Text

Corrected Transcript Dated February 16 2016, Before 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board, Pages 1-40
	ML16056A343
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/01/2016
From:	John Lamb; Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	;
	Lamb J, NRR/DORL/LPLI-2
References
	NRC-2176
	Download: ML16056A343 (59)
	v • d • e

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Seabrook Station Docket Number: (n/a) [50-443]

Location: teleconference Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 Work Order No.: NRC-2176 Pages 1-40 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 SEABROOK STATION

+ + + + +

TUESDAY FEBRUARY 16, 2016

+ + + + +

The conference call was held, Robert Taylor, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.

PETITIONERS PAUL BROWN, Union of Concerned Scientists

[Chemhydration, LLC]

SANDRA GAVUTIS, C-10 Foundation DEBBIE GRINNELL, C-10 Foundation DAVID LOCHBAUM, Union of Concerned Scientists CHRIS NORD, C-10 Foundation PAT SKIBBEE, C-10 Foundation 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 PETITION REVIEW BOARD [PRB] MEMBERS MICHAEL KING, Acting PRB Chairman, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Safety Systems LORRAINE BAER, Office of the General Counsel JOHN G. LAMB, Petition Manager for 2.206 petition, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing ROBERT TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Safety Systems, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF RUSSELL ARRIGHI, Senior Enforcement Specialist, Office of Enforcement [PRB member]

DOUG BROADDUS, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing DANIEL DOYLE, Acting Chief, Rulemaking Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BRYCE LEHMAN, Technical Reviewer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of 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 Engineering [PRB member]

TANYA MENSAH, Agency 2.206 Coordinator, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and Rulemaking NRC REGION I STAFF FRED BOWER, Region I PAUL CATALDO, Region I CHRIS NEWPORT, Region I BILL COOK, Region I [PRB member]

ALSO PRESENT STEVE HAMRICK, Counsel, NextEra Energy Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 2:00 p.m.

3 MEMBER LAMB: I'd like to thank everyone 4 for attending this conference. My name is John 5 Lamb. I am the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 NRC, project manager for Seabrook.

7 We are here today to allow the 8 Petitioner, C-10 Research and Education Foundation, 9 referred to as C-10 from this point forward, to 10 address the Petition Review Board, PRB, regarding 11 the 2.206 Petition dated December 22nd, 2015, 12 Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System, 13 ADAMS, Accession No. ML16006A002, as supplemented by 14 email comments from David Lochbaum of the Union of 15 Concerned Scientists, UCS, dated February 12th, 16 2016, ADAMS Accession No. ML16043A486, and email 17 comments from Paul Brown dated February 14th, 2016, 18 ADAMS Accession No. ML16047A020, and email comments 19 by C-10 dated February 15th, 2016, ADAMS Accession 20 No. ML16047A021.

21 I am also the petition manager for the 22 petition. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor.

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 As part of the --

2 MS. GAVUTIS: Sandra Gavutis, C-10 3 Foundation.

4 MEMBER LAMB: As part of the PRB's 5 review of this petition C-10 has requested this 6 opportunity to address the PRB.

7 This meeting is scheduled from 2:00 p.m.

8 to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

9 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 10 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 11 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement 12 to the petition. The transcript will also be made 13 available to the public.

14 I would like to open this meeting with 15 introductions. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor, 16 and Mike King will be the acting PRB Chairman who 17 will be serving in a developmental capacity under 18 the instruction of Robert Taylor.

19 I would like to start to have the rest 20 of the PRB to introduce themselves as we go around 21 the room. Please be sure to speak clearly and state 22 your name, your position and the office that you 23 work for within the NRC for the record.

24 I will start off. Once again, I am the 25 NRC project manager for Seabrook, John Lamb.

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 MEMBER BAER: Lorraine Baer, attorney, 2 Office of General Counsel.

3 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Rob Taylor, Deputy 4 Director, Division of Safety Systems, Office of 5 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

6 MEMBER KING: Mike King, Acting Deputy 7 Director, Division of Safety Systems, Office of 8 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

9 MEMBER LAMB: Are there any NRC 10 participants from headquarters on the phone?

11 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, Office of 12 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and 13 Rulemaking.

14 MR. ARRIGHI: Russell Arrighi, Senior 15 Enforcement Specialist, Office of Enforcement.

16 MR. BROADDUS: Doug Broaddus, Office of 17 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating 18 Reactor Licensing.

19 MR. LEHMAN: Bryce Lehman, Technical 20 Reviewer in the Division of Engineering.

21 MEMBER LAMB: Is anyone else from NRC 22 headquarters on the line?

23 MS. GRINNELL: Debbie Grinnell. Sandra 24 Gavutis. Three other people will call in.

25 MS. GAVUTIS: Thanks, Debbie. I'm 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

7 1 MS. SKIBBEE: Pat Skibbee, C-10 2 Foundation.

3 MS. GAVUTIS: Sandra Gavutis, Executive 4 Director, C-10 Foundation.

5 MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum, Union of 6 Concerned Scientists, Director of Nuclear Safety 7 Project.

8 MEMBER LAMB: Are there any other 9 Petitioners on the line?

10 MR. NORD: Chris Nord, C-10 Foundation.

11 I identified myself before.

12 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 13 reporter. I'm having some difficulty understanding 14 Ms. Grinnell, Mr. Nord and Ms. Skibbee.

15 MEMBER LAMB: Debbie, your phone line is 16 echoing. The court reporter is saying that he can't 17 understand what you guys are saying.

18 MS. GRINNELL: Trying something else.

19 Hello?

20 MEMBER LAMB: We can hear you. Steve, 21 who do you have -- for the court reporter, where did 22 you leave off that you couldn't hear?

23 COURT REPORTER: The only part that I 24 was having a hard time hearing was the 25 introductions.

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 MEMBER LAMB: You got Debbie Grinnell?

2 COURT REPORTER: Yes. Yes.

3 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. So we've got Chris 4 Nord.

5 COURT REPORTER: Here's the thing, I was 6 able to hear their introductions, but when they give 7 a presentation, if they sound like that, I'll 8 probably miss a good amount of it.

9 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Chris Nord was 10 another one from C-10. Is there a Pat Skibbee?

11 MS. SKIBBEE: Yes, I'm here.

12 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. And a Sandra 13 Gavutis?

14 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, she is here.

15 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. And we have David 16 Lochbaum from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

17 Is there anyone else from the 18 Petitioners?

19 MS. GRINNELL: We have an expert, Paul 20 Brown, who will be calling in probably very close to 21 2:30.

22 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. DOYLE: Hi, this is Dan Doyle. I'm 24 the Acting Chief of the Rulemaking Branch in the 25 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

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 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Are there any NRC 2 participants from the regional office on the phone?

3 MR. COOK: This is Bill Cook from Region 4 I.

5 MR. BOWER: And Fred Bower from Region 6 I.

7 MEMBER LAMB: Anyone else from Region I 8 on the phone?

9 MR. CATALDO: Paul Cataldo, Region I.

10 MR. NEWPORT: Chris Newport from Region 11 I as well.

12 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you. Are 13 there any representatives for the Licensee on the 14 phone?

15 MR. HAMRICK: Yes, this is Steve 16 Hamrick, counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook.

17 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you. I would 18 like to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly 19 and loudly to make sure that the court reporter can 20 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you do have 21 something that you would like to say, please first 22 state your name for the record.

23 For those dialing into the meeting, 24 please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 25 background noise or distractions. If you do 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

10 1 have a mute button, this can be done by pressing the 2 keys star, six. To un-mute, press the star key 3 again. Thank you.

4 At this time I will turn it over to the 5 Acting PRB Chairman, Mike King, under the 6 instruction of the PRB Chairman, Robert Taylor.

7 MEMBER KING [Daniel Doyle]: Excuse me.

8 To un-mute, you have to press star, six again.

9 MEMBER LAMB: Yes.

10 MEMBER KING [Daniel Doyle]: I just want 11 to make sure people know that.

12 MEMBER LAMB: Yes. So mute, star, six.

13 To un-mute, press star, six again.

14 MEMBER KING: Okay. Welcome everybody 15 to this meeting regarding the 2.206 Petition 16 submitted by C-10. I'd like to first share some 17 background on our process.

18 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 19 Federal Regulations, 10 CFR, describes the petition 20 process, the primary mechanism for public to request 21 enforcement action by NRC in a public process. This 22 process permits anyone to petition the NRC to take 23 enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or 24 license activities. Depending on the results of its 25 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke 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

11 1 NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate 2 enforcement action to resolve a problem.

3 The NRC Staff Guidance for the 4 disposition of 2.206 petition requests is contained 5 with the Management Directive 8.11, which is 6 available to the public via ADAMS Accession No.

7 ML041770328.

8 The purpose of today's meeting is to 9 give the Petitioner, C-10, an opportunity to provide 10 any additional explanation or support for the 11 petition before the Petition Review Board's initial 12 consideration and recommendation.

13 This meeting is not a hearing, nor it is 14 an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or 15 examine the Petition Review Board on the merits or 16 the issues presented in the petition request. No 17 decisions regarding the merits of this petition will 18 be made at this meeting.

19 Following this meeting the Petition 20 Review Board will conduct its internal 21 deliberations. The outcome of this internal meeting 22 will be discussed with the Petitioner.

23 The Petition Review Board typically 24 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the 25 senior executive service level at the NRC. It has 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

12 1 petition manager and a Petition Review Board 2 coordinator. Other members of the Board are 3 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 4 the information in the petition request. The 5 members have already introduced themselves.

6 As described in our process the NRC 7 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to 8 better understand the Petitioner's presentation and 9 to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or 10 reject the Petitioner's requests for review under 11 the 2.206 process.

12 Now I'd like to summarize the scope of 13 the petition under consideration and the NRC 14 activities to date.

15 On December 22nd, 2015, as supplemented 16 by emails dated February 12th, 14th and 15th, 2016, 17 you submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 18 regarding Seabrook in which you requested 19 enforcement action. C-10 requests the NRC issue an 20 order to NextEra requiring immediate implementation 21 and enforcement of American Concrete Institute, ACI, 22 349.3R evaluation of existing nuclear safety-related 23 concrete structures, and American Society for 24 Testing and Materials, ASTM, C856-11, standard 25 practice for petrographic examination of hardened 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 concrete code standards requiring core sampling and 2 petrographic testing for the mechanical properties 3 of tensile strength, Poisson=s ratio, modulus of 4 elasticity and compressive strength, specifically 5 for walls of the containment building and spent fuel 6 pool at Seabrook.

7 As a basis for your request you state 8 that C-10 has studied the alkali-silica reaction, 9 ASR, and C-10 concludes that its presence at 10 Seabrook is inimical to public health and safety.

11 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities 12 to date. On January 8th the petition manager 13 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process 14 and to offer you the opportunity to address the 15 Petition Review Board.

16 On January 14th of 2016, you requested 17 to address the Petition Review Board by phone prior 18 to an internal meeting to make initial 19 recommendations to accept or reject the petition for 20 review.

21 On February 12th, 2016, David Lochbaum 22 of Union of Concerned Scientists supplied written 23 comments by email that will be treated as a 24 supplement to the petition.

25 On February 14th, 2016, Paul Brown, also 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 of Union of Concerned Scientists, supplied written 2 comments by email that will be treated as a 3 supplement to the petition.

4 On February 15th, 2016, C-10 supplied 5 written comments by email that will be treated as a 6 supplement to the petition.

7 As a reminder for the phone 8 participants, please identify yourself if you make 9 any remarks as this will help us in preparation of 10 the meeting transcript that will be made available 11 to the public. Thank you.

12 I'll turn it over now Debbie Grinnell of 13 C-10 to allow you the opportunity to provide any 14 information you believe the Petition Review Board 15 should consider as part of this petition. You have 16 about 90 minutes for your presentation.

17 Debbie?

18 MS. GRINNELL: Thank you. We appreciate 19 this opportunity to speak to the Board and we would 20 like to begin with two experts that have created a 21 comment for you today, and we'd like to begin with 22 David Lochbaum.

23 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum 24 with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you, 25 Debbie, and thank you the NRC staff for 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

15 1 opportunity.

2 I didn't want to read the comments I 3 submitted earlier. As it was stated, it's being 4 added as a supplement to the petition. I just 5 wanted to go over those and answer any clarifying 6 questions the NRC staff may have about those 7 comments.

8 In looking at whether the actions 9 requested by C-10 were reasonable or not, I looked 10 at what the NRC is applying to plants or applicants 11 seeking license renewal of their plant. NUREG-1801, 12 Revision 2, which is the GALL report issued in 13 December of 2010, mentions ACI 349.3R in a number of 14 places. I didn't list every time that document 15 referred to this ACI standard, but I listed several 16 of them on pages 1 and 2 of my comments.

17 I also understand that the NRC staff is 18 currently reviewing its license renewal criterion 19 standards. And to see whether those proposed 20 changes might go away from ACI 349.3R, I looked at 21 the draft NUREG-2191, Volume 2, which is currently 22 the work in progress of any proposed changes to the 23 [Generic Aging Lessons Learned] GALL report. And as 24 the information on pages 2 indicates, the NRC staff 25 continues to rely on ACI 349.3R as a way to properly 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 aging management risk or manage the risk of aging of 2 concrete such as that at Seabrook. So basically by 3 looking at this, it looked pretty clear to us that 4 the NRC staff accepts and endorses ACI 349.3R as the 5 means of monitoring for concrete degradation.

6 Also went international to see how the 7 international community is handling the similar 8 issue of concrete degradation and found an 9 [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA report 10 that's cited on page 3 of my comments where they 11 looked at aging management of concrete structures in 12 nuclear power plants. It came out just last month, 13 January of 2016. Several places in that document 14 the IAEA basically indicates that ACI 349.3R is 15 being used in the United States to guard against 16 undue degradation of concrete at U.S. nuclear power 17 reactors, though it appears the international 18 community thinks we're already at a point that C-10 19 is seeking, namely to have ACI 349.3R be a 20 requirement, not just a standard on a shelf.

21 I then turned to looking at answering 22 the question of, well, if that's what the NRC 23 endorses, if that's the law of the land, if that's 24 the proper standard to control concrete degradation, 25 why isn't it already applied? And the best answer, 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 or the only answer I found was in NUREG/CR 7153, 2 Volume 4, issued by the NRC in October of 2014, as 3 cited on page 3 of my comments.

4 I extracted a large paragraph from that 5 document, the last sentence of which seems to be 6 most important. It was underlined for emphasis by 7 us. Basically it says that because all the 8 construction permits have been issued except for 9 one, by the time this standard came out it was too 10 late in the game to be applied during the initial 11 licensing phase. So therefore, it was a matter of 12 time and not because it's an inappropriate standard 13 or an unreasonable standard, that it's not already 14 applicable at Seabrook and elsewhere.

15 So therefore, based on that it looked 16 like, well, should the NRC grant the petition 17 submitted by C-10 and require ACI 349.3R and the 18 ASTM standard to Seabrook? And for that my answer 19 to me is in 10 CFR, Section 50.100, Revocation, 20 Suspension, Modification of Licenses, Permits and 21 Approvals for Cause. And it's a lengthy text, but 22 the portions that seemed most relevant to this 23 decision was that basically any condition that's 24 revealed after an original license is issued that 25 would, had it been known at the time, warrant 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

18 1 Commission to refuse to grant a license, permit or 2 approval is fair game for incorporating into the 3 license or making a regulatory requirement.

4 In this case it's pretty clear that had 5 ACI 349.3R been available before Seabrook was 6 licensed, then it's almost certain that the NRC 7 would have required this applicant or licensee to 8 meet that standard. It doesn't. And therefore the 9 action being sought by C-10 rectifies that defect 10 and imposed an endorsed NRC standard to a standard 11 condition that exists at Seabrook. Based on that it 12 seems like the proper thing for the NRC to do would 13 be to grant C-10's petition and require these two 14 standards, industry-accepted, NRC-endorsed standards 15 to apply to the concrete at Seabrook.

16 I think the other things that's -- I 17 don't -- it's not in my comments, but it's -- NRC 18 staff is already aware of is that imposing those 19 standards on NextEra at Seabrook would not mean that 20 they'd have to follow every verse and chapter of 21 those two standards. The applicants, the licensees 22 always have the option of informing the NRC staff of 23 deviations or different ways of achieving the same 24 outcome, and they would have that option. Should 25 the NRC grant the petition and issue the order, 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

19 1 licensee would have the chance of saying we'll do 2 that same thing by a different way. But we think 3 it's proper for the NRC staff to issue an order 4 require that requirement and provide NextEra the 5 option of applying it as is or justifying a suitable 6 alternative.

7 With that I have no other comments or 8 observations. I'd be glad to answer any clarifying 9 questions that the NRC staff may have.

10 MEMBER KING: No questions on this end.

11 Anybody on the phone?

12 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, we're waiting for 13 Paul Brown to enter to make his comments, but I do 14 want to say on behalf of C-10 that our request has 15 largely been the understanding that we have -- that 16 both the industry and the NRC have had to find a way 17 to find the technical and regulatory basis to deal 18 with the discovery. And ASR is a discovery. And 19 we've spent the last seven years looking very 20 closely at NRC documentation and we found from your 21 department, especially in research, that -- we found 22 that there were many things that we have requested 23 that a lot of NRC staff in different directions have 24 recommended at these be done.

25 Our concern has been that there's been 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 an enormous amount of energy and time and expertise 2 that the NRC has spent in the extension of NRC's 3 license, but our concern, as we live here, concerns 4 their current license. And they've been in 5 violation of their license for seven years. [The 6 structures identified to be affected by ASR are 7 considered "operable but degraded," meaning that 8 NextEra and the NRC have determined the structures 9 can continue to safely perform their function at 10 Seabrook.]

11 So we have used the information that we 12 were able to find from experts, from the Union of 13 Concerned Scientists, from experts and many of the 14 NRC staff, and we think that -- we believe that 15 since containment has not been properly studied that 16 this needs to be done and as soon as possible.

17 I am hoping that Paul will be on in a 18 moment, but if he's not, I would like to allow NRC 19 staff to add our comments to this discussion. I 20 think we could start with Pat.

21 MS. SKIBBEE: This is Pat Skibbee, C-10 22 Board. I think one important consideration here is 23 according to our research there are many, many times 24 that NRC information has been cited and confirmed 25 saying that the only way to really ascertain 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 degree and existence of ASR at the Seabrook Nuclear 2 Power Plant is through core sampling and using the 3 ASTM and ACR standards. So I think we feel that 4 that's a really important thing to do and it's the 5 only way to really ascertain what is going on at the 6 plant.

7 I want to add here that the current 8 situation where NextEra is using not samples from 9 the plant, but using pieces of concrete at their 10 Ferguson, Texas study facility, we do feel [it] is 11 [not] at all appropriate, because I think the only 12 way that you can actually ascertain what's going on 13 at the Seabrook plant is to test core samples that 14 actually come from the Seabrook plant.

15 And last, these standards are 16 incorporated and made compulsory in NRC regulation.

17 It would seem to me that this can't happen, that the 18 licensees will always have -- not only NextEra, but 19 others; and of course our concern is Seabrook, will 20 always have this option of using what we would 21 consider completely inappropriate testing. It does 22 not really confirm what's actually going on at the 23 specific plants.

24 This information comes from NRC staff, 25 also from Union of Concerned Scientists, from our 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 own research that without actual petrographic 2 testing of the actual cores from the containment and 3 other vessels at the Seabrook plants, we cannot know 4 what is really going on there. And apparently the 5 only what that can be enforced is for NRC to grant 6 C-10's petition and make these standards compulsory.

7 And that concludes my comments at this time.

8 MS. GRINNELL: Well, if we haven't heard 9 from Paul at this moment, I would like to ask Chris 10 if he would like to offer comments for C-10.

11 (Telephonic interference.)

12 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. This is the 13 court reporter. Is Chris speaking? I can't hear 14 him.

15 MS. GRINNELL: Yes. Yes, hold a second.

16 He's just changing his location a little. He'll be 17 back when -- I mean, he's right here. On the line 18 in a sec.

19 MR. NORD: This is Chris Nord, board 20 member for C-10. I just wanted to draw the 21 attention of NRC to --

22 COURT REPORTER: Can you get closer to 23 the phone?

24 MS. GRINNELL: Chris, it's not working.

25 MR. NORD: Can you hear me now? Can 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 anyone hear me now?

2 COURT REPORTER: Yes, now I can hear 3 you.

4 MR. NORD: Okay. All right. This is 5 Chris Nord, board member of C-10, and I would like 6 to draw the NRC's attention right now to the notion 7 that NextEra, their off-site research test program 8 must represent -- I'm quoting -- the actual in situ 9 conditions of Seabrook's primary containment. And 10 to all of us at C-10 that have looked at this, this 11 seems for all the world like a quick break 12 (phonetic) because it isn't possible to represent 13 the in situ conditions at Seabrook through the use 14 of data gathered from some very remote site. The 15 conditions are much too particular and the ASR has 16 grown over a period of many years where they're 17 propagating ASR over very short periods of time at 18 this remote site in Texas, and we believe that this 19 really is unrealistic.

20 And from a scientific point of view that 21 seems to be the case. In other words, I think that 22 we will discover that experts like Dr. Brown 23 basically agree with this point of view that it's 24 fine to go ahead and do that kind of testing, but to 25 say that that kind of testing may stand in the place 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 of petrographic analysis in situ at the Seabrook 2 plant is unworkable. We must have in situ testing.

3 So that's one comment.

4 The other comment I want to make is that 5 citizens within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook 6 particularly call upon the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission to actually regulate in this matter this 8 issue of alkaline-silica reaction that has come up 9 at Seabrook.

10 [The NRC staff has performed a great 11 deal of inspection regarding ASR and it can be found 12 on the NRC public webpage 13 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-14 experience/concrete-degradation.html and 15 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SEAB1/seab1_

16 chart.html.]

17 It is unprecedented, as we all know, in 18 the nuclear suite in the United States. And many 19 citizens who C-10 represents see that for the 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to passively wait for 21 NextEra to conduct tests simply the way they want 22 without imposing some kind of guidance according to 23 some kind of code standards is impractical in many 24 ways and may in fact be unethical when you take into 25 account the NRC's mandate to protect public health 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 and safety. If what you really want to 2 do is protect the general public from the potentials 3 for severe accidents from a nuclear plant such as 4 Seabrook; and in fact parenthetically I will say 5 this could be happening at other plants around the 6 country, and I believe we don't know whether that's 7 true or not, then you must -- NRC must take a more 8 active position in requiring the use of certain 9 regulatory standards. And because this is a new 10 issue for NRC, the regulatory standards that we are 11 falling into, as Dave Lochbaum just pointed out, 12 you're using already.

13 So it's a simple step. But involving 14 that step then as the requirement that petrographic 15 testing be done in in situ at the reactor at 16 Seabrook. And for us those must include the 17 petrographic testing and core sampling specifically 18 for the containment structure and for the spent fuel 19 pool. And I think the reasons why those are 20 important must be obvious to everyone on this call.

21 Those are my comments for the moment. Thank you.

22 MS. GRINNELL: Thank you, Chris.

23 I don't know if we've had -- Dave, if 24 we've had Paul Brown enter our group. Do you know 25 if he's entered?

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 MEMBER KING: Paul Brown, are you on the 2 line?

3 DR. BROWN: Yes, I am.

4 MS. GRINNELL: Terrific. Paul, we would 5 like you to add your comments to the NRC.

6 DR. BROWN: Beyond what I've written?

7 MS. GRINNELL: Yes.

8 DR. BROWN: Oh, okay. Well, primarily 9 my comments relate to the fact that the utility 10 seems to be reluctant to extract and examine cores 11 in compression and tension. While it would have 12 been really beneficial had they done that when the 13 ASR was first discovered, it's still not too late.

14 It would have provided a data point in time. And if 15 they link that campaign with the testing of cores 16 from areas where ASR has not been observed, then it 17 provides a basis for understanding the extent to 18 which the properties of the concrete shell have 19 presently degraded.

20 [By letter dated January 19, 2016 (ADAMS 21 Accession No. ML16019A081), the NRC staff provided a 22 response to Debbie Grinnell of C-10 regarding the 23 core samples that NextEra took at Seabrook.]

24 25 And that's really the substance of 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

27 1 comments. And I'm happy to answer any questions 2 related to that.

3 MEMBER KING: Debbie, are there any more 4 presentations?

5 MS. GRINNELL: I think we have covered 6 our comments. We have the benefit of having Dave 7 Lochbaum and Paul Brown here. If there are any 8 technical or specific questions that you might have 9 on our petition, we would be so pleased to have you 10 direct a question directly to our experts.

11 MEMBER KING: Great. Thank you. So at 12 this time does the NRC staff here at headquarters 13 have any questions for C-10, or any headquarters 14 staff on the phone?

15 (No response.)

16 MEMBER KING: Hearing none, what about 17 the region? Any staff in the region have any 18 questions?

19 MR. COOK: No questions from Bill Cook.

20 Thank you.

21 MEMBER KING: Okay. Hearing none, does 22 the Licensee have any questions?

23 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve Hamrick for 24 NextEra. No, we don't have any questions right now.

25 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

28 1 MEMBER KING: Okay. Well, Deborah 2 Grinnell, thank you for taking the time to provide 3 the NRC staff with clarifying information on the 4 petition you submitted.

5 Before we close does the court reporter 6 need any additional information for the 7 teleconference transcript?

8 COURT REPORTER: Just questions I'll ask 9 after we're off the record.

10 MEMBER KING: Okay. Great. With that, 11 this meeting is concluded --

12 MR. GUNTER: Excuse me. This is Paul 13 Gunter, Beyond Nuclear.

14 MEMBER KING: Okay.

15 MR. GUNTER: It's my understanding that 16 you do open an opportunity up for the public to ask 17 questions about the process.

18 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Yes, this is not a 19 public meeting. They asked for a teleconference, 20 but we are open to answering questions about the 21 process. They requested not a public meeting. They 22 requested a teleconference, which is --

23 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Well, that answers 24 my question, because I was looking to see if you 25 were -- you know, the meeting was not publicly 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 posted to 2 the --

3 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Yes, because 4 typically in the Management Directive 8.11 the 5 Petitioner is offered a teleconference or a meeting 6 here. And as you know, Paul, typically you're 7 nearby, so you come and you have a public meeting.

8 I guess because the distance and travel-wise they 9 elected to have a teleconference --

10 MR. GUNTER: Yes.

11 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: -- which is non-12 public.

13 MR. GUNTER: So this is their first --

14 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Yes.

15 MR. GUNTER: This is a Petition Review 16 Board meeting, their first Petition Review Board 17 meeting?

18 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: This is the request 19 to supply supplemental information prior to the PRB 20 meeting.

21 MR. GUNTER: And then they will get an 22 additional opportunity to address --

23 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Yes.

24 MR. GUNTER: -- the Petition Review 25 Board --

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 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: That's correct.

2 MR. GUNTER: -- after you -- yes. And 3 in fact they'll get two opportunities to address the 4 Petition Review Board?

5 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Well, this is the 6 first. I think there's a second one after, but --

7 MR. GUNTER: Okay.

8 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: That's my 9 understanding at this time.

10 MR. GUNTER: Yes, I'm sorry. I guess 11 the concern here is that this is very likely -- it 12 should be reviewed as a generic issue and an 13 opportunity for public to be informed, just have 14 some transparency as how this might impact other 15 sites or open opportunities for other public 16 interest experts to listen in. That's our concern.

17 I apologize for being thick, but this does not 18 represent their first Petition Review Board meeting 19 open to public scrutiny and transparency.

20 MEMBER KING [Lamb]: Tanya, are you on 21 the line?

22 MS. MENSAH: I am. This is Tanya 23 Mensah. I'm the senior project manager, 2.206 24 coordinator. So the process they're following is 25 outlined and described in the Management Directive 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 1 811. If you look in there, if the Petitioner 2 requests a meeting with the public -- with the NRC, 3 that is noticed as a public meeting, and that is 4 typically held at NRC Headquarters where any 5 stakeholders are invited to comment at the end of 6 the meeting.

7 Now, the Petitioner --

8 MR. GUNTER: But let me just stop you 9 right there. Those meetings that I participate in 10 open a bridge line for broader public interest --

11 MS. MENSAH: So if the Petitioner --

12 (Simultaneous speaking) 13 MR. GUNTER: -- the Petitioners.

14 MS. MENSAH: If you're interested in 15 joining as a co-petitioner, you would coordinate 16 that through the Petitioner. I don't know if that's 17 been done, if you've expressed that before this 18 call. Because they could have included you on the 19 discussion so that you could also have submitted 20 comments. The transcript -- the way that this is 21 made transparent is that following the meeting the 22 transcript will be made public in ADAMS and then the 23 Petitioner will be informed of the initial 24 recommendation, they'll have a second opportunity, 25 as you commented, in accordance with the management 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 directive to make a second presentation if they want 2 to add additional facts.

3 MR. GUNTER: Have they been provided 4 that --

5 MS. MENSAH: Is that clear or do I need 6 to go back through the process?

7 MR. GUNTER: Well, first of all, if you 8 would, could you make it clear that you are offering 9 them a second opportunity?

10 MS. MENSAH: That's in accordance with 11 the management directive and it's offered for every 12 petitioner. It's not just for this petition. It's 13 spelled out that a second opportunity is in the 14 management directive. Every petitioner receives two 15 opportunities. The first is before the Board meets 16 to make their initial recommendation. And then once 17 they're informed, they receive a second opportunity.

18 And that's the system for all petitions.

19 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Thank you. I 20 apologize for missing the opening here. Did you 21 offer the Petitioner an opportunity for a second --

22 to make them aware that they have an opportunity for 23 a second meeting?

24 MS. MENSAH: I believe that the PRB 25 Chair expressed in his opening remarks 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

33 1 following today's discussion that the PRB will be 2 deliberating internally and that following that they 3 will be informed of the initial recommendation and 4 have another opportunity. And I believe also that 5 in accordance with the process that John Lamb would 6 have provided the Petitioners with a copy of the 7 management directive so that they have the process 8 and they know what we're following.

9 MR. GUNTER: So this phone call is 10 satisfying that initial meeting with the PRB that 11 we're familiar with.

12 MS. MENSAH: That's correct. And that 13 is their choice. They were offered either a meeting 14 where they could have requested to meet face to 15 face, and that would have been a public meeting, or 16 they are offered a teleconference, which at that 17 point they can also, as they've done, invite other 18 experts out to speak on their behalf for their 19 petition. And that's what has occurred today.

20 MR. GUNTER: Can I indulge you just one 21 -- just for clarification? You do not publicize PRB 22 meetings with petitioners on your web-based 23 schedule, calendar --

24 MS. MENSAH: Only public meetings.

25 MR. GUNTER: With petitioners for 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

34 1 PRB do you have -- have you published meeting dates 2 on these PRB meetings on your regular calendar? I 3 mean --

4 MS. MENSAH: Are you referring to on the 5 public web site where they have the list of public 6 meetings?

7 MR. GUNTER: Yes, ma'am.

8 MS. MENSAH: So that would be for if 9 there were a public 2.206 meeting. There would be a 10 meeting notice, and those are on there.

11 MR. GUNTER: Right.

12 MS. MENSAH: This is a teleconference, 13 so they're not public meetings.

14 MR. GUNTER: I see.

15 MS. MENSAH: They are calls between the 16 petitioner --

17 MR. GUNTER: I see.

18 MS. MENSAH: -- so that the petitioner 19 can provide additional information on behalf of 20 their 2.206 --

21 MR. GUNTER: I see.

22 MS. MENSAH: -- to the Board. So those 23 are not on the public web site.

24 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. So if they 25 request this second meeting as a public meeting at 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 which they attend in the Commission hearing room, 2 that meeting will be timely posted in advance of the 3 meeting to the public?

4 MS. MENSAH: That's correct.

5 MR. GUNTER: If they receive a bridge 6 line from the NRC, those are typically not posted 7 for public to listen in on?

8 MS. MENSAH: Unless the petitioner 9 invites other stakeholders that are familiar with 10 the topic on their behalf to say we want to have 11 other experts or other members of the public speak 12 during our teleconference. And they provide the 13 number to whoever they want.

14 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Well, thank you for 15 that clarification, because --

16 MS. MENSAH: Okay.

17 MR. GUNTER: -- it's one of these fine 18 lines where again we view this as potentially 19 generic issue that has much broader interest than 20 the Seabrook Petitioners and their experts, and we 21 would like to recommend that these kinds of meetings 22 -- you know, it's not that difficult to post a 23 telephone conference line.

24 [By letter dated September 25, 2015, C-25 10 submitted a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-109)

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 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802 to request the NRC to amend 2 its regulations to (1) require that all licensees 3 comply with ACI 349.3R, and (2) require that all 4 licensees comply with ASTM C856-11.]

5 I mean, I don't think that it was C-10's 6 intention to request that this meeting be exclusive 7 or private, but again, we feel that there's a 8 broader concern here. And just for a matter for the 9 record, the process should be inclusive in terms of 10 transparency that these meetings are happening and 11 that the NRC timely posts them as opportunities for 12 broader public interest and in the sake of 13 transparency. That concludes my comment.

14 MS. MENSAH: Okay. Thank you. And this 15 is Tanya Mensah again. So do you have a comment 16 that you need to coordinate through the Petitioner, 17 or have you already informed them that you have 18 comments?

19 MR. GUNTER: My comment is again on the 20 2.206 process with regard --

21 MS. MENSAH: Okay.

22 MR. GUNTER: -- to providing public 23 transparency to potentially generic issues of public 24 health and safety, and that I think it's something 25 of a shortcoming to bias the public notification 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 process to those of us who can by convenience attend 2 these meetings in person and get that public 3 notification and transparency out there. But in the 4 same sense to not -- just because you can't 5 participate in person doesn't mean that you exclude 6 broader public interest by participation in these 7 telephone conference calls on a public Petition 8 Review Board meeting. That's my point. So my 9 comment again is process, and it's directed to the 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

11 MS. MENSAH: Thank you.

12 MR. NORD: This is Chris Nord. I'd like 13 to just follow up very quickly on something Paul 14 just said, and that is to point out that a way that 15 we at C-10 believe that this does touch on a generic 16 issue is that as long as the heretofore relied on 17 method of visual inspection is continued and used by 18 U.S. NRC as an initial look at the possibility of 19 ASR, whether ASR exists or doesn't exist at other 20 nuclear plants, you will not know whether in fact 21 there is ASR at other plants. So we need to move to 22 petrographic analysis in order to know for sure 23 whether you have ASR at other plants. That's my 24 comment. Thank you.

25 MR. GUNTER: Let me just -- this is 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

38 1 Gunter again. One point again on the transparency 2 for this particular meeting. I was trying to find 3 out the exact time of the call. And since this 4 meeting was not posted on the NRC schedule as a 5 calendar event, I called the switchboard. And when 6 I spoke with your switchboard operator and requested 7 the time for this particular meeting, the -- and I 8 at that point provided the operator with the 9 petition manager's name, and the switchboard 10 operator informed me that the PRB meeting with John 11 Lamb is tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

12 So that -- again, I'm just telling you -

13 - this is feedback on where public interest is --

14 could use a little work in terms of providing -- the 15 Agency providing transparency to its processes, 16 particularly these emergency enforcement petitions.

17 And apparently the switchboard has got the wrong 18 date.

19 MEMBER KING: Okay. Any other questions 20 from any phone participants.

21 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, I would like to make 22 a contribution to this meeting today. We wrote a 23 petition for rulemaking -

24 [By letter dated September 25, 2015, C-25 10 submitted a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-109)

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 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802 to request the NRC to amend 2 its regulations to (1) require that all licensees 3 comply with ACI 349.3R, and (2) require that all 4 licensees comply with ASTM C856-11.]

5 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you 6 identify yourself?

7 (Simultaneous speaking) 8 MS. GRINNELL: -- 2.206. Can you hear 9 me?

10 COURT REPORTER: I'm asking if you can 11 identify yourself.

12 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, it's Debbie 13 Grinnell, C-10 Foundation. We sent the petition 14 because we know that the NRC is sending in their 15 final Safety Evaluation Report before the NRC and 16 this study will be done. And we were very 17 encouraged by the fact that the NRC had invested 18 into a very important study. [The NRC contracted 19 with the National Institute of Standards and 20 Technology (NIST) to perform a research study, 21 Structural Performance of Nuclear Power Plant 22 (NPP) Concrete Structures Affected by Alkali-Silica 23 Reaction (ASR). The NIST study began in 2014, and 24 it is expected to be completed by 2018.]

25 In the meantime, NextEra has invested 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 into a study, and certainly the results of those 2 studies in terms of what can be learned, because all 3 of us have needed to learn this as a new form of 4 degradation. So this is all valuable.

5 But what's concerning to us is that the 6 very basic interests of what is happening at 7 Seabrook at the site is a deep concern to the public 8 here because we do not know the extent or the rate 9 of the containment building or the spent fuel pool.

10 And this is seven years after this was discovered at 11 Seabrook, and they are in violation of their 12 license.

13 We cannot be making decisions on safety 14 when we have no idea what the extent, rate or even 15 if we've confirmed that ASR is occurring at 16 containment or at the -- it's been too many years 17 with no action from the NRC.

18 [The NRC staff has performed a great 19 deal of inspection regarding ASR and it can be found 20 on the NRC public webpage 21 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-22 experience/concrete-degradation.html and 23 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SEAB1/seab1_

24 chart.html.]

25 And these are standard code testing 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

41 1 we've required that -- as Dave has spoken and also 2 as Paul Brown has told us, that these are standards 3 and the very best that we have. And I think given 4 the fact that the studies have been done, you have 5 an obligation to utilize the most important and 6 existing certified testing that's possible and use 7 that to know at least the degree of ASR and the most 8 important and most critical structures at Seabrook.

9 There has been growing Seabrook concern because they 10 are very aware, we are all very aware that NextEra 11 continues to operate in something that is active and 12 progressive and there is no way to repair these 13 structures and we can't predict on how they are 14 going to respond. And there's a great deal of 15 anxiety. And I think that the NRC is obligated as 16 they are on their current license to at least test 17 with the most sophisticated ability that you have 18 and wait for the studies. And I would think that 19 the NIST and NRC study will give you the guidance 20 that you need. But in the meantime, we have a plant 21 and we have no idea the condition of the plant.

22 I appreciate the time you have given me.

23 I don't know if anyone else would like to speak, but 24 I'd like to open this up to C-10.

25 MS. SKIBBEE: I'd like to follow up 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 Debbie's extremely cogent comments with a comment 2 also. This is Pat Skibbee, C-10 Board. And I'm 3 thinking that if the petrographic analyses from ACI 4 and ASTM standards had been adopted by the NRC years 5 ago, we would not be in this quandary because the 6 core sampling would have been done, the testing 7 would have been done. It would be possible 8 therefore by comparing testing from some years ago 9 and currently to see what the progress, if any, of 10 the ASR is, what the extent is, but because it 11 wasn't done we are, as Debbie Grinnell said, in the 12 situation of ignorance on this.

13 [By letter dated January 19, 2016 (ADAMS 14 Accession No. ML16019A081), the NRC staff provided a 15 response to Debbie Grinnell of C-10 regarding the 16 core samples that NextEra took at Seabrook.]

17 Also, I'm going to point out that 18 according to our materials that we submitted to you 19 yesterday, in 2010 comments by the NRC staff said 20 NextEra said that they would be conducting core 21 petrographic examinations and that, quote, "No 22 structure will be precluded from continued 23 monitoring for the effects of ASR concrete 24 degradation until: (1) core bore petrographic 25 examination has been completed on the Seabrook 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 structure to confirm the absence of ASR; and (2) 2 that ASR is no longer active. These things have not 3 been done. And we're talking about something that 4 happened three-and-a-half years ago, statements that 5 were made three-and-a-half years ago. Then 6 apparently later in the same year, 2012, NextEra's 7 position changed and instead of doing core sampling 8 according to ACI and ASTM accepted standards, they 9 switched their strategy to again, supposedly 10 similar, but of course not really similar, cores, 11 pull cores at the Ferguson, Texas site. And clearly 12 this is not adequate. I mean, one might wonder why 13 NextEra's position changed. If these standards were 14 mandatory, as C-10's petition is asking, they 15 couldn't have done that. The licensee would have 16 had to take the responsible route by using actual 17 core samples from the actual nuclear power plant, 18 which is what should be happening and which I hope 19 and trust that the NRC will understand and therefore 20 approve our petition. Thank you.

21 MEMBER KING: Okay. NRC has no further 22 questions. So with that, this meeting is concluded 23 and we'll be terminating the phone connection.

24 MS. SKIBBEE: All right. Thank you for 25 listening.

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 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 2 went off the record at 2:54 p.m.)

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.