 16 March 3rd. Please help us. Thank you.
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 CHAIR MILLER: Paul, do you have other 19 folks?
20 MR. BLANCH: Is there anyone else that 21 would like to make a brief statement to the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission? I hate to single people out.
23 There's one lady that would like to make a statement.
24 I'll let her do her own introduction.
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
42 MAYOR KNICKERBOCKER: Thank you for 1
taking this call. Thank you Paul Blanch. Thank you 2
Sandy Galef. Thank you Linda Puglisi. Thank you 3
everyone in this room. You can hear the questions.
4 We need answers. Oh, I'm Theresa Knickerbocker, 5
mayor of Village of Buchanan. Can you hear me?
6 Hello?
7 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, we can hear you.
8 MAYOR KNICKERBOCKER: Okay, good, just 9
wanted to check. There's a bunch of people in this 10 room. You can hear the concern. I believe Mr.
11 Blanch had a lot of good questions, a lot of good 12 questions, also Dave had excellent questions and 13 comments. We have concerns. We want this to be 14 safe. This is our community. We have to have 15 answers to these questions. I would really, really 16 appreciate -- this is very difficult, this phone 17 calling thing. I'm more of a person one on one. I 18 need to communicate directly.
19 I would really like to ask that when you 20 answer these questions that you come into our 21 community to answer these questions. If you want me 22 to facilitate it at the Village of Buchanan, or I'm 23 sure that Supervisor Puglisi would love to do it in 24 the Town of Cortlandt, but we really need to have 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
43 these questions answered. We need to be assured that 1
this pipeline is safe.
2 We have a nuclear power plant. You guys 3
are in charge of making sure these nuclear power 4
plants are safe, so please, please answer these 5
questions, get answers to these questions, get back 6
to this community and assure us that this is safe.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. BLANCH: Okay at this time, we've 9
probably run over a little bit of time, but I 10 appreciate everyone's concern here and at the NRC.
11 I think we've accomplished what we needed to 12 accomplish during this conversation. Again, the 13 bottom line is we still have a lot of questions about 14 nuclear safety, and we desperately need that risk 15 assessment. With that, I'm going to end mine, unless 16 the NRC has something they want to finally say.
17 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, just a couple of 18 quick points. First of all, thank you to the 19 commenters who just presented and to Mr. Kuprewicz 20 and to you, Mr. Blanch. Appreciate the discussion 21 and the information. We will make a Board decision 22 on whether to accept or reject the 2.206 petition and 23 to further discuss, and we'll provide information, 24 and we'll provide answers back, and we'll provide the 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
44 court reporting of this -- transcripts of this call.
1 With that in mind, let me ask the court 2
reporter if there's any additional need for 3
information for the meeting transcript? You may have 4
to do *1, court reporter.
5 MS. SHAPIRO: Hi, this is Geri Shapiro 6
from Senator Gillibrand's office. -- give me some 7
kind of a time line, in terms of now that you've heard 8
the questions raised, when they will be answered --
9 (Telephonic interference.)
10
-- time line. The other two is several elected 11 offices on this phone call. We would like to be able 12 to get copies of the responses, so that we can get 13 the material directly, also.
14 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. This is Chris 15 Miller. We certainly will provide that information 16 if you can identify the other offices that are on 17 (Simultaneous speaking).
18 MS. SHAPIRO: I would tell you to send 19 them to the entire congressional delegation. I don't 20 know whether they're all on or not. I know we have 21 two of us on from Senator Gillibrand's office. I 22 know that Congresswoman Lowey's office is on. The 23 thing is I guess I wanted the time line and equally 24 important, what do you see as the time line here?
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
45 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett. We 1
need to see the questions from Mr. Blanch and Mr.
2 Kuprewicz. I really can't give you a good estimate 3
right now. We'll have to have an internal meeting 4
with PRB after this, I think in the next few weeks.
5 Then we're going to have to discuss what the time and 6
the questions are. We're probably talking a good six 7
weeks.
8 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
9 The process, as Doug was laying it out, we have a 10 couple other things that we have to get. When we get 11 the questions from Mr. Blanch and additional 12 information that we need to
- consider, then 13 we'll -- and we need to get the transcribed report.
14 We'll get the transcribed report out to all parties, 15 and that includes the Board members. Then we'll meet 16 as a Board. I would expect that's going to be two 17 to three weeks out, if not more. Then the Board will 18 make a recommendation. And there's two ways that 19 could go. the Board could say we should accept this 20 petition and look at the merits of it and do further 21 information, or the Board could say there's no 22 additional information than what was already 23 provided, and then we provide a final report on that.
24 But yes, we can't give you an exact time line, but 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
46 it's a number of weeks out.
1 MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
2 MS. WARREN: Good afternoon. My name is 3
Barbara Warren. I'm with Citizens' Environmental 4
Coalition. I guess I'd like to understand did NRC 5
just accept the Entergy evaluation, or did you do an 6
independent evaluation yourselves? Also, did you 7
include real-world information, such as the 8
experience that happened in San Bruno, California 9
with the exploding pipeline?
10 MR. BEASLEY: This is Ben Beasley. Yes, 11 ma'am, we did a confirmatory analysis. We did our 12 own analysis. We did not just accept the Entergy 13 numbers. That is our practice. When a licensee 14 sends us information, we confirm it. So we did do a 15 complete confirmatory analysis.
16 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller, and 17 I'll add on to that. In Region 1, you can let me 18 know if you have additional, but what our part in the 19 process for this pipeline is, the NRC part, is to 20 evaluate the Licensee's calculations for whether 21 there's any impact to equipment that's relied upon to 22 safely shut down the plant. They do what is called 23 a
50.59 evaluation.
The Licensee did that 24 evaluation. They weren't required to submit to us, 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
47 but we reviewed that in a separate inspection and 1
provided that input in an inspection report. I think 2
that inspection report was issued sometime in 3
November. Is that right, Region 1?
4 MR. SETZER: Yes, Chris. Hi, this is 5
Tom Setzer. November 7th, in the third-quarter 6
inspection report, that's the integrated report 7
that's the residents' right. That's probably 8
available in there. In a modification sample that 9
we did, we did document the inspection of what you 10 just discussed.
11 MS. WARREN: You did consider the San 12 Bruno situation in your evaluation, where they had 13 trouble finding the valve to shut off the gas?
14 MR. SETZER: No, ma'am, we didn't --
15 (Telephonic interference.)
16
-- specific event. The analysis we did 17 was a conservative analysis that assumes a release.
18 We did do two evaluations, the three-minute release, 19 but it wasn't just three minutes. It assumed a 20 three-minute closure, but the release was longer than 21 that. Then we did a one-hour release, so it was a 22 bounding analysis that we prepared.
23 MR. MCCOPPIN: This is Mike McCoppin.
24 In addition, we also had an independent 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
48 (Telephonic interference.)
1
-- there's a peer review to the original 2
reviewer, to confirm his conclusion.
3 MR. BLANCH: Okay, this is Paul Blanch 4
again. I'd just like to make a couple more 5
statements. The intent of my petition was not to 6
take a --
7 (Telephonic interference.)
8
-- against Entergy or the Licensee of 9
Indian Point. The intent of my petition, while it 10 was couched that way, was really intended to assure 11 nuclear safety. I'm not looking for retribution 12 against Indian Point.
13 I think I've made a fairly convincing 14 argument, supported by the NRC documents, that 15 inaccurate, incomplete information was sent to the 16 NRC on a couple of occasions because I believe that 17 to be the case. I think that FERC needs to be 18 informed by the NRC that the NRC's analysis may have 19 been faulty. I would like to know if the NRC will 20 contact FERC and say there's a question related to 21 our analysis, or is it a foregone conclusion the 22 pipeline's going to go ahead?
23 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, this is Chris Miller.
24 Mr. Blanch, the question I believe you have is are we 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
49 going to contact FERC and tell them that they need to 1
reverse their decision? Is that an accurate 2
restatement?
3 MR. BLANCH: That's pretty accurate.
4 CHAIR MILLER: That's going to be up to 5
what the Board determines once they evaluate the 6
additional information that's provided --
7 MR. BLANCH: This could be a year from 8
now?
9 CHAIR MILLER: That's not our time line.
10 That's not our scheduled time line, but it will take 11 some time.
12 MR. BLANCH: Paula Claire has one more 13 question.
14 CHAIR MILLER: Okay.
15 MS. CLAIRE: Hi. My question is -- oh, 16 Paula Claire. I'm a resident of Garrison, and also 17 a co-founder of the Stop The Algonquin Pipeline 18 Expansion. My question is you talk about the safe 19 shutdown of Indian Point in the event of a pipeline 20 rupture. I'm concerned about -- what about the 21 containers of spent fuel that are stored there? Are 22 you also considering that as a part of the safe 23 shutdown of the nuclear facility? Because they're 24 highly radioactive. If a rupture occurred, it would 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
50 seem to me that they would be in jeopardy, especially 1
the ones in the spent fuel pools, which are the 2
majority. So that's my question.
3 MR. PICKETT: Hold on, we're going to 4
pause for just for a second before we respond. This 5
is Doug Pickett speaking. We just got a chance to 6
talk to our reviewer. The residual location is the 7
entity -- the spent fuel storage canisters. They are 8
rather far away from the pipeline. We have drawings 9
in front of us, and we looked at where we anticipate 10 the one-pound over pressure and the critical heat 11 flux to occur, and it would not approach the entity's 12 canisters. We do not believe it would impact the 13 spent fuel pool -- spent fuel storage facility at 14 all.
15 MS. CLAIRE: If it affected the switch 16 yard, that affects the cooling of the spent fuel 17 pools.
18 MR. PICKETT: The idea is that the switch 19 yard, if that were taken out, there are emergency 20 diesel generators on site to provide you on-site 21 emergency AC power. That will supply you the cooling 22 to the spent fuel pools.
23 MS. CLAIRE: Okay, so are you saying that 24 the spent fuel would be safe in the event of a 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
51 rupture?
1 MR. PICKETT: That is correct. That's 2
assuming you lose the switch yard, and you would lose 3
off-site power, but it has emergency on-site AC power 4
supplies, in the way of diesel generators, to supply 5
you the critical cooling that you would need for the 6
spent fuel pools.
7 MS. CLAIRE: What about the heat blast 8
that Rick Kuprewicz had mentioned? Wouldn't that be 9
a factor?
10 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
11 The NRC did a look, and I've got the reviewer sitting 12 here with me, so pipe up if I say the wrong thing, 13 but we did a look a couple of times by different 14 people looking at two key things. One is the blast 15 and the pressure wave from any expected blast. That 16 was done by a computer modeling program that we use, 17 and we have used it for our nuclear facility. We've 18 used it for the new reactors that are being built.
19 We used this model to predict gas explosions and heat 20 flux. That model was run and found that it did not 21 affect these related structures needed to cool the 22 reactor itself or the fuel in the spent fuel pools.
23 That was the pressure wave. For the heat flux, the 24 same thing. We could determine those calculations 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
52 using that computer model that was run on several 1
different occasions found that the heat flux would 2
not be a factor to damage those safety-related 3
components.
4 MS. CLAIRE: I think I would like to see 5
the analysis that was done to address the spent pools 6
in the event of a rupture. Thank you.
7 MR. PORRECO: Hi. Good afternoon, this 8
is Tony Porreco. I'm the court reporter. I have a 9
few questions for Mr. Pickett.
10 CHAIR MILLER: Go right ahead.
11 MR. PORRECO: Mr. Pickett, at the 12 conclusion of the hearing, would you be able to 13 provide me with a list of the about 20 NRC staff 14 members? I just was trying to get everyone's names.
15 MR. PICKETT: Sure, I just send it to 16 court reporters?
17 MR. PORRECO: Yes, can I provide you with 18 an email address?
19 MR. PICKETT: Sure.
20 MR. PORRECO: Sure. Okay, it's P, as in 21 Paul, O-R-R-E-C-O-A at gmail.com.
22 MR. PICKETT: That's C-O-R-R-E-C-O-L?
23 MR. PORRECO: E-C-O-A. A, as in apple, 24 and the first letter is P. P, as in Paul.
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
53 MR. PICKETT: P-O-R-R-E-C-O-A?
1 MR. PORRECO: Yep, at Gmail.
2 MR. PICKETT: Gmail, okay.
3 MR. PORRECO: Thanks.
4 CHAIR MILLER: At Gmail.
5 MR. PORRECO: Appreciate it.
6 MR. PICKETT: Okay, thank you.
7 MS. BORGIA: It's Catherine Borgia, 8
Westchester County legislator representing parts of 9
Peekskill and Cortlandt. My question is a positive 10 question. Since you are doing this, actually, a 11 little bit, by Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Blanch, I was 12 thinking of this since you are doing a re-look, given 13 today's questions, will there be any level of 14 communication to FERC that this is happening, as they 15 are considering the possible recertification?
16 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett 17 speaking. We are going to have to look at the 18 questions from Mr. Blanch and Mr. Kuprewicz. We're 19 going to have an internal meeting of the Petition 20 Review Board. We will determine whether or not we 21 need to redo our analysis, and we will not be 22 contacting FERC unless we determine that we have a 23 problem with our own conclusions. So right now, we 24 do not plan on communicating with FERC. We will not 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
54 do that until we make the determination that we are 1
in error.
2 MR. BLANCH: Okay, we've got to end this, 3
but I've gone one last question from a local resident 4
who will introduce himself and ask the final 5
question. Thank you.
6 MR. VAUGHEY: Yes, hello. My name is 7
Vernard Vaughey, V, as in Victor, A-U-G-H-E-Y. My 8
question hopefully is simple. Since it appears that 9
the NRC will not send something to FERC to suspend 10 the project, will the NRC consider, based upon all 11 these questions and these unknowns, sending a request 12 to FERC to not issue a notice to proceed for any of 13 the work in Cortlandt until the NRC has their 14 determination made, be it three weeks, three months, 15 or three years?
16 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
17 We're discussing -- I understand the gist of your 18 question, and we're just discussing options of what 19 we could do to discuss the situation with FERC so 20 we could --
21 MR.
KUPREWICZ:
I don't mean to 22 interrupt -- this is Rick Kuprewicz. I'm going to 23 have to sign off because I've got another commitment.
24 Paul, you'll fill me in later? Thank you.
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
55 MR. BLANCH: Thank you very much, Rick.
1 MR. VAUGHEY: There's no sense in 2
starting the work on this if the NRC has questions.
3 There is not one rationale for FERC to allow work to 4
commence if there's a possibility of there being any 5
changes or revisions. That's my reason for asking 6
that the NRC request FERC not issue a notice to 7
proceed on the work in Cortlandt.
8 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller. We 9
talked about it, and what we can do -- I will share 10 information that -- we haven't been sharing all the 11 parts. We've had a lot of discussions with a lot of 12 people in agencies, etcetera. We've been in 13 communication with FERC a number of times through 14 this process, including talking about the blast 15 analysis that we did.
16 They're aware of the blast analysis that 17 we conducted. We've had those conversations on 18 various levels. What we will do is we will send a 19 note or contact our contacts at FERC and let them 20 know that there's a concern, based on Mr. Blanch's 21 2.206 petition. We'll take that action. We can't 22 really request them to take additional action beyond 23 that until we get more detail from our Board. That's 24 what our plan is but we will let them know that this 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
56 is in progress.
1 MR. VAUGHEY: That letter will be public, 2
at least our elected representatives will have access 3
to it?
4 CHAIR MILLER: I'm not sure that we're 5
going to send them a letter. We were planning on a 6
call or an email to our representatives. Like I 7
said, we've been talking at different levels to FERC 8
throughout this process, so I'm confident that FERC 9
knows that there is a petition, and that there is a 10 blast analysis that's been done, that there've been 11 calculations that have been done using the ALOHA 12 code.
13 I can say that with confidence that we've 14 had those discussions with them, but we were planning 15 on a phone call and/or email, however we can send 16 that information to them.
17 MR. BLANCH: Okay, we're all getting a 18 little bit tired here. I appreciate your time, 19 ladies and gentlemen. I'm not sure where we go from 20 here. I'll just reiterate we need an independent 21 risk assessment. Again, thank you for your time, and 22 we look forward to hearing from you. From our end, 23 that's the end of this particular discussion. Thank 24 you.
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
57 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you, and for all 1
those who participated, we appreciate it, and we look 2
forward to receiving the additional information.
3 MR. BLANCH: Okay, thank you very much.
4 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you, bye bye.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 6
went off the record at 4:04 p.m.)
7 8
9 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