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 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 2:41 p.m.
3 MR. PICKETT: Good afternoon. I'd like 4 to thank everybody for attending this meeting. My 5 name is Doug Pickett, and I am the Indian Point 6 project manager. We are here today to allow the 7 Petitioner, Mr. Paul Blanch, assisted by Mr. Richard 8 Kuprewicz of Accufacts Incorporated, to make a second 9 presentation in support of his petition before the 10 Petition Review Board, also referred to as the PRB.
11 I am the petition manager for the petition. The PRB 12 chairman is Mr. Christopher Miller.
13 As part of the PRB review of this 14 petition, Mr. Paul Blanch has requested this 15 opportunity to address the PRB. In accordance with 16 NRC Management Directive 8.11, the purpose of today's 17 second presentation is to allow the Petitioner to 18 comment on the initial recommendation of the PRB and 19 to provide additional information that supports the 20 original petition.
21 Today's meeting is scheduled from 2:30 to 22 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting is being 23 recorded by the NRC Operation Center and will be 24 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 25 become a supplement to the petition, and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 transcript will also be made publicly available. I'd 2 like to open this meeting with introductions. As we 3 go around the room in here, in NRC headquarters, in 4 Rockville, Maryland, please be sure to clearly state 5 your name, your position, and the office that you 6 work for within the NRC. I'll start with myself.
7 I'm Doug Pickett. I'm the NRR project manager for 8 Indian Point, and I'm the petition manager for this 9 petition.
10 CHAIR MILLER: My name is Chris Miller.
11 I'm the PRB chairman, and I'll be speaking with you 12 in a minute.
13 MR. BEASLEY: Ben Beasley. I'm a board 14 member. I'm also a branch chief in the Division for 15 Operating Reactor Licensing.
16 MR. CYLKOWSKI: This is David Cylkowski.
17 I'm an attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
18 MR. THOMPSON: William Thompson. I'm a 19 senior special agent with the Office of 20 Investigations.
21 MR. BEAULIEU: I'm David Beaulieu. I'm 22 a board member. I'm the project manager in the 23 Division of Policies and Rule Making.
24 MR. TAMMARA: I'm Rao Tammara. I'm a 25 technical reviewer in NRO [Office of New Reactors].
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 MR. MCCOPPIN: Mike McCoppin, chief of 2 the Radiation Protection and Accident Consequence 3 Branch, Office of New Reactors.
4 MR. GILBERTSON: Anders Gilbertson, 5 reliability and risk analyst, Office of Research.
6 MS. HAUSER: Jenny Hauser, project 7 manager, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
8 MR. WRAY: John Wray, along with Robert 9 Carpenter, from the Office of Enforcement.
10 MR. DUDEK: Michael Dudek, acting chief 11 for Project 1 Branch.
12 MR. PICKETT: Okay, we've completed the 13 introductions of the NRC headquarters. At this time, 14 are there any NRC participants from headquarters on 15 the phone?
16 MS. SPICHER: Yes, Terri Spicher from IG 17 [Office of the Inspector General].
18 MR. PICKETT: Okay, are there any NRC 19 participants from the regional office on the phone?
20 MR. SETZER: Yes, this is Tom Setzer, 21 senior project engineer for Project Branch 2.
22 MR. BURRITT: Art Burritt, branch chief 23 responsible for inspections at Indian Point.
24 MR. KROHN: Paul Krohn, branch chief, DRS 25 engineer.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 MR. PICKETT: Are there any 2 representatives for the Licensee on the phone?
3 MR. WALPOLE: Yes, Doug. It's Bob 4 Walpole, regulatory assurance manager. With me is 5 Steve Prussman, and also John Skonieczny, and we have 6 more people from Entergy listening in.
7 MR. PICKETT: Mr. Blanch and Mr.
8 Kuprewicz, would you please introduce yourselves, 9 along with anyone else assisting you, for the record?
10 MR. BLANCH: At the time, there's no one 11 else. Dave Lochbaum, if he has time, may be calling 12 in.
13 MR. PICKETT: Okay. I'd like to 14 emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and 15 loudly, to make sure that the court reporter can 16 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you have 17 something that you would like to say, please first 18 state your name. At this time, I'll turn this over 19 to the PRB chairman, Chris Miller.
20 CHAIR MILLER: Good afternoon, and thank 21 you for joining us. We appreciate the information 22 we've received so far during this process, as the 23 Board is using the information to make our decision.
24 We look forward to the information you've provided us 25 today. I'd like to first share some background.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 Section 2.206 of Title 10, Code of Federal 2 Regulations, describes the petition process, the 3 primary mechanism for the public to request 4 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
5 As Doug mentioned, our guidance for 2.206 comes from 6 Management Directive 8.11, and that's publicly 7 available. The focus of today's meeting is a follow 8 up to get any information that the Petitioner wants 9 to provide us so that we can make our final decision, 10 and for the Petitioner, with any other support that 11 he has, to provide that information, and any other 12 perspectives on our decision process so far.
13 The public will be provided the 14 opportunity to provide comments regarding the 15 petition.
16 (Telephonic interference.)
17 CHAIR MILLER: The purpose of the 18 meeting is not to provide an opportunity for 19 questioning the PRBs decision so far, but more to 20 gain additional information to help support and make 21 the decision. It's not a hearing. It's not an 22 opportunity to go into the merits of, as I said, the 23 decision making, other than to provide additional 24 information into that decision making.
25 We're not going to make a decision in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 this forum here. We're going to seek information and 2 have a separate PRB meeting to consider the 3 additional information that has been cited.
4 Following this meeting, the Petition Review Board 5 will conduct a deliberation, and the outcome of the 6 internal meeting will be provided to the Petitioner.
7 The PRB typically consists of a chairman, a manager 8 at the senior executive level, a petition manager, 9 and a PRB coordinator. As described in our process, 10 the NRC may ask clarifying questions in order to 11 better understand the Petitioner's presentation and 12 reach our reasoned decision whether to accept or 13 reject the Petitioner's request.
14 At this time, I want to summarize the 15 scope of the petition that we are considering within 16 the Board. On October 15, 2014, Mr. Blanch submitted 17 a 2.206 petition to the NRC regarding the 50.59 Site 18 Hazards Analysis prepared by Entergy, the Licensee 19 for Indian Point. A 50.59 analysis was performed by 20 the Licensee to determine the safety impact on the 21 Indian Point plant due to Spectra Energys proposed 22 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline that is planned 23 to traverse a portion of the owner-controlled 24 property at the Indian Point facility.
25 In the petition, Mr. Blanch requests that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 the NRC take enforcement action against Entergy, the 2 Licensee, for a violation of 50.9, Completeness and 3 Accuracy of Information, for providing inaccurate or 4 incomplete information in the 50.59 Site Hazards 5 Analysis. In violation of 10 CFR [Code of Federal 6 Regulations] 50, Appendix B -- that's the quality 7 assurance criteria -- they're relying on a contractor 8 who is not qualified in accordance with Appendix B 9 requirements, who is not qualified in accordance with 10 Entergy's quality assurance program, and as a result, 11 was not qualified to perform an analysis for such a 12 significant safety-related issue in violation of 10 13 CFR 50.59 -- that's our changes, tests and 14 experiments chapter -- for failing to perform the 15 necessary safety evaluation requirements.
16 The Petitioner supplemented his petition 17 with a number of documents that address the 18 following: the need for an independent assessment 19 of the proposed pipeline, the assumed three-minute 20 closure time for the pipeline isolation valves, the 21 impact of the proposed West Point Partners 22 high-voltage, direct-current transmission cable, 23 deficiencies with the NRC's Independent Confirmatory 24 Blast Analysis, including the status use of the ALOHA 25 computer code, and improprieties by the NRC staff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 The latter concern has been forwarded to the NRC 2 Inspector General's office.
3 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 4 date. There's been a number of communications with 5 Mr. Blanch, but let me highlight the ones that are 6 pertinent to this process. On January 28th, the 7 Petitioner, with the assistance of Mr. Richard 8 Kuprewicz, of Accufacts, made their first 9 presentation before the PRB. On April 28th, the 10 Petitioner was informed that the initial 11 recommendation of the PRB was to reject the petition 12 on the basis that the NRC staff has previously 13 reviewed and resolved the issues identified in the 14 petition.
15 Subsequently, the petitioner was 16 offered, and accepted, a second opportunity to 17 address the PRB. There's just a couple of final 18 things and I'll wrap up. As a reminder for the 19 participants, please identify yourself if you make 20 any remarks, as this will help us in the preparation 21 of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly 22 available, just like the last transcript was made 23 available.
24 At the end of the meeting, members of the 25 public may provide comments regarding the petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 and ask questions about the 2.206 petition process.
2 However, as discussed in the opening, the purpose is 3 to provide information that helps the board render a 4 decision, not necessarily on the merits or agreement 5 with the decision making so far. Mr. Blanch and Mr.
6 Kuprewicz, with that being said, I'll turn it over to 7 you to provide additional information you believe the 8 PRB should consider as part of this decision. Thank 9 you very much.
10 MR. BLANCH: Okay, thank you. This is 11 Paul Blanch. Can you hear me?
12 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, we can, very clear.
13 MR. BLANCH: I believe that you made a 14 statement at the beginning relative to Management 15 Directive 8.11 that said I'm not allowed to ask 16 questions. Is that an accurate portrayal of your 17 statement?
18 MR. PICKETT: The purpose of today's 19 meeting, according to the Management Directive, is 20 for you to comment on the initial recommendation of 21 the PRB, --
22 (Telephonic interference.)
23 -- petition, and to provide additional 24 information.
25 MR. BLANCH: I'm not sure I heard an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 answer to my question. Am I allowed to have a 2 dialogue and ask questions and receive answers from 3 the NRC?
4 MR. PICKETT: No, you are not.
5 MR. BLANCH: And could you tell me where 6 in 8.11 it says that?
7 MR. PICKETT: It doesn't say that in as 8 many words, but it's clear the purpose of the meeting 9 is for you to provide additional information in 10 support of your position.
11 MR. BLANCH: Again, this is a primary 12 point. The Management Directive says the NRC can ask 13 questions, the Licensee can ask questions, but it 14 does not preclude --
15 (Telephonic interference.)
16 -- I guess what I'm hearing is I'm not 17 allowed to ask any questions of a regulator who 18 supposedly serves the public and the environment.
19 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller, Mr.
20 Blanch. I think what you're hearing is we're trying 21 to have an efficient process here. What we're trying 22 to do is get through and hear the additional 23 information that the Board has to consider. If you 24 have clarifying questions to say, "I'm not really 25 sure what you meant by in your decision to date," or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 whatever, and that helps, and then you say, "Here's 2 my information related to that," that might be 3 useful.
4 We don't have the purpose of this meeting 5 to have a dialogue on whether or not, for example, a 6 particular calculation is accurate or not, but if you 7 want to provide more and say, "I didn't understand 8 how you got to that assumption. Let me tell you what 9 my take on the calculation is. I'd like you to look 10 at this," that would be useful. I think if we stray 11 from that too far, we're not going to get through 12 your additional information for the Board to 13 consider.
14 MR. BLANCH: I respectfully disagree, 15 and there are some absolutely vital questions that I 16 need responses to to determine whether Entergy is 17 making accurate statements, and whether the NRC is 18 making accurate statements. There's a question I 19 tried to ask before. Could you tell me who from OI, 20 Office of Investigation, is there, and who from the 21 Inspector General's office is there?
22 MR. THOMPSON: This is Will Thompson from 23 the Office of Investigations.
24 MR. BLANCH: Thanks, Will.
25 MS. SPICHER: And Terri Spicher from IG.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 MR. BLANCH: Hi, Terri. Nice to talk to 2 you again. My understanding is I cannot ask any 3 questions. Is that a good portrayal?
4 CHAIR MILLER: I think you just asked 5 some questions. As they help you provide us 6 information, and we'll ask you if we need clarifying 7 information, but the purpose of the call is for you 8 to give us information, so that we have more to make 9 our decision on.
10 MR. BLANCH: This is why I wanted a 11 dialogue. Let me just -- Rick, I'll introduce you 12 in one second, if you can bear with me.
13 MR. KUPREWICZ: No problem.
14 MR. BLANCH: Here's my first statement, 15 ladies and gentlemen. My petition alleged that 16 Entergy provided inaccurate and incomplete 17 information to the NRC. Not only was the information 18 provided inaccurate, it was materially false with 19 respect to the three-minute closure time. Material 20 in that first place approval of the AIM [Algonquin 21 Incremental Market] project on this false information 22 supplied by Entergy and its consultants.
23 This alone should be a firm basis for 24 granting my petition. These facts are discussed in 25 the NRC's internal email dated April 27, 2015. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 NRC, in defense of Entergy, recalculated the impact 2 of prolonged gas discharge by modifying its equations 3 for the PIR [potential impact radius]. This is the 4 second time Entergy has been exposed for making false 5 statements to a regulatory agency.
6 I have further follow-up questions on 7 that. My second statement, and then Rick can take 8 over. The NRC has threatened the safety of more than 9 20 million residents and the infrastructure of the 10 greater New York metropolitan area, and is risking 11 trillions of dollars of damage, and possibly the U.S.
12 economy, by basing its safety assessment on a 13 calculation that was recently obtained from the NRC 14 under FOIA. This new information confirms that this 15 NRC "calculation", which was partially handwritten, 16 unapproved, undated, unsigned, used fictitious, 17 false, and unsupported assumptions. This NRC 18 calculation supported the FERC [Federal Energy 19 Regulatory Commission] approval of the AIM project in 20 the transportation of thousands of pounds of TNT 21 equivalent across and in the vicinity of the nuclear 22 power plant.
23 This back-of-the-envelope 24 calculation -- as I say, handwritten -- which misled 25 congressional representatives, misled FERC, and that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 misled the general public, must be invalidated, and 2 an independent, transparent, structured risk 3 assessment, as outlined in OSHA [Occupational Safety 4 and Health Administration] 29 CFR, methodology must 5 be undertaken. With that, I will -- I have a long, 6 long list of questions which the NRC won't respond 7 to, and I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kuprewicz.
8 Rick.
9 MR. KUPREWICZ: Thank you. You can't 10 see me, and I can't see you, so that may sometimes 11 cause for pauses in our discussion while someone's 12 trying to transcribe here. I'm going to focus my 13 comments on the analysis related to the gas 14 transmission pipeline rupture and the possible 15 resulting impact associated with that. I want to 16 first say that I'm going to honor the CEII [critical 17 energy infrastructure information] non-disclosure 18 agreement I signed under the FERC providence, so 19 please, all parties, respect my obligation to not 20 disclose certain critical energy information covered 21 by these agreements. Those agreements, however, I 22 must state categorically, do not prevent me from 23 commenting on information readily in the public 24 domain. Based on that and information that I studied 25 that is public, my filing observations regarding the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 analysis concerning the 42-inch gas pipeline rupture 2 in proximity or close proximity to the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant are as follows.
4 I reviewed a series of rupture analysis 5 statements concerning the AIM 42-inch transient 6 pipeline rupture near the Indian point plant. These 7 analyses include the most recent FOIA study that Paul 8 just recently mentioned. I've got to come to the 9 conclusion that they do not represent the transient 10 dynamics associated with a 42-inch gas transmission 11 rupture should it fail near the Indian Point nuke 12 plant.
13 For example, based on extensive 14 experience, pipe fracture mechanics will demonstrate 15 that gas transmission pipeline ruptures are always 16 full-bore ruptures, even buried. Pressure drop will 17 not be a timely indicator of pipe rupture, even for 18 a 42-inch pipeline. Assumptions about closure within 19 three minutes to cut off gas flow near the plant are 20 unrealistic and unscientific. A further recent 21 analysis conclusion that a rupture release of one 22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> on the 42 inch pipeline does not impact the nuke 23 plant needs further explanations, as it makes no 24 sense for this system. The above key assumptions, 25 as stated in agency studies, ignore proximity to a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 compressor station upstream and ignore system 2 dynamics associated with a gas transmission pipeline 3 rupture that increases gas releases well above 4 pipeline flow before the rupture.
5 Quite simply, agency studies are 6 violating the basic laws of science concerning gas 7 pipeline rupture and associated forces that result in 8 massive cratering, pipe shrapneling, and violate the 9 science associated with such releases, especially a 10 42-inch pipeline. It is not that hard to set up a 11 base case for transient rupture analysis near the 12 nuke facility for this gas transmission system.
13 It appears that various agencies are 14 attempting to dismiss risk as low when gas pipeline 15 rupture may drive the nuke facility to non-safe 16 shutdown in a highly sensitive area. Agency studies 17 create the appearance of risk management tampering to 18 favor a project agency decision and raise the 19 question, Are involved agencies capable of performing 20 a scientifically neutral study for such a sensitive 21 issue? This just isn't that hard near the plant.
22 Lastly, I must comment that a truly independent 23 safety analysis should be performed, subject to a 24 reasonable open peer review. Security claims should 25 not be permitted to shelter malfeasance in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 scientific method involving incomplete risk analysis 2 for such a highly sensitive infrastructure. Again, 3 I thank you for your patience in introducing my 4 comments today.
5 MR. BLANCH: This is Paul Blanch. Rick, 6 thank you so much for your valued statements. Just 7 following up, Rick has considerable experience in 8 pipeline dynamics, pipeline explosions, 9 investigations, national transportation board, all 10 kinds of credentials. The Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission has no one whose name I have seen that has 12 any credentials, published documentation, national 13 committees, related to gas dynamics and pipeline 14 transportation.
15 We know that a Mr. Tammara did a 16 paperwork study on Calvert Cliffs, Cove Point, but 17 this was a study, no real experience. Entergy's 18 consultant, Mr. David Allen, conducted a paperwork 19 study, no documented experience. The NRC has 20 considerable expertise in nuclear safety; however, 21 has no expertise in gas line investigations, 22 ruptures, dynamics, and response times and emergency 23 response to such. Given a vote, I would put my money 24 on Mr. Kuprewicz's opinions, rather than the opinions 25 of a paid consultant by Entergy, who was told to come NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 up with an outcome, and from a consultant or from an 2 engineer with Entergy, who used to work for another 3 contractor, who has no documented experience on 4 pipeline dynamics.
5 We have a significant risk here, and we 6 desperately need an independent risk assessment, 7 using established OSHA procedures. I have 20 8 questions. Is it even worth discussing the 9 questions, or are you just going to say, "No comment"?
10 I will be submitting these questions to the NRC in 11 writing anyway, but I expect some type of non-answer 12 to the questions, as has happened before.
13 MR. PICKETT: Paul, this is Doug Pickett 14 here. I would appreciate you sending those questions 15 to me.
16 MR. BLANCH: Okay, I am going to ask the 17 questions. My first question is what justification 18 does the NRC have for modifying the equation for the 19 distance in Reg Guide 1.97 by throwing in a factor 20 that is undefined?
21 CHAIR MILLER: Paul, this is Chris 22 Miller. Those kinds of questions we don't 23 necessarily have the people here to discuss it or to 24 weigh in to the merits of it. I don't think that's 25 going to get us through the commentary -- or the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 questioning and information period. I think it might 2 be more productive if we ask the questions of what is 3 represented so that we can get more information based 4 on what, for example, Mr. Kuprewicz said and what you 5 said. But yes, that question wouldn't be one that 6 we'd entertain in this forum.
7 MR. BLANCH: Okay, according to the NRC, 8 we, the public, are your customers. As a customer, 9 if I go into a store or go to buy something, or an 10 auto dealer, if I want to ask a question, I expect an 11 answer. Again, I have 20-some questions. Do you 12 want me to read off -- I'll just read off the 13 questions. If you think they --
14 CHAIR MILLER: What would be useful is 15 if you would send those questions in to us 16 (Simultaneous speaking).
17 MR. BLANCH: I'd like to read the 18 questions.
19 CHAIR MILLER: (Simultaneous speaking) 20 with the right people, so that the right people could 21 get the answers. Then you could get accurate answers 22 to your questions.
23 MR. BLANCH: I'd like to ask the 24 questions, such as the members of the public can hear 25 what my concerns are with respect to nuclear safety.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 If you choose to answer them, fine. If you choose 2 to ignore them, let us know. No. 1, NRC's 3 conclusions on isolation times and blast radius are 4 contradicted by its own document references and 5 historical experience documents by the National 6 Transportation Safety Board.
7 The NRC has ignored the requirements of 8 10 CFR 192.935 for risk analysis. The NRC and 9 Entergy have misrepresented closure times -- what I'm 10 talking about, from the time of the accident to the 11 time the gas flow terminates. This is a major, major 12 concern stated in a proposed rejection letter. The 13 NRC has totally relinquished its exclusive 14 responsibility for nuclear safety to the Department 15 of Transportation.
16 How can they do that? The Atomic Energy 17 Act forbids that. For example, they trust the 18 Department of Transportation to ensure those valves 19 will close, that there's proper redundancy, that the 20 condition of the 63-year-old pipe is not degraded, 21 such that it's going to rupture within the next year 22 or next day. We just don't know. I don't think the 23 NRC knows. So in essence, the NRC has turned over 24 its responsibility for nuclear safety and protecting 25 the public to the Department of Transportation, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 we know the recent history of the Department of 2 Transportation. A gas line rupture in one of 3 Spectra's pipelines in Arkansas, crossing the 4 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 /> 5 to detect, which totally contradicts the reference by 6 the NRC to Spectra's Resource Report No. 11.
7 The NRC employed unauthorized computer 8 programs to calculate risk, flow, vapor gas 9 explosion, jet fire explosion. They used ALOHA, 10 which is prohibited for the use in this type of event.
11 The NRC, and I'm referring to Reg Guide 1.91, has 12 changed and misused its own calculations.
13 Calculations have been conducted by inexperienced NRC 14 and Entergy persons. The NRC failed to consider 15 historic ruptures in its time to isolate and 16 terminate gas flow.
17 The NRC continues to ignore the potential 18 impact of vapor clouds. The NRC fails to consider 19 the possibility of flammable gasses entering the 20 plant and control rooms, the same type of events that 21 contributed to the explosions of the secondary 22 containment at Fukushima. Whether that's a 23 possibility or not, I'm not sure. I'm just saying 24 it was not considered. The NRC provides misleading 25 responses to direct questions on the content of a 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 1 fuel oil tank. That's a significant issue. I've 2 asked three times, from Neal Sheehan to Doug Pickett 3 to Scott [Stewart], senior resident inspector, do 4 those large, multi-million-gallon tanks contain any 5 flammable materials which are inside the impact zone?
6 All I get is statements, "To the best of my knowledge, 7 we don't think so."
8 I cannot get a definitive answer whether 9 those large multi-million-gallon tanks contain 10 flammable material? No direct answer. Spectra 11 proposes to enhance new pipelines while ignoring 12 63-year-old existing pipelines within the Indian 13 Point property. Neither the Licensee, nor the NRC 14 as Indian Point operations -- personnel are not 15 aware or have any procedure to combat and -- yes, 16 combat and impose any requirements on the piping or 17 the gas transmission line system within the 18 protected -- I shouldn't say protected area, but 19 owner-controlled area of Indian Point.
20 The NRC refused to issue an informal 21 letter to me proposing to reject my petition. The 22 NRC issued to the Licensee and the world a letter 23 specifically addressed to me, dated June 29, 2015, 24 but for some reason -- and this still holds true 25 today, unless it's in the mail -- the NRC has ignored 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 1 even sending that letter to me. I got it from a 2 friend. What kind of game is the NRC playing here 3 that they won't sign letters, they'll address letters 4 to me, but they won't send them either by email or by 5 snail mail? My bottom line is we desperately need 6 congressional and public support and demand the NRC 7 sanction or require an independent -- and I do mean 8 independent -- risk assessment of the gas line at 9 Indian Point. I think those are the majority of the 10 questions. There could be more.
11 MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Blanch, this is Ben 12 Beasley of the NRC. It would be very helpful for us, 13 when you send us your questions, that you send as 14 much specific information as you can. I didn't take 15 a lot of notes, but on things like you identified 16 contradictions at that point, 191. If you could give 17 us some specific information on where you see the 18 contradictions, that would be very helpful for us to 19 give you a fuller response.
20 MR. BLANCH: I sent that information to 21 Doug Pickett today. It outlines exactly the equation 22 that for some reason the NRC decided to modify to get 23 its desired outcome.
24 MR. BEASLEY: Okay, thank you.
25 MR. BLANCH: Without any justification, 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 1 whatsoever.
2 MR. BEASLEY: Thank you. The request 3 was the more information you give us, the better we'll 4 be able to give you a faster response.
5 MR. BLANCH: I'm just talking about your 6 own documents, not my documents. You've got them 7 all. Take a look at all the FOIAs that I filed and 8 the responses to the FOIAs. Some of them are 9 different. I haven't seen any communication where 10 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has even 11 given you any flow diagrams to perform an independent 12 risk assessment of the pipeline system. We don't 13 know what valves have to be closed, whether there are 14 multiple valves. I assume there have to be multiple 15 valves. We, in the nuclear industry, require 16 redundancy. We require inspections. We require 17 quality assurance. How can you delegate this 18 responsibility to the Department of Transportation 19 and rely on them to protect the health and safety of 20 millions of residents? This is inexcusable to me.
21 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, Mr. Blanch, we have 22 those questions and statements that you just 23 provided. Is there other material you want to 24 provide the Board? I know that there's some 25 questions that the Board would want to ask you and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 Mr. Kuprewicz, but before we do that, I wanted to see 2 if there's any other information that you have, that 3 you'd like to provide?
4 MR. BLANCH: That's the primary 5 information that I have, but I'd like to have you 6 ladies and gentlemen ask Mr. Kuprewicz, with his 7 numerous years of recognized gas line investigations 8 and studies -- if you have any questions for him.
9 CHAIR MILLER: We will do that. If I 10 could just ask you one question related -- this is 11 Chris Miller. I want to ask you one question related 12 to your -- in your list of questions and statements 13 about your June 29th letter. Do you want us to send 14 you an email -- I'm assuming that the hard copy did 15 not come to you. Would you like an email of 16 the -- with an attachment of that letter? We can 17 provide that?
18 MR. BLANCH: No, I don't need it. I 19 obviously got it from a friend. It's just very 20 upsetting to me that you have a signed letter, dated 21 letter, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt 22 that maybe it was a mistake, but given all the other 23 evasive statements I've received from the NRC, it 24 just seems to be a pattern. That question about do 25 the tanks contain flammable material, I can't get a 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 1 straight answer from the NRC. When I get an answer, 2 to the best of my knowledge. I'm not a politician.
3 I'm an engineer. I don't take kindly to political 4 answers. This is from your Office of Public Affairs.
5 I really, really -- I've said it 100 times.
6 Everyone's saying it. We need an independent risk 7 assessment. We need to sit down.
8 I've asked Senator Gillibrand's office to 9 see if her office could arrange a meeting between 10 myself and Entergy to try to resolve our differences 11 of opinion. I haven't heard back yet. I don't have 12 any questions. I'd certainly like answers sometime.
13 I could restate these questions, but I read them as 14 I had written them. They were very brief. I'm 15 pretty much done. I'm not overly pleased at what I'm 16 hearing, especially on the question answering.
17 CHAIR MILLER: On that one issue with the 18 letter, we'll go ahead and send an attached letter, 19 assuming that's the mail that hasn't arrived there 20 yet or something. I don't know what happened. It 21 certainly was inadvertent. If the June 29th letter 22 didn't arrive by July 14th, I don't know what 23 happened, but we'll send you an electronic version.
24 You should be able to get that shortly.
25 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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 1 CHAIR MILLER: If you had any 2 more -- before we go on to Mr. Kuprewicz -- and I'll 3 ask the rest of the team -- you made an initial 4 statement about false statements that were made 5 to -- fictitious false assumptions. I'm wondering 6 is that something that we can get from you the 7 specifics of that, or is that something you can 8 provide us when you provide your list of questions, 9 or is that something that Mr. Kuprewicz can provide 10 your beliefs on those? That would help us out a lot, 11 as well.
12 MR. BLANCH: I had, last Friday, a very 13 long conversation, very cordial and professional 14 conversation with Mr. Art Burritt, who I think is a 15 senior NRC person on here. I think we will both 16 agree it was a very good conversation. We got into 17 some of these questions last week about probability 18 assumptions and the basis for that.
19 Again, I told Mr. Burritt last week that 20 there were errors where Indian Point is operating 21 outside of their design basis with respect to the 22 existing gas lines because your gas expert said that 23 a failure of these 63-year-old gas lines is not 24 feasible, which is, to me, a false statement. That's 25 one example. There's many examples throughout these 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 1 documentations that I got within FOIA. Another false 2 statement is that the gas rupture, if it pursues, 3 will not significantly increase the blast radius, 4 inconsistent with the equation in Reg Guide 1.91. I 5 don't know how one comes to that and how one can make 6 these statements that, on the surface, appear to be 7 inaccurate and false.
8 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, I've got those two 9 listed. If you have any more, it would be useful if 10 you provide them with the other questions you're 11 providing. That would be useful to us.
12 MR. BLANCH: I've got 100 people in the 13 room here. With respect to that June 29th letter, 14 don't bother sending it. I have it obviously. I've 15 gotten it from numerous people. I don't care. It's 16 just an example of how the NRC is treating us and 17 ignoring us and not giving us direct answers to direct 18 questions and not signing documents, not dating 19 documents. It seems like they're almost playing a 20 game with me, and nuclear safety is not a game to me.
21 CHAIR MILLER: It's not a game with us 22 either, and we have a very thorough process for 23 putting things in our ADAMS [Agencywide Documents 24 Access and Management System] system, so they're made 25 publicly available. I take concern when somebody 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 1 says that something is not appropriately sent or 2 documented or whatever, so we'll make sure you get 3 another copy of that letter, and that the information 4 is available when it's able to be put in the public 5 space.
6 MR. BLANCH: I tend to disagree with you 7 that you have procedures in place to assure safety 8 when the NRC doesn't even have a procedure for doing 9 safety-related calculations and does not have a 10 quality assurance procedure that it imposes on 11 licensees. When I see a calculation, which I call a 12 back-of-the-envelope calculation, with handwriting 13 in it, I would be put in jail if I submitted that to 14 the NRC if I were working for a licensee. I disagree 15 with your statement that we are concerned about 16 safety. I believe more concerned about the 17 continuance of the nuclear industry. I'm done.
18 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. Let me ask 19 the Board, is there any more questions for Mr. Blanch 20 before we move on to questions for Mr. Kuprewicz?
21 No? Okay, anything from the regional people or other 22 headquarters people that want to ask a question of 23 Mr. Blanch?
24 PARTICIPANT: No thank you, Chris.
25 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, we'll move on to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 questions for Mr. Kuprewicz.
2 MR. BEASLEY: I did have one. This is 3 Ben Beasley. Mr. Kuprewicz, you said that it makes 4 no sense that a release from the gas lines -- release 5 and explosion would not affect the plant. I just was 6 curious if you have some test data or some examples 7 of where there was a blast and how far the one psi 8 pressure wave extended from that blast? If you have 9 some data like that that you could send to us that 10 would be informative, it would be helpful just to 11 back up your statement that it makes no sense there.
12 MR. KUPREWICZ: Let me clarify here.
13 What I think I said -- maybe I'll have to go back and 14 look at the transcript -- is that the analysis had 15 indicated that a one-hour gas release is just going 16 to be as effective as the early gas release. That 17 makes no sense because the mass releases are 18 substantially different. As to whether or not it 19 affects the plant, I don't know that. That's an 20 issue -- and I want everybody to be clearly 21 understood -- I can't make that analysis because I 22 don't know the details of the plant.
23 All I can tell you is the statements I'm 24 hearing and reading in the analysis and studies 25 related to gas pipeline rupture, on a 42-inch 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 1 pipeline that ruptures at this point, in this 2 proximity to the nuke facility, has no justification 3 in the scientific method. There's the difference.
4 What I would clarify is you need to get a hold of 5 somebody who really understands gas transmission 6 pipeline rupture. They can do a transient 7 analysis -- okay, the pipeline ruptured at Second 0.
8 It's now Minute 2, Minute 3, Minute 4, Minute 60.
9 This is a mass release, and you need to decide when 10 does it -- will it ignite or not? Will it detonate 11 or not? Then assign probabilities to those, if you 12 wish.
13 But regardless of the probability, if you 14 have a significant, large enough gas release, and it 15 does detonate, will it affect the plant, and more 16 importantly, not so much affect the plant, but will 17 it affect the plant's ability to shut down in a 18 failsafe mode? That's always been the question I've 19 had. I'm not trying to answer that. Am I clear?
20 MR. BEASLEY: Yes, I guess I was just 21 interested -- the way you said it, I thought you might 22 have some specific information about a blast radius 23 that was larger than was calculated by our analysis, 24 but it sounds like you don't have anything specific.
25 MR. KUPREWICZ: No, you're correct. My 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 1 analysis, based on what I see of the plant 2 structures -- again, I'm not the detailed expert on 3 your structures at Indian Point -- is my suspicion 4 would be while blast radius would do a lot of damage, 5 it may not affect the plant's ability to failsafe 6 shutdown. Blast is probably not the controlling 7 factor in this analysis. It's heat radiation.
8 MR. BEASLEY: Yes, our analysis did 9 calculate the heat flux, also. Again, I just was 10 interested if you had something specific that you 11 were thinking about.
12 MR. KUPREWICZ: No. To be fair to you, 13 I would have to do a specific calculation for a 14 specific site, and I have not done that, just looking 15 at the general maps. I haven't reached that 16 conclusion. My suspicion would be -- your nuclear 17 reactors, they'll survive blast, no big deal, but 18 it's the auxiliary failsafe equipment that you have 19 to be sure someone's performed an analysis on. My 20 experience would tell me most likely heat radiation 21 is your biggest risk.
22 MR. BEASLEY: Okay, thank you.
23 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, appreciate that.
24 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett and 25 I'd like to ask Mr. Blanch if you could provide as 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 1 much detail in your concerns, that would be 2 appreciate, of course. One thing I wrote down that 3 you said --
4 MR. BLANCH: Could you speak up a little 5 louder please?
6 MR. PICKETT: Okay, I was asking Mr.
7 Kuprewicz if he could provide as much detail as you 8 could on the individual concerns that he mentioned in 9 his statement. That would be beneficial to the 10 Board. One of the things I wrote down for Mr.
11 Kuprewicz, I wrote down risk management tampering.
12 That certainly sounds like an impropriety by the 13 staff, if you could talk a little bit more about that.
14 MR. KUPREWICZ: That's a general 15 observation I've seen in too many criminal 16 investigations lately that I've had to assist in. I 17 don't like using that word in public very often, nor 18 am I implying that's the situation here. But we tend 19 to find, in the application of risk management 20 techniques, which have become a more favorable effort 21 in regulatory processes, that sometimes we see 22 processes where the science is either ignored or not 23 applied appropriately, such that it drives to a 24 pre-ordained conclusion.
25 So I make that statement with my 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 1 impression is -- I get the impression that someone's 2 driving towards a decision to site the facility. I 3 can't reach that conclusion, whether that's fair or 4 not. All I can look at is the scientific principles 5 related to gas pipeline ruptures and say holy crying 6 out loud, they're not capturing the scientific 7 principles here. Again, these are transient 8 releases. They're a little more complex, but they're 9 not that hard to do if someone knows what they're 10 doing.
11 MR. PICKETT: Okay, thank you.
12 MR. BLANCH: This is Paul Blanch again.
13 Another one of the documents that I got under FOIA 14 actually shocked me when it said that there's 376,000 15 kilograms of natural gas released during the first 16 minute, and then a couple hundred thousand for the 17 next hour. That's a phenomenal amount of gas. When 18 I look at 376,000 kilograms of gas in a minute, that's 19 close to a nuclear weapon. Within about three 20 minutes, the energy released would be close to that 21 of a nuclear weapon.
22 Natural gas on a per-pound or 23 per-kilogram basis contains ten times more energy 24 than TNT. We're not talking about a small break 25 here, with a small amount of energy being released.
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 1 This is not -- and I realize that TNT versus natural 2 gas is quite a bit different because of the time 3 involved, but we're not talking a small amount of 4 gas. This is a very serious safety issue. If the 5 NRC wants to reject my position and think this is the 6 end of it, it will not be the end of it. I'm done.
7 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. Hang on one 8 second. Let me just -- one more question for Mr.
9 Kuprewicz. This is Chris Miller with the NRC. You 10 looked at our analysis, and I realize you didn't 11 do -- calculate the blast radius and that and the 12 heat flux that came -- similar to what we did. My 13 question was I thought I heard in your discussion 14 that you did question the amount of gas that we -- the 15 gas flow that we used in our calculation.
16 I was wondering if you had any numbers 17 that you used, or you think were more appropriate 18 than the numbers we used to calculate the gas flow 19 that leads to the mass -- the kilograms and the energy 20 potential that we're talking about here?
21 MR. KUPREWICZ: To answer your question, 22 the answer is no, but based on a wealth of 23 investigation and other calculations on other 24 pipelines, I've got to tell you a 42-inch, when it 25 ruptures, is going to release -- I'm not going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 jump to Paul's numbers, but there are going to be a 2 lot of numbers. They're going to be big numbers.
3 When I hear things like we can cut off the gas flow 4 within three minutes, that's clearly a violation of 5 the laws of thermodynamics. Even if you close the 6 valves within three minutes, it's not going to cut 7 off the gas flow. But, and that -- my experience 8 would say this: the credibility tends to go out the 9 window when I start seeing statements on key 10 assumptions, and it just may kind of get back to that 11 earlier question that was raised, where gee, it looks 12 like these are kind of lining up to give a 13 pre-ordained answer. Look, just run the transient 14 analysis, make your statements for what they are, and 15 then let them be what they are. Then they'll take 16 you where you need to be.
17 You're going to find that a 42-inch gas 18 line is going to release a lot of gas for a long time, 19 and you won't -- by the time you see pressure drop, 20 the damage is already done. It won't be a few 21 minutes. That's just a qualification statement.
22 The details -- run a transient analysis on a 42-inch 23 gas pipeline rupture a few miles from a gas 24 compression station. They're not going to see 25 pressure drop, not for a while.
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 1 CHAIR MILLER: So we did do the numbers 2 on the flow. I hear you think they may not be 3 accurate (Simultaneous speaking).
4 MR. KUPREWICZ: I'm not here to punish 5 you guys or challenge everything you guys do or make 6 you the bad guys. My function is to be neutral. I'm 7 just saying this. If your calculations didn't look 8 at gas flow going up significantly in the first couple 9 minutes after a pipeline rupture, your approach is 10 probably in error.
11 CHAIR MILLER: Okay, thank you for that.
12 Any other questions for Mr. Kuprewicz? Any more 13 questions from the region or from other headquarters 14 offices?
15 MR. BEASLEY: No, Chris, thank you.
16 CHAIR MILLER: Is there any questions 17 from the pipeline -- from Entergy, let's put it that 18 way?
19 MR. WALPOLE: No comments from Entergy, 20 Chris.
21 CHAIR MILLER: Okay. We know that there 22 are members -- that's all that we have for the 23 questions back and forth for the Board, the 24 information the Board would need. We know that there 25 are members of the public invited. I guess I would 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 1 like to include them by saying, are there any members 2 of the public that would like to make a comment or 3 question regarding the process we're using? If you 4 do, again, I'll remind you, back to the beginning, 5 that you need to press star-1, so that the moderator 6 can get you off of mute and into the call. Let's go 7 to that portion of our meeting.
8 MR. BLANCH: I have Linda Puglisi, who's 9 the town supervisor for the Town of Cortlandt, who 10 would like to ask another question. Linda, thank 11 you.
12 MS. PUGLISI: Thank you so much for 13 allowing me to make a statement, and I want to ask a 14 question. I'm the supervisor of the Town of 15 Cortlandt, and Indian Point has been in our town and 16 our Village of Buchanan. The mayor of Buchanan is 17 also here. We've been partnering for two and a half 18 years to fight this Spectra-Algonquin expanded 19 pipeline, from 26 inches to 42 inches, and even more 20 importantly, a point to make, it's a 25 percent 21 increase in pressure.
22 A couple of months ago, there was a fire 23 at a transformer on the Indian Point grounds. I 24 received a phone call on a Saturday night regarding 25 that incident. If this pipeline, 100 feet from 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 1 Indian Point, was under construction or constructed, 2 God forbid that there was an impact to that gas line.
3 Bottom line here, I will be very simple 4 and clear in my comment and my request. We need your 5 help, NRC, to go to FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory 6 Commission, that has the authority to render a 7 decision on the expanse of this pipeline, and 8 unfortunately they did on March 3, 2015. We got 9 together with State, with our task force, with our 10 assemblywoman, Sandy Galef, with many other people in 11 our community and elected officials, and we asked 12 for -- to revisit this, and to hear our many, many 13 concerns and issues. This is one of the most 14 important issues, the close proximity to Indian 15 Point. We need your help to go to FERC to ask them 16 to re-open that premature decision that they made on 17 March 3rd. Please help us. Thank you.
18 (Simultaneous speaking.)
19 CHAIR MILLER: Paul, do you have other 20 folks?
21 MR. BLANCH: Is there anyone else that 22 would like to make a brief statement to the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission? I hate to single people out.
24 There's one lady that would like to make a statement.
25 I'll let her do her own introduction.
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 1 MAYOR KNICKERBOCKER: Thank you for 2 taking this call. Thank you Paul Blanch. Thank you 3 Sandy Galef. Thank you Linda Puglisi. Thank you 4 everyone in this room. You can hear the questions.
5 We need answers. Oh, I'm Theresa Knickerbocker, 6 mayor of Village of Buchanan. Can you hear me?
7 Hello?
8 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, we can hear you.
9 MAYOR KNICKERBOCKER: Okay, good, just 10 wanted to check. There's a bunch of people in this 11 room. You can hear the concern. I believe Mr.
12 Blanch had a lot of good questions, a lot of good 13 questions, also Dave had excellent questions and 14 comments. We have concerns. We want this to be 15 safe. This is our community. We have to have 16 answers to these questions. I would really, really 17 appreciate -- this is very difficult, this phone 18 calling thing. I'm more of a person one on one. I 19 need to communicate directly.
20 I would really like to ask that when you 21 answer these questions that you come into our 22 community to answer these questions. If you want me 23 to facilitate it at the Village of Buchanan, or I'm 24 sure that Supervisor Puglisi would love to do it in 25 the Town of Cortlandt, but we really need to have 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 1 these questions answered. We need to be assured that 2 this pipeline is safe.
3 We have a nuclear power plant. You guys 4 are in charge of making sure these nuclear power 5 plants are safe, so please, please answer these 6 questions, get answers to these questions, get back 7 to this community and assure us that this is safe.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. BLANCH: Okay at this time, we've 10 probably run over a little bit of time, but I 11 appreciate everyone's concern here and at the NRC.
12 I think we've accomplished what we needed to 13 accomplish during this conversation. Again, the 14 bottom line is we still have a lot of questions about 15 nuclear safety, and we desperately need that risk 16 assessment. With that, I'm going to end mine, unless 17 the NRC has something they want to finally say.
18 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, just a couple of 19 quick points. First of all, thank you to the 20 commenters who just presented and to Mr. Kuprewicz 21 and to you, Mr. Blanch. Appreciate the discussion 22 and the information. We will make a Board decision 23 on whether to accept or reject the 2.206 petition and 24 to further discuss, and we'll provide information, 25 and we'll provide answers back, and we'll provide the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 court reporting of this -- transcripts of this call.
2 With that in mind, let me ask the court 3 reporter if there's any additional need for 4 information for the meeting transcript? You may have 5 to do *1, court reporter.
6 MS. SHAPIRO: Hi, this is Geri Shapiro 7 from Senator Gillibrand's office. -- give me some 8 kind of a time line, in terms of now that you've heard 9 the questions raised, when they will be answered --
10 (Telephonic interference.)
11 -- time line. The other two is several elected 12 offices on this phone call. We would like to be able 13 to get copies of the responses, so that we can get 14 the material directly, also.
15 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. This is Chris 16 Miller. We certainly will provide that information 17 if you can identify the other offices that are on 18 (Simultaneous speaking).
19 MS. SHAPIRO: I would tell you to send 20 them to the entire congressional delegation. I don't 21 know whether they're all on or not. I know we have 22 two of us on from Senator Gillibrand's office. I 23 know that Congresswoman Lowey's office is on. The 24 thing is I guess I wanted the time line and equally 25 important, what do you see as the time line here?
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 1 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett. We 2 need to see the questions from Mr. Blanch and Mr.
3 Kuprewicz. I really can't give you a good estimate 4 right now. We'll have to have an internal meeting 5 with PRB after this, I think in the next few weeks.
6 Then we're going to have to discuss what the time and 7 the questions are. We're probably talking a good six 8 weeks.
9 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
10 The process, as Doug was laying it out, we have a 11 couple other things that we have to get. When we get 12 the questions from Mr. Blanch and additional 13 information that we need to consider, then 14 we'll -- and we need to get the transcribed report.
15 We'll get the transcribed report out to all parties, 16 and that includes the Board members. Then we'll meet 17 as a Board. I would expect that's going to be two 18 to three weeks out, if not more. Then the Board will 19 make a recommendation. And there's two ways that 20 could go. the Board could say we should accept this 21 petition and look at the merits of it and do further 22 information, or the Board could say there's no 23 additional information than what was already 24 provided, and then we provide a final report on that.
25 But yes, we can't give you an exact time line, but 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 1 it's a number of weeks out.
2 MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
3 MS. WARREN: Good afternoon. My name is 4 Barbara Warren. I'm with Citizens' Environmental 5 Coalition. I guess I'd like to understand did NRC 6 just accept the Entergy evaluation, or did you do an 7 independent evaluation yourselves? Also, did you 8 include real-world information, such as the 9 experience that happened in San Bruno, California 10 with the exploding pipeline?
11 MR. BEASLEY: This is Ben Beasley. Yes, 12 ma'am, we did a confirmatory analysis. We did our 13 own analysis. We did not just accept the Entergy 14 numbers. That is our practice. When a licensee 15 sends us information, we confirm it. So we did do a 16 complete confirmatory analysis.
17 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller, and 18 I'll add on to that. In Region 1, you can let me 19 know if you have additional, but what our part in the 20 process for this pipeline is, the NRC part, is to 21 evaluate the Licensee's calculations for whether 22 there's any impact to equipment that's relied upon to 23 safely shut down the plant. They do what is called 24 a 50.59 evaluation. The Licensee did that 25 evaluation. They weren't required to submit to us, 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 1 but we reviewed that in a separate inspection and 2 provided that input in an inspection report. I think 3 that inspection report was issued sometime in 4 November. Is that right, Region 1?
5 MR. SETZER: Yes, Chris. Hi, this is 6 Tom Setzer. November 7th, in the third-quarter 7 inspection report, that's the integrated report 8 that's the residents' right. That's probably 9 available in there. In a modification sample that 10 we did, we did document the inspection of what you 11 just discussed.
12 MS. WARREN: You did consider the San 13 Bruno situation in your evaluation, where they had 14 trouble finding the valve to shut off the gas?
15 MR. SETZER: No, ma'am, we didn't --
16 (Telephonic interference.)
17 -- specific event. The analysis we did 18 was a conservative analysis that assumes a release.
19 We did do two evaluations, the three-minute release, 20 but it wasn't just three minutes. It assumed a 21 three-minute closure, but the release was longer than 22 that. Then we did a one-hour release, so it was a 23 bounding analysis that we prepared.
24 MR. MCCOPPIN: This is Mike McCoppin.
25 In addition, we also had an independent 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 1 (Telephonic interference.)
2 -- there's a peer review to the original 3 reviewer, to confirm his conclusion.
4 MR. BLANCH: Okay, this is Paul Blanch 5 again. I'd just like to make a couple more 6 statements. The intent of my petition was not to 7 take a --
8 (Telephonic interference.)
9 -- against Entergy or the Licensee of 10 Indian Point. The intent of my petition, while it 11 was couched that way, was really intended to assure 12 nuclear safety. I'm not looking for retribution 13 against Indian Point.
14 I think I've made a fairly convincing 15 argument, supported by the NRC documents, that 16 inaccurate, incomplete information was sent to the 17 NRC on a couple of occasions because I believe that 18 to be the case. I think that FERC needs to be 19 informed by the NRC that the NRC's analysis may have 20 been faulty. I would like to know if the NRC will 21 contact FERC and say there's a question related to 22 our analysis, or is it a foregone conclusion the 23 pipeline's going to go ahead?
24 CHAIR MILLER: Yes, this is Chris Miller.
25 Mr. Blanch, the question I believe you have is are we 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 1 going to contact FERC and tell them that they need to 2 reverse their decision? Is that an accurate 3 restatement?
4 MR. BLANCH: That's pretty accurate.
5 CHAIR MILLER: That's going to be up to 6 what the Board determines once they evaluate the 7 additional information that's provided --
8 MR. BLANCH: This could be a year from 9 now?
10 CHAIR MILLER: That's not our time line.
11 That's not our scheduled time line, but it will take 12 some time.
13 MR. BLANCH: Paula Claire has one more 14 question.
15 CHAIR MILLER: Okay.
16 MS. CLAIRE: Hi. My question is -- oh, 17 Paula Claire. I'm a resident of Garrison, and also 18 a co-founder of the Stop The Algonquin Pipeline 19 Expansion. My question is you talk about the safe 20 shutdown of Indian Point in the event of a pipeline 21 rupture. I'm concerned about -- what about the 22 containers of spent fuel that are stored there? Are 23 you also considering that as a part of the safe 24 shutdown of the nuclear facility? Because they're 25 highly radioactive. If a rupture occurred, it would 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 1 seem to me that they would be in jeopardy, especially 2 the ones in the spent fuel pools, which are the 3 majority. So that's my question.
4 MR. PICKETT: Hold on, we're going to 5 pause for just for a second before we respond. This 6 is Doug Pickett speaking. We just got a chance to 7 talk to our reviewer. The residual location is the 8 entity -- the spent fuel storage canisters. They are 9 rather far away from the pipeline. We have drawings 10 in front of us, and we looked at where we anticipate 11 the one-pound over pressure and the critical heat 12 flux to occur, and it would not approach the entity's 13 canisters. We do not believe it would impact the 14 spent fuel pool -- spent fuel storage facility at 15 all.
16 MS. CLAIRE: If it affected the switch 17 yard, that affects the cooling of the spent fuel 18 pools.
19 MR. PICKETT: The idea is that the switch 20 yard, if that were taken out, there are emergency 21 diesel generators on site to provide you on-site 22 emergency AC power. That will supply you the cooling 23 to the spent fuel pools.
24 MS. CLAIRE: Okay, so are you saying that 25 the spent fuel would be safe in the event of a 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 1 rupture?
2 MR. PICKETT: That is correct. That's 3 assuming you lose the switch yard, and you would lose 4 off-site power, but it has emergency on-site AC power 5 supplies, in the way of diesel generators, to supply 6 you the critical cooling that you would need for the 7 spent fuel pools.
8 MS. CLAIRE: What about the heat blast 9 that Rick Kuprewicz had mentioned? Wouldn't that be 10 a factor?
11 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
12 The NRC did a look, and I've got the reviewer sitting 13 here with me, so pipe up if I say the wrong thing, 14 but we did a look a couple of times by different 15 people looking at two key things. One is the blast 16 and the pressure wave from any expected blast. That 17 was done by a computer modeling program that we use, 18 and we have used it for our nuclear facility. We've 19 used it for the new reactors that are being built.
20 We used this model to predict gas explosions and heat 21 flux. That model was run and found that it did not 22 affect these related structures needed to cool the 23 reactor itself or the fuel in the spent fuel pools.
24 That was the pressure wave. For the heat flux, the 25 same thing. We could determine those calculations 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 1 using that computer model that was run on several 2 different occasions found that the heat flux would 3 not be a factor to damage those safety-related 4 components.
5 MS. CLAIRE: I think I would like to see 6 the analysis that was done to address the spent pools 7 in the event of a rupture. Thank you.
8 MR. PORRECO: Hi. Good afternoon, this 9 is Tony Porreco. I'm the court reporter. I have a 10 few questions for Mr. Pickett.
11 CHAIR MILLER: Go right ahead.
12 MR. PORRECO: Mr. Pickett, at the 13 conclusion of the hearing, would you be able to 14 provide me with a list of the about 20 NRC staff 15 members? I just was trying to get everyone's names.
16 MR. PICKETT: Sure, I just send it to 17 court reporters?
18 MR. PORRECO: Yes, can I provide you with 19 an email address?
20 MR. PICKETT: Sure.
21 MR. PORRECO: Sure. Okay, it's P, as in 22 Paul, O-R-R-E-C-O-A at gmail.com.
23 MR. PICKETT: That's C-O-R-R-E-C-O-L?
24 MR. PORRECO: E-C-O-A. A, as in apple, 25 and the first letter is P. P, as in Paul.
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 1 MR. PICKETT: P-O-R-R-E-C-O-A?
2 MR. PORRECO: Yep, at Gmail.
3 MR. PICKETT: Gmail, okay.
4 MR. PORRECO: Thanks.
5 CHAIR MILLER: At Gmail.
6 MR. PORRECO: Appreciate it.
7 MR. PICKETT: Okay, thank you.
8 MS. BORGIA: It's Catherine Borgia, 9 Westchester County legislator representing parts of 10 Peekskill and Cortlandt. My question is a positive 11 question. Since you are doing this, actually, a 12 little bit, by Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Blanch, I was 13 thinking of this since you are doing a re-look, given 14 today's questions, will there be any level of 15 communication to FERC that this is happening, as they 16 are considering the possible recertification?
17 MR. PICKETT: This is Doug Pickett 18 speaking. We are going to have to look at the 19 questions from Mr. Blanch and Mr. Kuprewicz. We're 20 going to have an internal meeting of the Petition 21 Review Board. We will determine whether or not we 22 need to redo our analysis, and we will not be 23 contacting FERC unless we determine that we have a 24 problem with our own conclusions. So right now, we 25 do not plan on communicating with FERC. We will not 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 1 do that until we make the determination that we are 2 in error.
3 MR. BLANCH: Okay, we've got to end this, 4 but I've gone one last question from a local resident 5 who will introduce himself and ask the final 6 question. Thank you.
7 MR. VAUGHEY: Yes, hello. My name is 8 Vernard Vaughey, V, as in Victor, A-U-G-H-E-Y. My 9 question hopefully is simple. Since it appears that 10 the NRC will not send something to FERC to suspend 11 the project, will the NRC consider, based upon all 12 these questions and these unknowns, sending a request 13 to FERC to not issue a notice to proceed for any of 14 the work in Cortlandt until the NRC has their 15 determination made, be it three weeks, three months, 16 or three years?
17 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller.
18 We're discussing -- I understand the gist of your 19 question, and we're just discussing options of what 20 we could do to discuss the situation with FERC so 21 we could --
22 MR. KUPREWICZ: I don't mean to 23 interrupt -- this is Rick Kuprewicz. I'm going to 24 have to sign off because I've got another commitment.
25 Paul, you'll fill me in later? Thank you.
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 1 MR. BLANCH: Thank you very much, Rick.
2 MR. VAUGHEY: There's no sense in 3 starting the work on this if the NRC has questions.
4 There is not one rationale for FERC to allow work to 5 commence if there's a possibility of there being any 6 changes or revisions. That's my reason for asking 7 that the NRC request FERC not issue a notice to 8 proceed on the work in Cortlandt.
9 CHAIR MILLER: This is Chris Miller. We 10 talked about it, and what we can do -- I will share 11 information that -- we haven't been sharing all the 12 parts. We've had a lot of discussions with a lot of 13 people in agencies, etcetera. We've been in 14 communication with FERC a number of times through 15 this process, including talking about the blast 16 analysis that we did.
17 They're aware of the blast analysis that 18 we conducted. We've had those conversations on 19 various levels. What we will do is we will send a 20 note or contact our contacts at FERC and let them 21 know that there's a concern, based on Mr. Blanch's 22 2.206 petition. We'll take that action. We can't 23 really request them to take additional action beyond 24 that until we get more detail from our Board. That's 25 what our plan is but we will let them know that this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 is in progress.
2 MR. VAUGHEY: That letter will be public, 3 at least our elected representatives will have access 4 to it?
5 CHAIR MILLER: I'm not sure that we're 6 going to send them a letter. We were planning on a 7 call or an email to our representatives. Like I 8 said, we've been talking at different levels to FERC 9 throughout this process, so I'm confident that FERC 10 knows that there is a petition, and that there is a 11 blast analysis that's been done, that there've been 12 calculations that have been done using the ALOHA 13 code.
14 I can say that with confidence that we've 15 had those discussions with them, but we were planning 16 on a phone call and/or email, however we can send 17 that information to them.
18 MR. BLANCH: Okay, we're all getting a 19 little bit tired here. I appreciate your time, 20 ladies and gentlemen. I'm not sure where we go from 21 here. I'll just reiterate we need an independent 22 risk assessment. Again, thank you for your time, and 23 we look forward to hearing from you. From our end, 24 that's the end of this particular discussion. Thank 25 you.
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 1 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you, and for all 2 those who participated, we appreciate it, and we look 3 forward to receiving the additional information.
4 MR. BLANCH: Okay, thank you very much.
5 CHAIR MILLER: Thank you, bye bye.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled meeting 7 went off the record at 4:04 p.m.)
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