ML16167A364
| ML16167A364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  (NPF-086) |
| Issue date: | 06/06/2016 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Lamb J | |
| References | |
| 2.206, NRC-2426 | |
| Download: ML16167A364 (77) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Seabrook Nuclear Plant Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Monday, June 6, 2016 Work Order No.:
NRC-2426 Pages 1-77 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 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE:
6 SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 7
+ + + + +
8 MONDAY 9
JUNE 6, 2016 10
+ + + + +
11 The conference call was held, Rob Taylor, 12 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
13 14 PETITIONER: C-10 Research & Education Foundation 15 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 17 ROB TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of 18 Safety
- Systems, Office of Nuclear 19 Reaction Regulation 20 JOHN LAMB, Petition Manager for 2.206 Petition 21 RUSS ARRIGHI, Senior Enforcement Specialist, 22 Office of Enforcement 23 LORRAINE BAER, Attorney, Office of 24 General Counsel 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 MATTHEW RING, Attorney, Office of General 1
Counsel 2
GEORGE THOMAS, Senior Structural Engineer, 3
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
5 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 6
7 RICHARD BARKLEY, Senior Project Engineer, 8
Region 1 9
FRED BOWER, Branch Chief, Region 1 10 NEIL SHEEHAN, Field Public Affairs Officer, 11 Region 1 12 BRIAN
- WITTICK, Projects 2
Branch
- Chief, 13 Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear 14 Reactor Regulation 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:59 p.m.
2 MR. LAMB: I'd like to thank everyone for 3
attending this public meeting. My name is John Lamb, 4
and I am the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 5
Project Manager.
6 We are here today to allow the petitioner, 7
C-10 Research & Education Foundation, referred to as 8
C-10 from this point forward, to address the Petition 9
Review Board, PRB, regarding the 2.206 petition dated 10 December 22nd, 2015, Agency-wide Documents Access and 11 Management
- System, ADAMS, Accession Number 12 ML16006A002, as supplemented by email comments from 13 David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, 14 UCS, dated February 12th, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number 15 ML16043A486, and email comments from Paul Brown dated 16 February
- 14th, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number 17 ML16047A020, and email comments by C-10 dated February 18 15th, 2016, ADAMS Accession Number ML16047A021.
19 I am also the petition manager for this 20 petition. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor. As part 21 of the PRB's review of this petition, C-10 has 22 requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
23 This meeting is scheduled from 2:00 p.m.
24 to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 1
transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 2
become a supplement to the petition. The transcript 3
will also be made available to the public. In 4
addition, this meeting is being webcast on the NRC's 5
webpage at http:\\\\video.nrc.gov\\.
6 I would like to open this meeting with 7
introductions. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor. I 8
would like the rest of the PRB to introduce 9
themselves. As we go around the room, please be sure 10 to clearly state your name, your position, and the 11 office for which you work within the NRC for the 12 record.
13 I will start off. Once again, I am the 14 NRC Project Manager.
15 CHAIR TAYLOR: I'm Rob Taylor. I'm the 16 Deputy Director of the Division of the Safety Systems 17 with the -- within the Office of Nuclear Reactor 18 Regulation for the NRC.
19 MR. THOMAS: I am George Thomas -- I am 20 George Thomas, Senior Structural Engineer in the 21 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
22 MS. BAER: Lorraine Baer, attorney, Office 23 of General Counsel.
24 MR. RING: I am Matthew Ring, also an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 attorney with the Office of the General Counsel.
1 MR. ARRIGHI: Russ Arrighi, Office of 2
Enforcement.
3 MR. LAMB: Okay. We've concluded 4
introductions at NRC Headquarters. Are there any PRB 5
members that are from Headquarters on the phone line?
6 (No audible response.)
7 MR. LAMB: Are there any NRC PRB members 8
from the regional office on the phone?
9 (No audible response.)
10 MR. LAMB: Okay. Are there any NRC 11 participants from Headquarters on the phone line?
12 MR. WITTICK: This is Brian Wittick from 13 the Division of License Renewal.
14 MR. LAMB: Okay. Are there any NRC 15 participants from the regional office on the phone 16 line?
17 MR. BOWER: Yes, this is Fred Bower, 18 Branch Chief in Region I.
19 MR. BARKLEY: And Rich Barkley, Senior 20 Project Engineer in Region I.
21 MR. SHEEHAN: Neil Sheehan, Public 22 Affairs, Region I.
23 MR. LAMB: Okay. Are there any 24 representatives for the licensee on the phone line?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 MR. HAMRICK: Yes. This is Steve Hamrick, 1
counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook.
2 MR. LAMB: Okay. I would ask the phone 3
participants to send me an email at john.lamb@nrc.gov 4
so I can make sure the attendance sheet for this 5
meeting is correct and I can send it to the court 6
reporter.
7 Debbie Grinnell of C-10, would you please 8
introduce yourself for the record, and as well the 9
other participants for the petitioner?
10 MS. GRINNELL: I am Debbie Grinnell with 11 the C-10 Foundation.
12 MS. GAVUTIS: I am Sandra Gavutis from the 13 C-10 Foundation.
14 MS. DOENMEZ: I am Sarah Doenmez from the 15 C-10 Foundation.
16 MS. TEED: I am Diane Teed from the C-10 17 Foundation.
18 MS. SKIBBEE: Patricia Skibbee, C-10 19 Foundation.
20 MR. NORD: I am Christopher Nord from the 21 C-10 Foundation.
22 MR. LAMB: Okay. Thank you. Is there any 23 other C-10 members on the phone line?
24 (No audible response.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 MR. LAMB: I would like to emphasize that 1
we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure 2
that the court reporter can accurately transcribe this 3
meeting. If you do have something that you would like 4
to say, please first state your name for the record.
5 For those dialing in to the meeting, 6
please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 7
background noises or distractions. If you do not have 8
a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys 9
star 6. To unmute, press the star 6 key again. Thank 10 you.
11 At this time, I will turn it over to the 12 PRB Chairman, Robert Taylor.
13 CHAIR TAYLOR: Thanks, John.
14 I want to welcome C-10 to this public 15 meeting regarding the 2.206 petition that you 16 submitted, and I want to thank you for taking the time 17 to come down to NRC Headquarters today and address us 18 in person. Really appreciate that.
19 I would like to first share some 20 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 22 petition process. It's the primary mechanism for the 23 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a 24 public process. This process permits anyone to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 petition NRC to take enforcement-type actions related 1
to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
2 Depending on the results of its 3
evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an 4
NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate 5
enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC 6
staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition 7
requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is 8
available to the public in ADAMS at Accession Number 9
10 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 11 the petitioner an opportunity to provide any 12 additional explanation or support for the petition 13 before the PRB's final consideration and 14 recommendation. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is 15 it the opportunity for the petitioner to question or 16 examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented 17 in the petition request. No decision regarding the 18 merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
19 Following the meeting, the PRB will 20 conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome of 21 the internal meeting will be discussed with the 22 petitioner. The PRB typically consists of a chairman, 23 myself, usually a manager at the Senior Executive 24 Service level at the NRC. It is the petition manager 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 and the PRB coordinator -- it has a petition manager 1
and a PRB coordinator. Other members of the Board are 2
determined by the NRC staff based on the contents of 3
the information in the petition request. The members 4
have already introduced themselves.
5 As described in our process, the NRC staff 6
may ask clarifying questions in order to better 7
understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach 8
a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 9
petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 10 process.
11 I would like to summarize the scope of the 12 petition under consideration and then the NRC's 13 activities to date.
14 On December 22nd, 2015, as supplemented by 15 emails dated February the 12th, 14th, and 15th, 2016, 16 you submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 17 regarding Seabrook in which you requested enforcement 18 action. C-10 requested the NRC issue an order to 19 NextEra requiring immediate implementation and 20 enforcement of American Concrete Institute, ACI, 21 349.3R evaluation of existing nuclear-safety-related 22 concrete structures, and American Society for Testing 23 and Materials, ASTM, C 856-11, standard practice for 24 petrographic examination of hardened concrete, code 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 standards requiring core sampling and testing for the 1
mechanical properties of tensile strength, Poisson's 2
- ratio, modulus of elasticity, and compressive 3
strength, specifically for walls of the containment 4
building and spent fuel pool at Seabrook.
5 As the basis for your request, you stated 6
that C-10 has studied the alkali-silica reaction, ASR, 7
and C-10 concludes that its presence at Seabrook is 8
seminal to public health and safety.
9 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 10 date. On January the 8th, 2016, the petition manager 11 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 12 to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB. On 13 January the 4th, 2016, you requested to address the 14 PRB by phone prior to its internal meeting to make the 15 initial recommendations to accept or reject the 16 petition for review.
17 On February the 12th, 2016, David Lochbaum 18 of UCS supplied written comments by email that will be 19 treated as a supplement to the petition. On February 20 the 14th, 2016, Paul Brown, UCS, supplied written 21 comments by email that will also be treated as a 22 supplement to the petition. On February the 15th of 23 2016, C-10 supplied written comments by email that 24 will as well be treated as a supplement to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 petition.
1 A teleconference was held on February the 2
16th, 2016, where C-10 provided additional information 3
to the PRB. That teleconference was transcribed and 4
added as a supplement to the petition. The transcript 5
is located in ADAMS at Accession Number ML16055A394.
6 The licensee provided a voluntary response to your 7
petition by letter dated February the 23rd, 2016, 8
which is located in ADAMS at Accession Number 9
10 By email dated March the 23rd, 2016, ADAMS 11 Accession Number ML16083A245, the PRB made an initial 12 recommendation that your petition meets the criteria 13 for rejection in accordance with Management Directive 14 8.11, Section 3(c)2, Criteria for Rejecting Petitions 15 Under 10 CFR 2.206. Specifically, the fourth 16 criterion for rejection is the request addresses 17 deficiency within existing NRC rules.
18 To reiterate, the purpose of today's 19 meeting is to give you an opportunity to provide any 20 additional explanation or support for the petition 21 before the PRB's final consideration and 22 recommendation. As a reminder to the phone 23 participants, please identify yourself if you make any 24 remarks. This will help us in the preparation of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 meeting transcript, and that will be made available to 1
the public.
2 Thank you. And now I turn it over to 3
Debbie Grinnell of C-10 to allow you the opportunity 4
to provide any additional information that you believe 5
the PRB should consider as we disposition this 6
petition. You have about 35 minutes for your 7
presentation. Thank you.
8 MS. GRINNELL: We actually have an order 9
that we'd like to present to you, and thank you for 10 that opportunity. But I think our first speaker will 11 be Sandra Gavutis.
12 MS. GAVUTIS: Is that it?
13 MS. GRINNELL: Yes.
14 MS. GAVUTIS: Okay. All right.
15 We are here today to address and elaborate 16 on the concerns expressed in our 2.206 petition that 17 was filed in December, 2015. I am the Director of the 18 C-10 Research and Education. We're based in 19 Newburyport, Mass. We've been under contract with the 20 Massachusetts Department of Public Health for 23 21 years.
22 Our mission is to research and advocate 23 for safety and security of the Seabrook reactors and 24 to monitor in real time radiological emissions from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 Seabrook for use in assessing impact on the health and 1
the environment to challenge the nuclear industry's 2
claims that radiation released from reactors is not 3
harmful. Our mission is actually in support of your 4
mission, which is to protect public health and safety.
5 We are here to signal to you the gravity 6
of the situation we are facing at Seabrook, and we 7
compel you to answer us as the voice of the public.
8 We believe the situation at Seabrook is an emergency.
9 The NRC has been aware of the alkali-silica reaction, 10 ASR, problems at Seabrook for seven years. You've 11 made recommendations and suggestions. You have given 12 violations and extensions. And you have allowed 13 NextEra to delay and distract.
14 Every day you do not require NextEra to 15 take action is another day of failure to honor your 16 mission. We request that you consider our 2.206 17 petition. We make use of this process to call upon 18 you to take enforcement action against NextEra and 19 make them conduct the necessary testing and provide 20 the data we have requested.
21 Quite frankly, we have lost confidence in 22 NextEra and the NRC's commitment to public safety.
23 The C-10 board members that are here today will 24 provide greater detail and elaborate these assertions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 We charge you to act in accordance with your mission, 1
to act on our emergency petition. Thank you.
2 MR. NORD: I'm -- I'm up next. I am Chris 3
Nord.
4 In July of 2012, in testimony on the 5
problem of alkali-silica reaction, ASR, at Seabrook 6
Atomic Power Plant, before the ACRS Plant License 7
Review Subcommittee, the Senior Structural Engineer 8
for the Office of Nuclear Regulation, Abdul Sheikh, 9
declared a 22 percent reduction in the compressive 10 strength of tested concrete in certain safety-critical 11 buildings at Seabrook.
12 What went largely unnoticed from his 13 finding at that time was his assertion that the 14 concrete should have actually strengthened by more 15 than 20 percent since construction, so that when one 16 compares the loss of strength to the expected 4800 psi 17 rating, one finds that the tested concrete had 18 weakened 30 percent from the expected compressive 19 strength. What loss occurred in critical tensile 20 strength we were never told.
21
- However, he did point out in his 22 testimony, quote, "It is a well-known fact that the 23 visual examination cannot rule out the presence of 24 ASR. You have to do some confirmatory tests."
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 Fully seven years after ASR was confirmed 1
at Seabrook, both ownership and NRC continued to rely 2
on visual inspections as the primary tool for the 3
discovery and monitoring of ASR. This exemplifies a 4
set of shared false assumptions for which NRC, as 5
regulator, must primarily be held responsible. These 6
false assumptions may also prove to underlie the myth 7
that Seabrook is the only U.S. reactor with ASR.
8 The cure for this unfortunate and 9
wrongheaded trend is the formal adoption of existing 10 standards governing concrete strength analysis, 11 standards that your agency already uses and has 12 endorsed. The enforcement of these standards 13 contained within American Concrete Institute's ACI 14 349.3R and the American Society for Testing and 15 Materials' ASTM C856-11 in response to the Seabrook 16 ASR crisis is the whole purpose of our petition for --
17 to you for emergency enforcement.
18 NRC converses with NextEra in the language 19 of ACI and ASTM standards constantly. It is the de 20 facto language of technical concrete assessment 21 standards already adopted by NRC and ownership for 22 obvious reasons. If you truly want to understand 23 what's happening to concrete structures as they age, 24 these two sets of standards provide the analytical 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 scaffolding required.
1 In 2011, an NRC Office of Research seminar 2
presentation showed only one set of standards for 3
petrographic analysis of hardened concrete in nuclear 4
applications, ASTM C856. Furthermore, your own 5
NUREG/CR-71 records the endorsement, your word, of ACI 6
349 and its follow-on standard ACI 359 for reactor 7
vessels and containments issued in 2014.
8 Because of their complete and thorough 9
applicability, C-10 submitted our petition for 10 rulemaking in 2014, urging NRC to mandate adherence to 11 the protocols contained within ACI and ASTM in order 12 to compel ownership to perform thorough petrographic 13 analysis on Seabrook's concrete structures, including 14 the critical core sampling for containment and spent 15 fuel pool structures.
16 However, nothing has been done with that 17 petition by NRC, and we understand years may go by 18 before any action is taken, if ever, while we have a 19 dynamic situation back home with Seabrook containment 20 walls changing their geometry. Hence the need for 21 emergency action.
22 For all the world, it seems that NRC balks 23 at formalizing these existing standards within NRC 24 regs because, as it is, ownership gets to choose what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 standards serve their bottom-line interest and what 1
standards they would rather not follow. In other 2
words, by your inaction, you allow NextEra to avoid a 3
thorough determination of the actual condition of 4
their atomic plant's concrete without facing any real 5
regulatory consequences, and thereby putting the 6
population and environment around the plant at ever-7 greater risk of environmental consequence because of 8
that willful avoidance.
9 I know you all, NRC Petition Review Board, 10 have already decided that the C-10 petition for 11 emergency enforcement action concerning ASR at 12 Seabrook Atomic Power Plant should be rejected, and 13 you know and we know that that judgment was a fait 14 accompli before the petition was ever filed. Please 15 understand, I am not being sarcastic right here. I 16 just mean that none of these 2.206 petitions are ever 17 accepted.
18 You run this place like Vegas. The house 19 is going to win in the end, right? The process that 20 brings us here today appears to be only a shell of 21 democracy. It may only appear that common citizens 22 have a way to effect change. But we are here before 23 you because we still believe in small "d" democracy, 24 and we carry with -- with us this quaint notion that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 you, NRC, should do your job. You should do your job.
1 Furthermore, we know in an obvious way 2
that you can better do your job. That is why we're 3
here. We must ask because we ask ourselves, why are 4
you here? What is NRC's job? You know, that is a 5
funhouse mirror from our vantage point. To us, it 6
looks like you believe NRC stands for Not Responsible 7
to Communities. That's the way you behave toward 8
those who must live within the ingestion pathway of 9
U.S. atomic plants.
10 But NRC mission -- NRC's mission involves 11 quote "the protection of public health and safety."
12 That means that you are charged with oversight of an 13 industry handling the most toxic substances on Earth 14 whereby you must confront that industry when needed 15 and insist that their business must comply with 16 stringent and established standards or else real 17 consequences shall ensue.
18 Were that real, that would not be a shell 19 game. That would be legitimate regulation acting in 20 the public interest. The reactor community we 21 represent needs
- you, the Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission, not to collaborate with NextEra in the 23 establishment or maintenance of false assumptions 24 which could not persist with the relevant ACI and ASTM 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 standards followed and enforced.
1 As an example, NRC has stated, quote, 2
"NextEra's offsite research test program must 3
represent the actual in situ conditions of Seabrook's 4
primary containment." The simple fact is that the 5
strength testing done on newly fashioned concrete with 6
rapidly propagating ASR which has not been subjected 7
to neutron bombardment or numerous other specific 8
long-term operational conditions at a controlled test 9
facility 2000 miles away cannot and should not 10 represent the onsite concrete at a working atomic 11 reactor except in the most general way.
12 Since the word -- since the use of "to 13 represent" here may be interpreted to mean "to stand 14 in for," as in "to take the place of," this choice of 15 words amounts to the creation of a dangerous 16 regulatory loophole for current and future atomic 17 plant testing for ASR-related deterioration.
18 The refusal of NRC to mandate thorough 19 petrographic testing onsite, which would be required 20 were the standards in question actually enforced, is 21 even more egregious in the case of Seabrook because 22 there is a whole unused second reactor complex of 23 concrete structures which could be used for much of 24 the onsite testing ACI and ASTM standards call for, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 and which would yield a much closer representation of 1
in situ conditions, minus of course the radiation beam 2
and heat exposure of the operating atomic reactor.
3 The best representation of the ASR status 4
of in situ concrete at Seabrook Unit 1 will be 5
attained by testing Seabrook Unit 1. Expert opinion 6
we have sought out on this subject assures C-10 and 7
your agency that this can and should be done.
8 Anything short of this approach leaves us all with 9
conjecture and assumptions, many of them false, and 10 our reactor community demands better. We want to know 11 the truth.
12 It has been seven years since ASR came to 13 light at Seabrook, seven years without a proper 14 finding of the extent of deterioration of the two most 15 safety-critical civilian structures anywhere within 16 the ingestion pathway. For an agency trapped in a 17 mindset of no regulation called for, that might look 18 like success. We say that the shell game you 19 wittingly or unwittingly perpetrate, one that clearly 20 benefits ownership and puts the general public at 21 ever-greater risk, must stop.
22 NRC must not capitulate to ownership by 23 allowing them to quote "cherry-pick" their way to 24 false representation of Seabrook Unit 1's operability.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should work instead 1
for the protection of the general public and enforce 2
the standards you have explicitly endorsed and already 3
used. Thank you.
4 MS. GRINNELL: I am Debbie Grinnell, and 5
I prepared comments for today. Unfortunately, I had 6
a stroke two weeks after I wrote a petition for 7
rulemaking to the NRC, and as a result, I got hit with 8
a problem with language in my language center, and it 9
affected my ability to read fluently. I have asked 10 Sarah Doenmez here to write them for me, and she has 11 volunteered to do that. Sarah is a member of C-10.
12 She is also an academic dean. And I thank you for 13 reading this for me. Thank you, Sarah.
14 MS. DOENMEZ: I am Sarah Doenmez, reading 15 for Debbie Grinnell.
16 The C-10 2.206 petition is in response to 17 Seabrook's failure to follow NRC recommendations or 18 requirements to adequately and reliably monitor the 19 progressively adverse concrete degradation at Seabrook 20 due to ASR, alkali-silica reaction. The Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission's mission is to regulate nuclear 22 power with enforceable guidelines that protect public 23 safety.
24 Regulations are essential, as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 recommendations cannot be enforced. Seabrook's ASR is 1
a form of degradation that is active, progressive, and 2
non-self-remitting. It will eventually lead to the 3
non-remedial collapse of affected structures.
4 Currently, the NRC has no regulations that address 5
ASR. C-10's 2.206 petition calls for the NRC to 6
recognize that the ASR-damaged containment buildings 7
and spent fuel pool constitute an emergency.
8 We demand the NRC's immediate action.
9 Region I staff has been complicit with NextEra in 10 allowing this situation to escalate. For nearly three 11 decades, Seabrook's numerous construction deficiencies 12 have remained unresolved. Historical examples dating 13 back to construction include: in 1987, the NRC 14 concluded the major unresolved cracks in Seabrook's 15 Unit 1 containment building, waste process building, 16 and equipment vault were weak spots, NRC report 50-17 443/86-52.
18 Reinforcement bars were knowingly 19 subjected to continual groundwater contamination as 20 the waterproofing membrane failed its intended 21 purpose. The NRC acknowledged as early as 1987, 50-22 443/84-12-01, that the patching of the inside concrete 23 walls during construction would not stop groundwater 24 from affecting the rebar.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 In response to the above, C-10 called for 1
a comprehensive independent investigation of the 2
entire plant design and related documents. The NRC 3
did not undertake a full investigation of these issues 4
and yet concluded that Seabrook's plant-wide 5
unresolved deficiencies were not safety problems.
6 The NRC has failed the public since the 7
inception of the Seabrook reactor. Since 2009, with 8
the discovery of ASR, the risks to public health and 9
safety have mushroomed into critical safety concerns.
10 NextEra knew that ASR concrete degradation existed, 11 and this was confirmed by lab certification in 2010.
12 In addition, Seabrook submitted an application for 13 license renewal in 2010. Approval would extend the 14 current license from 2030 to 2050.
15 NextEra omitted evidence of ASR 16 degradation in this application, which violates 17 federal code. By 2011, the NRC and the public knew 18 that Seabrook's ASR was active and progressive and a 19 serious obstacle to safety. No longer able to ignore 20 the situation, the NRC required an ASTM-certified lab 21 test. The results demonstrated that Seabrook's ASR 22 problem was not self-limiting and would progress 23 eventually to containment failure.
24 In 2011, the NRC found NextEra in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 violation of their current license, stating that they 1
were quote "In violation of their current license, 2
operable but degraded and non-conforming," end quote.
3 The ASR in some areas was moderate to severe, with no 4
repair options and no existing criteria to adequately 5
assess structural integrity. As a result, the NRC 6
requested that NextEra complete a thorough and 7
comprehensive monitoring of critical structures and 8
submit all findings. NextEra failed to comply.
9 Since 2011, C-10 and the Union of 10 Concerned Scientists have repeatedly requested that 11 NextEra perform in situ core testing and petrography 12 of ASR degradation at Seabrook's containment, spent 13 fuel pool, and other Category 1 buildings. More 14 recently, the NRC revised Seabrook's violation to 15 state that Seabrook was quote "in violation of their 16 current license, operable but degraded and non-17 conforming, requiring continued monitoring and 18 periodic evaluation to ensure continued operability,"
19 2/12/16, page 26, ML16043A391.
20 As a result of NextEra's failure, NRC 21 inspectors would now have to personally inspect, 22 monitor, and measure the concrete. The NRC's 23 determination was revised further to state that 24 Seabrook's CEB containment building's structural 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 integrity was compromised, ML16127A156, page 7.
1 Finally, and most recently, the NRC 2
concluded that observed degradation far exceeds, 3
quote, "far exceeds" any previously anticipated creep 4
values for reinforced concrete structures and 5
therefore is non-conforming with the original design 6
and construction code, ACI 3181971, ML15217A6, page 7
19.
8 In response to this position, NextEra 9
admitted to the NRC that they had not identified the 10 presence of localized ASR, including deformation in 11 Seabrook's concrete structures, because of their 12 original quote unquote "mindset that viewed conditions 13 such as concrete cracks, water infiltration, and 14 misalignment issues as acceptable and 15 inconsequential," end quote, document date 12/19/14, 16 ML16043A391, page 27.
17 Isn't this reason enough for the NRC to 18 enforce standards? We have learned over the past five 19 years through numerous NRC reports that NextEra's 20 mindset has been to largely disregard the NRC's 21 recommendations and requirements to monitor and manage 22 the progression of ASR concrete degradation in all of 23 the Seabrook power block buildings. Notwithstanding 24 seven years of NRC requests for corrective actions, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 NextEra continues to disregard any type of meaningful 1
response to the requests, and in cases, by the NRC's 2
own admission, NextEra has repeatedly withheld data 3
and information.
4 C-10 views the following as examples of 5
NextEra's willful deceit: one case charged NextEra 6
with a code violation for failing to respond to the 7
NRC ASR concrete degradation in their renewal 8
application mentioned earlier. The second case 9
involved NextEra's failure to include specific data to 10 the NRC that, if included, would have required 11 Seabrook to close.
12 The report sent to the NRC had two 13 different versions. One report conveniently omitted 14 the damning evidence, Freedom of Information Act to C-15 10, Deborah Grinnell. Both of these cases were 16 submitted by the NRC Region I staff to the Office of 17 Investigations to determine if NextEra willfully 18 failed to report required information to the NRC 19 staff. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the 20 Office of Investigations closed both cases as not 21 willful violations.
22 In other instances, NextEra has been cited 23 numerous times for willfully withholding data and 24 regulatory information requested. However, the NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 has taken no meaningful action to force compliance.
1 The more information we gather about 2
Seabrook's lack of monitoring as the ASR progression 3
worsens within critical structures, the more the 4
public loses confidence. Any trust in NextEra is 5
further eroded as the NRC continues to cite NextEra 6
for more serious violations under their current 7
license.
8 In the NRC's attempts to demonstrate that 9
Seabrook was safe, an ASTM 1260 mortar bar extension 10 test was conducted in June 2012, NRC call item number 11
- 6. The test results revealed that Seabrook's ASR 12 would continue long term under existing conditions 13 without reaching a plateau or exhaustion. We at C-10 14 and the UCS know that eventually, ASR-affected 15 concrete will fail and collapse.
16 The requirements for renewal of Seabrook's 17 operating license, 10 CFR Part 54, requires the 18 management of the adverse effects of aging. We are 19 convinced that Seabrook cannot manage the advanced 20 degree of progressive ASR degradation and the NRC 21 cannot rely on NextEra to monitor ASR responsibly.
22 Seabrook is approaching a point of failure in 23 containment, and public safety is clearly at risk.
24 UCS Director of Nuclear Safety David 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 Lochbaum formally submitted his comments to the NRC in 1
response to our petition. Dave Lochbaum tried hard in 2
his comments to show that the status quo is untenable, 3
that safety is being compromised, and that solutions 4
sought in our petitions are both reasonable and 5
needed.
6 David closed saying "The answer to whether 7
concrete degradation caused by ASR has adverse nuclear 8
safety implications is yes. The record clearly shows 9
that ASR degradation can reduce safety margins and 10 potentially result in catastrophic failures. This 11 answer is reinforced by the NRC's response to the 12 discovery of ASR degradation at Seabrook. If ASR 13 degradation could have no adverse nuclear safety 14 implications, the NRC would not have required 15 Seabrook's owner to develop and implement measures to 16 manage the ASR effect."
17 We call on you now, therefore, to approve 18 the 2.206 petition and take emergency enforcement 19 actions at Seabrook.
20 MS. GAVUTIS: I do have an ask to the NRC, 21 and I have an ask because when Region I realized that 22 they had a discovery of ASR concrete degradation, they 23 went to the NRC NRR to get technical help, and we've 24 read that carefully. And what we've found was within 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 the recommendations that were made by NRR, that you 1
also had to -- well, NRR had to go to their Seabrook 2
SSAR to look very carefully at the boundaries that 3
needed to be honored and that they needed to do 4
without question to see whether they were in 5
violation.
6 And I think there was considerable concern 7
from the technical research department that there were 8
things, and I will quote this -- I think this is in 9
Section 3.4 under (a), (b), (c), and (d). (d) in 10 particular is very absurd and discurving -- that's not 11 a word.
12 MR. NORD: Disconcerting?
13 MS. GAVUTIS: Disconcerting, thank you 14 very much. And the quote that I'd like to give you is 15 that "No allowance has been made for variation in 16 material properties over the life of this structure."
17 So when we look at that, and we know that 18 the technical end of the NRC told Region I that yes, 19 cores needed to be done, and the photography had to be 20 done, and made very good recommendations, so what 21 we've found now is that, without any material 22 properties in Seabrook's containment where there are 23 no regulations, then what we've found is that without 24 them, the NRC is left to negotiate with NextEra, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 in the process of negotiation, we've seen that there 1
have been a total 40 cores that were -- that were to 2
be tested by Seabrook's containments, but NextEra 3
never tested them.
4 What did NextEra do with them? They 5
actually took the cores, but they didn't test them.
6 What did the NRC do about their negotiation when it 7
failed with NextEra? We need to know what happened to 8
these cores that were taken when the NRC said these 9
should be done and NextEra apparently agreed to do 40 10 of them and then chose not to test them.
11 And because there is only a process that 12 you have that gives you no power to enforce anything 13 or to say this must be done, you have no way of doing 14 that. So we have three examples of that. One was 15 that there were four cores taken of Seabrook's 16 containment that were tested specifically for tensile, 17 but the NRC failed to test them. What did the NRC do?
18 What did the NRC do when their negotiation with 19 NextEra failed?
20 Then, again, in 2015, the NRC negotiated 21 with NextEra to take 34 cores in containment, which 22 they did do. They actually took the cores. They 23 looked at them visually. I am not kidding you. They 24 looked at them, after in 2010, when they were tested, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 and we have the data from that, we found out that it 1
was far worse than it appeared visually.
2 So the NRC failed to test them. There are 3
34 of them in containment. They have not done it.
4 And what has the NRC done about it? As far as we 5
know, they have not anything about it, and they have 6
no way to negotiate with NextEra.
7 Finally, the NRC negotiated with NextEra 8
to do one core, a shallow core, in containment spent 9
fuel pool, and that was done in December of 2015. The 10 NRC has never reported that it was done, and with all 11 the numerous emails and requests we have made for the 12 data for the results of that, one core was done in a 13 spent fuel pool, and we have no idea what the results 14 are.
15 So it is time for the NRC to just do it.
16 You need to have regulations because you have no way 17 of enforcing them, and if you have an -- if you have 18 NextEra, who conveniently does not do testing when 19 it's recommended, when you recommend it, when you 20 require it, when you negotiate with them, then you 21 have no power to protect us. Thank you.
22 MS. SKIBBEE: Patricia Skibbee. The next 23 there is February 23rd, 2016 response to NRC's request 24 for comments on C-10's 2.206 petition on page four.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 The company has written that visual 1
inspection of the various locations of the containment 2
building, with Tier 3 damaged areas being visually 3
reinspected every six months, and Tier 2 damaged areas 4
being visually inspected every 30 months, has shown no 5
progression of ASR since 2012.
6 If ASR was not present ten years ago and 7
it is now present, detectable even by the bare human 8
eye, clearly it is progressing. It's an accepted 9
scientific fact that ASR is not self-limiting, so we 10 know it is progressing.
11 The fact that NextEra states in its 12 response letter that visual inspection shows no 13 progression is evidence that visual inspection is 14 entirely insufficient to the task.
15 A medical analogy might help here. Visual 16 inspection of ASR is analogous to medical diagnostic 17 practice before X-ray and MRI technologies were 18 invented. Medical practice is better with these 19 technologies, and that is because now doctors can see 20 inside the patient, as opposed to just looking at the 21 skin of that patient.
22 The same is true with concrete. Looking 23 at the surface, all that is seen is the surface.
24 Using industry accepted standards, ACI and ASTM, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 enables the NRC to mandate testing for the vital 1
mechanical properties of the concrete, what is going 2
on under the skin, which is what is important.
3 The mandatory use of ACI 349.3R and ASTM-C 4
856-11 standards, as well as appropriate directives 5
for their use, would enable the NRC to force 6
appropriate monitoring of ASR-damaged concrete. The 7
current situation made all too clear in NextEra's 8
response letter is that the plant's "qualified 9
engineers," a phrase used so frequently that it makes 10 us wonder if they have some unqualified engineers 11 working there, makes the decisions as to the 12 frequency, the type and the extent of testing, as 13 opposed to that testing being mandated by the NRC.
14 The goal of NextEra and therefore of its 15 employees, including its qualified engineers, is to 16 make a profit from running this private company. That 17 means keeping the plant operating as long as possible, 18 with as few expenses as possible, cutting into its 19 profitability.
20 That goal is precisely opposite the stated 21 goal of the NRC, as expressed in its mission 22 statement, which reads in part "To protect public 23 health and safety, the environment and the common 24 defense and security. The mission is accomplished 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 through licensing of nuclear facilities and the 1
possession, use and disposal of nuclear materials, the 2
development of implementation of requirements 3
governing licensing activities and the inspection and 4
enforcement activities to assure compliance with these 5
requirements."
6 The goal of the NRC in brief is to protect 7
public health and safety, not to protect the 8
profitability of privately-owned, for-profit nuclear 9
power plants. As the mission statement says, "the 10 development and implementation of requirements." It 11 doesn't say suggestions or recommendations. It says 12 requirements.
13 Enforcing these two widely-accepted 14 concrete assessment standards, ACI 349.3R and ASTM-C 15 856-11, already used by NextEra when they choose, and 16 any needed specific directives, would enable the NRC 17 to simply do its job. That is what we are asking for, 18 for the NRC to do its job in a responsible, thorough 19 manner that serves the public and not the nuclear 20 industry.
21
- Further, NextEra contends that the 22 Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant is the only U.S. plant 23 experiencing the alkali-silica reaction problem.
24 However, a number of nuclear power plants in other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 countries are experiencing this problem. Also, 1
Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant is the most recently 2
licensed, newest plant in the U.S.
3 It is more probable that older plants are 4
experiencing ASR damage. It seems highly unlikely if 5
not impossible that Seabrook is the only U.S. plant 6
with this issue. Therefore, adopting these two 7
concrete quality standards is mandatory, would allow 8
the NRC to do its job not only for the vulnerable 9
public around Seabrook but for all Americans.
10 Next Section 2. I'd like to quote from 11 President Gerald Ford's comment upon signing the 12 legislation that created the NRC in 1975. "The highly 13 technical nature of our nuclear facilities and the 14 special potential hazards which are involved in the 15 use of nuclear fuels fully warrant the creation of an 16 independent and technically competent regulatory 17 agency to assure adequate protection of public health 18 and safety.
19 "The NRC will be responsible for the 20 licensing and regulation of the nuclear industry under 21 the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. This means 22 the NRC will be fully empowered to see to it that 23 reactors using nuclear materials will be properly and 24 safely designed, constructed and operated to guarantee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 against hazards to the public from leakage or 1
accident.
2 "NRC will also exercise strengthened 3
authority to assure that the public is fully 4
safeguarded from hazards arising from the storage 5
being used in power reactors, hospitals, research 6
laboratories or any other purpose."
7 Quoting from the NRC's own document, its 8
functions include conducting various kinds of 9
inspections and investigations designed to assure 10 nuclear plant activities are conducted in strict 11 compliance with the terms of the license and the 12 agency's regulations and requirements, and that it 13 "enforces compliance as necessary."
14 The NRC states that its job includes 15 providing independent expertise and information for 16 making timely regulatory judgments, anticipating 17 problems or potential safety significance, and 18 providing support for developing regulations and 19 standards.
20 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory 21 Regulation part of the NRC has as its specific duty to 22 "conduct the inspection and licensing activities 23 associated with operating power reactors that are 24 necessary to protect the public health and safety, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 to establish a sound regulatory framework."
1 The current situation at the Seabrook 2
Nuclear Power Plant is that the plant is not operating 3
within the parameters of its license, and the NRC is 4
not fulfilling its responsibilities to the public.
5 With its approximately 2,700 employees and a budget of 6
about a half a billion dollars, the NRC should be able 7
to do its job.
8 But that job is not being done properly.
9 Instead, what we have in reality is a situation where 10 the fox is watching the henhouse, and that the plant's 11 owner, NRC, is seemingly entrusted with doing its own 12 inspections and testing, including testing for ASR 13 damage and progression, with insufficient oversight 14 from the NRC.
15 In the May 6, 2016 letter from the NRC to 16 NextEra, owners/operators of the Seabrook plant, the 17 NRC does seem to be chastising NextEra for its failure 18 to operate the plant in accordance with its license 19 standards.
20 First, the NRC faults the plant for not 21 adequately inspecting, reporting and monitoring the 22 ASR damage to the concrete structures, specifically 23 the containment enclosure building, the residual heat 24 removal vault and the fuel storage building. This 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 extensive document recites a number of situations in 1
which NextEra, after observing damage, failed to 2
properly list it and failed to inform the NRC of its 3
existence.
4 The report states that "additional 5
attention by NextEra staff is warranted," and that 6
"operability and screening processes to ensure 7
conclusions regarding structural capability are 8
updated and technically supported." This is NRC 9
gentle language which translated means the NRC did not 10 pay sufficient attention to ASR damage, and that its 11 conclusions were neither accurately updated nor 12 technically supported.
13 For the first time in that document, we 14 read that the NRC actually cited NextEra for a 15 violation. Up until this letter, we have read 16 repeatedly about situations in which the NRC found 17 violations and named them NCV or non-cited violations.
18 Even in multiple situations where these lapses of 19 responsibility by NextEra were described as "more than 20 minor (because) if not attended to they could lead to 21 the possibility of breaching of barriers, protecting 22 the public from radiation leakage."
23 The violations that never exceed the green 24 category, which means of very low safety significance, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 are routinely found to be no-violations. The 2016 1
letter from the NRC is extremely similar in form to a 2
2014 letter which fulfilled the same role. They are 3
depressingly
- similar, and follow a
clearly 4
pre-prescribed format.
5 The 2016 letter is at least more 6
stringent, but it cites, for example, "a violation 7
similar to several non-cited violations of very low 8
safety significance for which corrective actions has 9
not been fully effective." "The NRC is issuing a 10 notice of violation because corrective actions within 11 the past two years have not been effective in 12 addressing ASR-related issues or structural issues."
13 The report goes on to mention ASR is 14 causing "excessive bulk expansion and cracking of the 15 RHR/CH (phonetic) vault interior and exterior 16 supporting walls."
17 It describes deformation of the 18 containment enclosure building as being beyond design 19 standards. But again, even though in another place 20 that deformation is measured as being one to three 21 inches of settlement of the building, which by design 22 was not expected to settle at all being constructed on 23 "ground rock," this degradation is categorized as 24 green, a situation of very low safety significance.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 We see a two-pronged situation here.
1 First, the plant is operating currently outside its 2
licensing requirements by definition. There is 3
acknowledged damage that has occurred that puts the 4
physical plant outside its design basis, therefore 5
violating conditions of its license.
6 Further, we have the NRC, which is 7
supposed to by law to be setting standards, licensure 8
requirements and enforcing those standards, timidly 9
noting violations to the plant's corporate owners, and 10 only in May of 2016 finally citing them for a 11 violation after several years of non-cited violations 12 or NCVs, and explaining gently that NextEra's 13 "corrective actions over the past two years have not 14 been effective in addressing ASR-related structural 15 issues."
16 The NRC is failing in its role to protect 17 public health and safety by not enforcing its own 18 rules, by not speaking sternly to the plant's owners 19 when they fail to put a dangerous finding on the 20 proper list, and then writing that the NCVs have been 21 rectified because the plant personnel have now added 22 the item to the proper piece of paper.
23 Keeping a list is not the same as taking 24 action. In 2011 and following years, there are a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 number of instances in which the NRC has taken the 1
plant owners to task for failure to discover, record 2
properly and/or take action on various ASR-affected 3
areas of the plant's concrete structures.
4 In the 2011 instance, the NRC issued a 5
violation to NextEra, stating that the company was "in 6
violation of their current license, operable but 7
degraded and non-conforming." In the February 12, 8
2016 letter to NextEra used more severe wording, 9
discussing one of many of the plant owner's 10 violations, stating that the plant was "in violation 11 of their current license, operable but degraded and 12 non-conforming requiring continuing monitoring and 13 periodic evaluation to ensure continued operability."
14 These violations clearly show that NextEra 15 is time after time not being forthright, repeatedly 16 not following NRC existing procedures, and therefore 17 has proven itself untrustworthy to run its own plant 18 in a safe and responsible manner that adheres to the 19 conditions of its licensure, and that protects public 20 safety and health.
21 Probably the most revealing wording is the 22 NRC's February 12th, 2016 letter on page 27 to 23 NextEra, in which the NRC cites NextEra's words in 24 explaining the company's failure to properly report 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 concrete and building settlement issues. The NRC 1
quotes NextEra's explanation in their response letter 2
dated December 19th, 2014. "The reason NRC inspectors 3
and not plant staff identified the presence of 4
localized NRC-induced deformation in Seabrook's 5
concrete structures was due to an organizational mind 6
set."
7 These are NextEra's own words. "An 8
organizational mind set that viewed conditions such as 9
concrete cracks, water infiltration and misalignment 10 issues as acceptable and inconsequential." Is this a 11 company that can be at all trusted to monitor or 12 document or take effective action to maintain its own 13 plant? Clearly it isn't.
14 Again, putting items on the current piece 15 of paper is not taking action. Nor does it fix 16 problems. It only lists them, which is hardly the 17 same. We ask that the NRC do its job strongly, 18 effective and immediately, which is what its mission 19 statement legally requires it to do. Thank you.
20 MS. TEED: Diane Teed. Despite the 21 gravity of the issues we have been discussing here 22 today, the public's sole safeguard to date is a paper 23 trail of arrogant inaction. The NRC has historically 24 considered all assumptions by NextEra as reasonable, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 and its few recognized violations as minor.
1 The NRC inspection report related to ASR 2
dated May 6, 2016, is arguably the first document that 3
beings to indict NextEra on its non-conformance with 4
its current licensing basis.
5 Although we are all familiar with NextEra, 6
defer, defer, defer approach to the important issues 7
of ASR degradation, and the unknown extent of embedded 8
rebar corrosion, it is the NRC's feeble responses that 9
have allowed these unacceptable risks to increasingly 10 threaten the public's welfare.
11 I would like to focus on two topics, 12 NextEra's defense of visual inspection and secondly, 13 NextEra's apparent failure to correlate the results of 14 the Ferguson testing in Texas to the physical reality 15 and repercussions of ASR at Seabrook Station in New 16 Hampshire.
17 Let's take a look at a few of the 18 arguments outlined by NextEra in their February 23rd, 19 2016 response to C-10's 2.206 petition. NextEra 20 argues that since "they assume that every structure 21 has ASR," then petrographic confirmation is not 22 necessary as they are willing to concede the point 23 that structures have ASR.
24 C-10 is not requesting the petrographic 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 confirmation of ASR. We are requesting the use of 1
methods, including petrography, that will evaluate the 2
extent of ASR and its effects on the structural 3
integrity of the concrete on the containment enclosure 4
building, the spent fuel pool and other affected 5
structures.
6 NextEra further claims that under ACI 7
349.3R, visual inspection "remains the primary method 8
of concrete inspection supplemented by non-destructive 9
examination and invasive examination testing if deemed 10 necessary by qualified engineers." The visual 11 inspection and observed conditions are sufficient at 12 Seabrook is countered by science.
13 Professor Paul Brown, an expert retained 14 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, states that 15 NextEra's plan is incomplete. In his opinion, NextEra 16 should "systematically evaluate the concrete via 17 photography and physical testing of cores, and 18 evaluate the expansive capacity of the ASR based on 19 ASTM standard tests, as promulgated as ASTM Committee 20 C-9 on Concrete and Aggregates."
21 Seabrook's owners in this same letter also 22 reference that the NRC, in a 2012 inspection report, 23 documented its determination that NextEra's methods 24 for assessing operability of ASR effective reinforced 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 concrete structures were reasonable and generally 1
comprehensive. The owners are harking back to a 2
statement that is more than four years old.
3 Lastly, NextEra further notes that their 4
defense against compromised containment includes 5
comprehensive visual examination of the containment 6
structure. Visual inspection is superficial by 7
definition.
8 In addition, based on the recommendations 9
of its qualified engineers, NextEra has "elected not 10 to perform core boring into the containment structure 11 for the purpose of performing petrographic 12 examination, as these locations are already screened 13 in for continued monitoring based on the visual 14 indications of ASR."
15 The above responses reflect the owner's 16 tunnel vision. NextEra's continued reliance on a lame 17 visual inspection defense as recently as 14 weeks ago, 18 given the known progression of ASR at Seabrook, must 19 be challenged by the NRC. The NRC is intended to be 20 the public voice.
21 Protective regulations for ASR and 22 meaningful consequences when the regulations are 23 ignored or violated should have been issued by the NRC 24 years ago. Now we are in a state of emergency. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 NRC has to stop allowing NextEra to dictate the terms 1
under which it operates. NextEra's self-assessment 2
has to end.
3 In fact, the NRC is obligated to determine 4
the structural integrity of Seabrook's containment 5
building as a priority according to NRC Regulatory 6
Guide 1.26 and NRC NUREG-1800. Let's step to the 7
Ferguson testing. The ASR issue at Seabrook station 8
is a critical issue requiring critical thought. It is 9
essential to
- identify, challenge and analyze 10 assumptions for validity.
11 Applying this reasoning to ASR and 12 NextEra, it defines logic that in lieu of testing for 13 ASR and its impact, and trying to assess the future 14 impact on site at Seabrook station, NextEra chose to 15 set up tests at the Ferguson Structural Engineering 16 Laboratory in Austin, Texas.
17 C-10 has always argued that testing for 18 ASR and its impact needs to be performed on site. At 19 the original location, you have the exact composition 20 of concrete at the exact age, having been subjected to 21 the exact weather conditions with the exact brackish 22 water infiltration for the currently exact amount of 23 time, all the while having access to the exact staff 24 charged with judging ASR's impact and the plant's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 operability.
1 We would argue that these variables that 2
were unlikely to be reliably recreated in Texas could 3
have been avoided. NextEra should have conceded 4
laser-like on the ASR issue.
5 A great deal is resting on the Ferguson 6
testing results. NextEra intends (1) to use the 7
findings as a technical basis for developing elements 8
of the plant-specific ASR managing program for the 9
extended licensing period; (2) to identify the 10 potential need for additional information as to the 11 adequacy of the AMP to manage effective aging of 12 structures with ASR; (3) to support a potential 13 license amendment request review; and (4) to use the 14 testing as the technical basis to establish a 15 methodology to resolve non-conformance with the 16 current design and licensing basis.
17 In a letter dated October 2nd, 2015, prior 18 to the actual
- audit, requests for additional 19 information, RAIs were issued in response to concerns 20 with NextEra's June 30th, 2015 submission. The 21 concerns documented in the RAIs included "addressing 22 recent operating experience concerning building 23 deformation caused by global ASR expansion; 24 representativeness between test specimens and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 methodology of measurement and correlation of testing 1
programs to Seabrook structures; representative 2
samples for monitoring through-wall expansion and 3
combined cracking index as a surrogate for ASR 4
expansion in the in-plane direction."
5 Based upon publicly disclosed documents, 6
it appears that right now RAIs are outstanding. Other 7
RAI responses remain incomplete. Auditors cannot 8
reconcile assumptions to results. The audit staff 9
does not have sufficient information to render an 10 opinion on the Ferguson results. NextEra is out of 11 design basis. There is no acceptable aging management 12 plan.
13 It is indeterminate how many answers 14 NextEra bought with the Ferguson testing. It is 15 obvious, however, that they bought themselves four 16 more years of operation. Public safety cannot be held 17 hostage.
18 Pending the receipt of the Ferguson audit 19 report or the findings by the National Institute of 20 Standards and Technology study, which is projected to 21 take four years, the threads running through the NRC 22 reports issued in the past eight months does not 23 reflect a move toward substantive resolution of the 24 issues surrounding ASR, but in fact documents the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 increasing risk to the public.
1 The NRC's summary of standards of employee 2
conduct regulations, Subpart A, Basic Obligation 3
states that public service is a public trust. C-10 4
insists that the NRC protect the health and safety of 5
the public. Think of the consequences if you continue 6
to treat the ASR issue without enforced, mandatory 7
regulations.
8 You need look no further than the tobacco 9
and coal industries. I would argue that the nuclear 10 industry's potential for harm exceeds these other 11 industries in its scope, pervasiveness of risk, mortal 12 consequences and impact to the planet. We demand that 13 the NRC fulfill its responsibilities. Thank you.
14 MS. DOENMEZ: Sarah Doenmez. The mission 15 of the NRC is to protect public health and safety and 16 the environment, as is proclaimed by a lovely panel on 17 your website in shades of lavender and rose, Panel No.
18
- 1. My colleague has given a history of the NRC and 19 quoted its founding documents. There can be no doubt 20 about the purpose of this agency.
21 Regulating the nuclear industry is the 22 tool by which you are supposed to accomplish this.
23 Just as you have a larger mission and a set of tools 24 for accomplishing it, so too does our 2.206 petition 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 for emergency enforcement action. As you know well, 1
our larger mission is also to protect the health and 2
safety of the citizenry and environment of southern 3
New Hampshire and Massachusetts around Seabrook 4
Nuclear Power Station.
5 The tool which we offered as a means to 6
accomplish this purpose was the adoption of 7
professional standards for concrete, as the NRC does 8
not have sufficient standards for dealing with the ASR 9
degradation that Seabrook is experiencing.
10 In a letter dated March 23rd, 2016, your 11 initial recommendation was to reject our 2.206 12 petition because of the tool we offer, which you said 13 should be accomplished through another petition for 14 rulemaking. We filed a petition for rulemaking eight 15 years ago. That petition is still unresolved.
16 We do not have that kind of time now, and 17 that recommendation did not address the larger purpose 18 of our petition, protecting the health and safety of 19 the public and the environment. We are here today to 20 call on you to reconsider our petition in light of its 21 larger aim. We beg you not to lose the forest for the 22 trees.
23 To refuse a petition's larger aims and 24 focus on the tool offered is the same diversionary or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 delaying tactic as in the May 6th letter to NextEra, 1
when you awarded NextEra a green level violation for 2
not following the correct paper work, but did not 3
issue a violation for the unsafe condition of the 4
concrete structures guarding the public from 5
radioactivity due to advancing ASR, which you also 6
detailed in that letter.
7 We are here to remind you that the larger 8
goal of our 2.206 petition is to ask for emergency 9
enforcement of Seabrook's operating license, Clause G 10 of which asserts that its operation must not be 11 inimical to public safety and the environment.
12 Your instructions to the public, as just 13 read, say that any citizen may file a 2.206 petition 14 asking for the action to be taken and providing 15 evidence. The action we ask for is complete and 16 comprehensive resolution of the advancing ASR issues 17 at Seabrook.
18 The most compelling evidence for that need 19 you have supplied yourselves. The May 6th letter 20 acknowledges severe and discrete cracking, and 21 deformation of interior and exterior walls of the 22 containment structure, the RHR and the fuel storage 23 structure.
24 This is separate from the pervasive 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 microcracking at Seabrook. Your letter states that 1
Seabrook is non-conforming with its design basis. It 2
should therefore not be operating. The violation you 3
did award NextEra is for not filing an IOP report of 4
an assessment that needed to be made in an eight hour 5
window, to determine whether Seabrook should remain 6
7 That level of urgency constitutes an 8
emergency. You are acknowledging a situation which is 9
a grave threat to the health and public safety of New 10 Hampshire and Massachusetts. How fast is that 11 cracking progressing? Clearly it is happening, 12 according to industry predictions, that it will speed 13 up as it advances and result in compromised 14 structures.
15 The predictions also say that ASR is not 16 self-limiting and irremediable. The May 6th letter 17 calls the walls of containment deformed. What does 18 that mean?
How close are those walls to 19 through-cracking? Can we see pictures? When will 20 that leak we all fear take place?
21 How much radioactivity will be released?
22 Over what period of time? How long would it take to 23 shut the plant down and stop radiation from leaking?
24 What if it were the spent fuel facility that cracked 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 first? On what basis are the projected answers to 1
these questions being made? When will the public be 2
moved out of range? What number of casualties and 3
damage are to be expected?
4 What steps exist to prevent such a 5
scenario? At what point in this progression would you 6
intervene? If Seabrook is operating outside its 7
design basis, what are the next steps? These 8
questions must be answered in the director's decision.
9 As concerned citizens and as an agency 10 charged by the Massachusetts Board of Public Health 11 for Radiological Emissions, we declare that this 12 situation is an emergency, warranting immediate 13 enforcement of Seabrook's original license and the 14 mission of the NRC. We call on you to act boldly and 15 decisively, in view of these threats to public health 16 and safety.
17 Must we wait for a disaster before 18 bureaucratic inertia can be shaken off, before you 19 will look at the forest before the trees? There is 20 ample evidence already of damage to the environment 21 caused by Seabrook. The Boston EPA filed a report in 22 August 2015 detailing damage to numerous fish and 23 mollusk species, to which you responded. You are well 24 aware of this.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 In the Fukushima disaster, the operating 1
company TEPCO is now being held responsible for not 2
foreseeing the disaster brought on by the tsunami, and 3
the intense interrelationship, indeed collusion 4
between industry and government is being held 5
accountable for the damage still being done by that 6
disaster.
7 But the Fukushima disaster was at least 8
caused by a relatively unforeseeable natural event.
9 Disaster at Seabrook is clearly foreseeable, and you 10 can clearly see it. What value do you place on the 11 life and health of my colleagues? Of Ms. Gavutis, of 12 her grandson, her farm?
13 What about the health of my son, who lives 14 within the radius of Seabrook? What about the 15 Senators from New Hampshire and our governor? What 16 about the city of Boston? The contempt for the lives 17 and health of the public that is communicated by the 18 obsession with paper work is not only outrageous, it 19 prevents you from actually accomplishing your mission.
20 Seabrook should not be operating. You 21 have yourself said that it is non-conforming with its 22 design basis. You and only you have the power to stop 23 it. We demand, insist and plead that you use your 24 power to carry out your mission and purpose. It is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 clear that NextEra will not take appropriate steps on 1
its own.
2 We call on you to take any and all steps 3
necessary immediately to fulfill your purpose and 4
prevent a disaster at Seabrook due to the rapid 5
progression of ASR and its structures. The situation 6
at Seabrook is an emergency, and it requires urgent 7
action.
8 We ask you to reconsider our 2.206 9
petition and approve it, and immediately require 10 NextEra to fully and publicly study and resolve the 11 degradation caused by ASR at Seabrook.
12 (Off mic comments.)
13 MS. GRINNELL: We do have enough, and it 14 is that we do know that the NRC is going to receive 15 NextEra's 30 day response to the NRC letter. But we 16 don't know if it happened on June 6th of this year and 17 if not, did NextEra request an extension and on what 18 basis?
19 So that's a very important letter, because 20 it told us a great deal about how -- how the ASR at 21 Seabrook has evolved so quickly, and you held them 22 very responsible. But we want to know what the answer 23 is. Thank you.
24 MS. GAVUTIS: Yes. Could we get that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 response in writing to us please?
1 MR. NORD: Chris Nord again. Along with 2
open spaces and magnificent natural resources, the 3
health of the general public is part of the common 4
that is the birthright of our citizens.
5 While there is no manual for this, it 6
turns out that in a democracy the common is in its 7
aspects, it's finally the responsibility of the 8
citizens and the citizenry, and the agencies of 9
government can only fulfill their duties to the extent 10 that they facilitate the action of citizens in 11 protection of the common.
12 Obviously therefore, NRC adequacy in the 13 facilitation of citizen action on behalf of the common 14 is tied directly to your stated mission, the 15 "protection of public health and safety," because you 16 work for us and not the corporations whose business 17 you are charged to regulate.
18 We expect you to fulfill your stated 19 mission and facilitate our actions for the protection 20 of our homes, family, community. By the way, the 21 assignment of the weight of law for de facto 22 conditions, as in the use of ASTM and ACI standards, 23 does have precedent in both U.S. and international 24 law.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 We believe NRC's upside-down mind set of 1
corporate over citizen interest has compelled this 2
two-phased shell game. Part 1, the de facto use of 3
ACI and ASTM standards without teeth, that is without 4
enforcement. Part 2, maintenance of the facade of a 5
petition process that seemingly allows for meaningful 6
citizen intervention while in practice allowing none.
7 What recourse can citizens find beyond 8
this room? Meaningful regulation on your part, 9
particularly with the safe sequester of deadly toxins, 10 as a matter of absolute priority, must result in 11 timely action.
12 While you and the corporate interests with 13 whom you collaborate through your dance of delay, 14 years pass and no action is taken to face the extreme 15 threat ASR poses to the structures protecting U.S.
16 citizens from harm.
17 Of courses, this alkali-silica reaction 18 continues to degrade concrete at Seabrook Atomic Unit 19
- 1. While you continue to regulate by encouragement 20 alone, you may need to create a new operability 21 designation as one of the paper fixes you are so well 22 known for.
23 I would like to offer collapsing but 24 operable from a remote location. That's a joke.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 Before Seabrook Atomic Unit 1 degrades to that point, 1
we must insist that you begin to enforce the 2
appropriate ACI and ASTM standards that are the basis 3
of our petition request. Thank you.
4 (Off mic comments.)
5 CHAIR TAYLOR: I want to thank all of you 6
for the thorough statements that you've given today.
7 I think you've given us a transcript that we'll have 8
to review to capture all of the comments as best I 9
could.
10 It's a lot of good information. The 11 perspectives that you provided are interesting and we 12 certainly understand the concerns you're raising, and 13 appreciate you engaging in this process.
14 Although I can respect your perspectives 15 on the outcome of the process and how it may play out.
16 But of course will take into consideration everything 17 you provided today. With that, I want to open the 18 floor up here for any NRC staff who may have questions 19 that they want to ask.
20 MR. LAMB: This is Jim Lamb, a question.
21 You mentioned something about the petition for 22 rulemaking. Could you provide the date of that? You 23 said it was like eight years ago that you submitted 24 that?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 MS. GAVUTIS: The date was in December of 1
2014.
2 MR. LAMB: Okay, 2014.
3 (Off mic comments.)
4 MS. TEED: I'm so sorry. I believe the 5
petition that Sarah was referring to that would be in 6
this case related to a petition that was filed eight 7
years ago regarding the hardened storage, and that --
8 although that was submitted eight years ago, two weeks 9
ago we received a partial response on that as part of 10 our great concern, that now something we've submitted 11 in 2014 not take another eight years for a response.
12 MR. LAMB: Thank you. The other thing as 13 you mentioned, the core samples that the licensee 14 took. I didn't catch all those. You said they took 15 samples but there was no test results. Do you have 16 those?
17 MS. TEED: NextEra took 40 cores and they 18 took the cores, but they didn't test them. So there 19 were three incidences where there were five of them 20 that were taken as part of the negotiation that 21 NextEra had with the NRC, and they refused to test 22 them. And you had made an agreement that you made 23 with the industry that this would be done, but you 24 don't have regulation.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 MR.
LAMB:
I guess do you have 1
documentation?
2 MS. TEED: I do. I can send that to you.
3 MR. LAMB: That would be great, because I 4
didn't catch all those. I'm not sure if it's on the 5
transcript or not but --
6 MS. TEED: I have that documentation.
7 MR. LAMB: Okay thanks.
8 MR. NORD: May I just add to that, that I 9
think that it might be possible, and this is 10 conjecture obviously, because we don't know what there 11 results of any testing might be, it seems possible to 12 me that they actually did the testing and just haven't 13 released the results. In other words, we know they 14 took the cores. We don't know what was done to them.
15 MS. GRINNELL: I do actually know from 16 FOIA'd reports that there were incidences, and I think 17 it was the five that were taken from containment, that 18 the NRC did struggle with trying to get NextEra to get 19 them done. But again, without a regulation there's no 20 way to enforce it and they never saw, as far as I 21 know, those cores again.
22 CHAIR TAYLOR: So that raises a good point 23 Debbie, and I want to ask a question that following 24 on. Sarah brought it up during the discussion here.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 The Petitioner that you submitted, the 2.206 that you 1
submitted asks for, and I'm going to read it here just 2
to be clear.
3 It calls for the NRC to issue an order to 4
the Seabrook licensee requiring immediate 5
implementation and enforcement of ACI 349.3R and ASTM 6
Charlie 856-11 code standards, and then it goes on to 7
state what those actually are. You're asking the NRC 8
to impose new requirements, if I'm reading this 9
correctly. Is that correct?
10 MR. NORD: May I speak to that?
11 FEMALE SPEAKER: In what petition? I'm 12 sorry.
13 MR. NORD: This is the current one, the 14 current one. Do you all mind if I speak to that 15 first?
16 FEMALE SPEAKER: Please.
17 MR. NORD: The point that I was trying to 18 make in my presentation is that you all, NRC, has not 19 formally adopted these standards. You have de facto 20 adopted these standards, and that in -- because of the 21 nature of the crisis that we consider Seabrook 22 operates currently under, we are asking you to take 23 the next step, which is to enforce the de facto 24 standards you already use.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 You people talk to NextEra and they 1
respond to you in the language of ACI and ASTM all the 2
time, and if you go to the supporting document that 3
David Lochbaum provided when we submitted our 2.206, 4
he provided additional commentary, you have the whole 5
list of instances where NRC is speaking to NextEra in 6
terms of ACI and ASTM documents.
7 That is a de facto use of employment of 8
these standards. It is a known fact, it's common 9
knowledge. This is like a common law marriage, if you 10 will, between the industry and these standards, and we 11 are asking you, from our perch as citizens of the 12 ingestion pathway, to do the right thing and instead 13 of waiting for another eight years, actually use the 14 standards that the best people in the world, you know, 15 dealing with concrete have already devised for how to 16 test concrete.
17 If that's imposed on NextEra, then NextEra 18 will perform the petrographic tests that will reveal 19 to all of us, them, you and us, exactly the status of 20 the concrete at Seabrook. That's what we're asking 21 for.
22 CHAIR TAYLOR: Thank you for that. I 23 appreciate it. So and you got our initial response, 24 which alluded to the petition for rulemaking that you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 submitted to the NRC. My understanding about petition 1
for rulemaking requests is that these standards be 2
imposed on all operating nuclear power plants across 3
the country. Is that correct?
4 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, yes.
5 MR. NORD: Do you all mind if I comment on 6
that?
7 CHAIR TAYLOR: Anyone else as well.
8 MR. NORD: Do you mind if I comment on 9
that? Okay. So we think that you all have a much 10 bigger problem than you realize. We think that the 11 chances that Seabrook is the only ASR-plagued reactor 12 are minuscule. One of the reasons that you continue 13 to live in the dream world, that Seabrook is the only 14 reactor with ASR, is that you are relying on visual 15 inspections.
16 Visual inspections are on your website as 17 a primary tool for looking for concrete degradation.
18 It's right on your website. I've looked at it, and 19 that's nuts. We know so much more and you know so 20 much more about how this must be done. All of the 21 sophisticated knowledge having to do with the testing 22 of concrete says that you cannot rely on visual 23 inspection alone as a way to determine the presence of 24 ASR.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 In other words, ASR, if you see cracks, 1
you know ASR exists or ASR is, you know, that is a 2
primary way. If you see it, you know that it's there.
3 If you don't see, that does not mean that it doesn't 4
exist. But for NRC to continue to work in all of its 5
other reactors as though visual inspection is the way 6
to find this out, you are going to continue to live in 7
a dream world, which will end up being very unsafe for 8
the rest of the reactor community.
9 We're trying to do you a favor over here.
10 We are your test case, and we're saying you already 11 have the standards that are right smack in front of 12 you. For the love of God, use them.
13 MS. GAVUTIS: The reason we sent the 14 petition for rulemaking for all plants is because 15 Seabrook was not discovered until it was moderate or 16 severe in an important Category 1 building.
17 So to avoid that happening at another 18 plant, before you found that they one, don't do the 19 visual inspection properly so you need implementation 20 for that. I think we all know that now after looking 21 at Seabrook's problem.
22 Then if you do have these regulations, you 23 can have them implemented and you can supervise those.
24 You can't really do this if you don't have a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 regulation where you have an implementation of what 1
the core is telling you and what the ACI is telling 2
you, so that you know every specific part of it, that 3
they should know deeply and make the right decisions 4
about.
5 NextEra has made assumptions that have 6
been incorrect from the very beginning. Not only have 7
they withheld information because it was convenient 8
for them not to look, but also they honestly haven't 9
read the ACI regulation that we think should be one, 10 but it certainly is a standard, and they don't have 11 the depth to be able to do the examination. Thank 12 you.
13 MS. GRINNELL: All of this is centered 14 around the need to understand how far away from us a 15 truly dangerous cracking situation is. There is 16 currently nothing on record that allows us to predict 17 the rate of the acceleration of the ASR in Seabrook or 18 the extent of it.
19 We are reliant on reports coming from 20 NextEra about what they have found that they filed 21 with you. What we know for sure is that that is not 22 the whole picture. I think historically speaking, 23 probably it is the case that ASR as a problem in 24 concrete structures was not originally identified.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 It's not something that was conceived when 1
Seabrook was built. It's a form of degradation that 2
has been more common in roadways and in other types of 3
areas like that, and that when it was first found in 4
Seabrook, there was no existing infrastructure to 5
treat it or approach it.
6 So all of this is about trying to 7
understand how much time there is before we really are 8
facing a disaster, and our understanding of the 9
literature and from the experts with which we have 10 consulted is that petrographic testing is the only 11 thing that is going to let us know what the rate of 12 progression is and is expected to be. Thank you.
13 CHAIR TAYLOR: So I want to continue. Are 14 there any other NRC staff here at headquarters with 15 questions for C-10?
16 (No response.)
17 CHAIR TAYLOR: Seeing none in the room, 18 those in the Region?
19 MR. BOWER: No questions from here Rob.
20 CHAIR TAYLOR: Thank you. I think there 21 was a representative from the licensee on the phone.
22 Is there any questions from the licensee?
23 MR. HAMRICK: Oh yes, this is Steve 24 Hamrick. No questions, thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 CHAIR TAYLOR: Thank you, Steve. Okay.
1 So are there any other members of the public present 2
or on the phone who have questions regarding the 2.206 3
petition process? Mr. Gunter. Please identify 4
yourself sir.
5 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. My name is Paul 6
Gunter. I'm with Beyond Nuclear. So my question, my 7
process question deals with news accounts that we saw 8
June 2nd, 2016 out of newspapers in Gloucester and 9
Newburyport, that regard a letter to Chairman Stephen 10 Burns from Massachusetts Representatives Ann-Margaret 11 Ferrante from Gloucester, Massachusetts; 12 Representative James Kelcourse from Amesbury; State 13 Senator Daniel Wolfe from Harwich, Massachusetts and 14 Senator Kathleen O'Connor Ives from Newburyport.
15 In their letter to the Chairman, the state 16 legislators are requesting that Seabrook station be 17 shut down based on three items. But I think the item 18 that we're most concerned with here has to do with 19 ASR. So the number one concern that drives the call 20 for the shutdown of Seabrook is ASR.
21 So my question then directed to this 22 Petition Review Board is how do you as a review board 23 treat a request for revocation of an operating license 24 based on the principle concern that you have before 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 you today by the Petitioners C-10?
1 So is this -- do you -- let me first of 2
all ask, is the PRB aware of this ASR concern tied by 3
these legislators to a call for the revocation of the 4
operating license?
5 MR. LAMB: This is John Lamb. There's 6
been numerous Amesburyport, Newburyport, probably 7
about a dozen, half a dozen other towns within the ten 8
mile radius, the councilmen and council people, town 9
members have sent in letters similar to the one you 10 just saw from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from 11 their state senators.
12 So there are similar letters. What 13 happens when they come into the Chairman, they get 14 ticketed by the Chairman's office and they come down 15 to NRR, who then typically provides a written response 16 to the individuals. So once again, that will be put 17 in that process.
18 We usually let the people know that if 19 they wish -- if they have a 2.206, usually in the 20 letter it will say the 2.206 process, if they wish to 21
-- it's kind of implied. They didn't say they want it 22 in those letters, but you know sometimes it could be 23 interpreted are they asking for that.
24 So we probably -- we quickly tell them 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 here's the process. If you wish to proceed with that, 1
let us know and then we can turn the letter into a 2
2.206.
3 MR. GUNTER: So as of this date, you are 4
not treating their call for a revocation of the 5
operating license of Seabrook by state legislators as 6
a part of this formal petition?
7 MR. LAMB: I think that -- I'm not aware 8
that the letter has made it down to us yet out of the 9
Chairman's office. So I don't think we can answer how 10 we would treat that letter. We haven't seen it yet.
11 I received it yet but I did see it in the newspaper, 12 so I'm aware of that.
13 Like I said, there's been a half a dozen 14 or so more from other petitioners and I know among 15 your council people around the area. And I always --
16 in the letter I stated in there that if you wish to 17 proceed in 2.206 here's the process, and if you wish 18 to do that process.
19 We haven't gotten any from the councilman 20 that have decided to do that. It's kind of we wanted 21
-- just we wanted a response from the Chairman and the 22 Chairman's office.
23 MR. GUNTER: Are these additional concerns 24
-- so you've provided these letters with a response?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 MR. LAMB: That's correct.
1 MR. GUNTER: That says that if you wish to 2
process this as a 2.206 petition, that you need to 3
respond more explicitly?
4 MR. LAMB: Well, I think you just call us 5
or email us and let us know that that's what they 6
wish.
7 MR. GUNTER: Right.
8 MR. LAMB: So it's not clear from the 9
incoming letter or C-10 when their letter said we're 10 putting this in under 2.206. This is what we wish.
11 MR. GUNTER: Right.
12 MR. LAMB: These other letters are kind of 13 like hey, we're concerned citizens in this area or 14 state people, and we wish that Seabrook would be shut 15 down and here's why we think it is and they kind of 16 just leave it at that. So they haven't said hey, we 17 wish the 2.206 petition. Please shut them down and 18 requesting enforcement action.
19 MR. GUNTER: So if somebody sends you a 20 postcard that says you should revoke, suspend or 21 modify this license, or with the intent to revoke, 22 suspend or modify the license, do you or do you not 23 take action?
24 CHAIR TAYLOR: It's hard Paul to speculate 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 on what such a postcard would say, and we would 1
consider the postcard an attempt to correspond or 2
understand the intent from the individual of what they 3
want. Because the 2.206 process does probably involve 4
some engagement, and some folks may wish to express 5
their views but not want to further engage at all in 6
this type of a process.
7 So we have to see what the intentions or 8
desire of the individual submitting that was, to know 9
10 MR. LAMB: Okay, right. And in this case, 11 the reason I bring this up is that these requests to 12 revoke, suspend or modify the Seabrook operating 13 license are based on ASR concerns, similar to the 14 concerns or identical to the concerns of the petition 15 that's before you now.
16 John will correct me if I'm wrong here, 17 but I believe within the 2.206 process, this is C-10's 18 2.206. So if they want comments on the record as part 19 of their 2.206, they decide whether they -- we should 20 consider those within their respect, just as they did 21 with UCS' comments.
22 They requested we consider them as a 23 supplement to the 2.206 process and we did as such.
24 But C-10 as the 2.206 petitioner in this case has that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 ability, because those views expressed by other third 1
party individuals may not reflect C-10's interests or 2
desires or maybe not be sufficiently complementary, 3
and they can decide that they don't want them 4
considered.
5 So we do not, just because another entity 6
sends in a letter, consider it the same thing as 7
C-10's 2.206 and consider it within the respect of 8
that, because that may not be C-10's wish.
9 MR. GUNTER: Okay, thank you.
10 CHAIR TAYLOR: So let me turn again to 11 Debbie and ask, thank you for taking the time to 12 provide the NRC staff with the clarifying information 13 that you provided in the submittal. I think you've 14 given us a lot of good information. We'll have a 15 thorough process for review as we consider what we're 16 going to do with your petition, and of course we'll 17 get back to you.
18 So before we close, does the court 19 reporter need any additional information for the 20 teleconference transcript?
21 COURT REPORTER: Hi. This is the court 22 reporter. If I could get the names of other NRC staff 23 that are present, that would be great.
24 CHAIR TAYLOR: John Lamb has a list that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 can be provided separately, that will give you the 1
names of all the individuals from the NRC who 2
participated.
3 COURT REPORTER: Yeah. That would be 4
great.
5 CHAIR TAYLOR: Okay. We will get that to 6
you.
7 COURT REPORTER: Okay, thank you.
8 MS. GRINNELL: I'm sorry. I'm just 9
wondering what the time table is for a response from 10 the PRB, a full response to this current petition?
11 CHAIR TAYLOR: I think you've given us a 12 lot here. It's going to be a hefty transcript to 13 review, and so the PRB's going to have to consider 14 what you provided.
15 I think within a couple of months is 16 probably a reasonable schedule. Of course, a 17 director's decision requires us to go up through the 18 chain of our supervision and ensure that they're on 19 board with our disposition or response as we accept or 20 reject or however.
21 So I think it's going to be a couple of 22 months. But John will be a point of contact for you 23 on the status of the petition. So at any time if 24 you're interested, of course you can reach out to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 anyone. We'll tell you where we stand on the process.
1 MS. SKIBBEE: May I ask a follow-up 2
question to that? Pat Skibbee. Under most processes, 3
a public request for action to governmental agencies, 4
there is actually a legislated time frame. And so 5
from your answer, it doesn't appear that's the case 6
here, that there's a three month limit or a 60 day 7
limit or whatever?
8 CHAIR TAYLOR: We have -- so John is the 9
petition manager and he is in the Division of Operator 10 Reactor Licensing. He is the manager for Seabrook.
11 The 2.206 process manager, the person who owns the 12 actual entire process wasn't able to join us today.
13 We can double-check the procedure with regards to the 14 schedule, if there's one dictated in our procedure.
15 But it would be covered in the management 16 directive. So if there's something in the management 17 directive relative to that, we'll get back to you.
18 MR. LAMB: Yeah. Those time frames are in 19 the management directive. There's no legislative.
20 It's not like it's in the regulations that it has to 21 be written. 2.206, it just says "in a timely manner."
22 It doesn't say, whereas our management directive is 23 kind of guidance. Some of these are shorter and some 24 of them are longer than others. So it depends.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 CHAIR TAYLOR: Yeah.
1 MR. LAMB: We have to review the 2
transcript and the hardest part is trying to get all 3
the people, all the PRB members that are free at the 4
same time to have a meeting. So that's one of the --
5 and then we have to get our management to be on board 6
with us.
7 CHAIR TAYLOR: So we'll double-check the 8
management directive and get back to you.
9 (Off mic comment.)
10 MS. GAVUTIS: Now that works. Yeah, okay.
11 There was a very large report done by the Employees 12 Legal Project, and it addresses numerous concrete 13 issues when Seabrook was being built. We gave a copy 14 of it, which is about this thick, to Commissioner 15 Allison when she visited with us to discuss some of 16 our concerns at Seabrook.
17 I
believe that it's with the 18 Commissioners, but it might shed some light on the 19 problems that have plagued Seabrook Nuclear Power 20 Plant from the beginning with concrete. Thank you.
21 CHAIR TAYLOR: I think you're referring to 22 former Chairman Allison McFarlane?
23 MS. GAVUTIS: Yes.
24 CHAIR TAYLOR: She is no longer with the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 Commission.
1 MS. GAVUTIS: I know.
2 CHAIR TAYLOR: So I don't know what 3
happened to her records relative to that. If we do 4
not recover that, because they might have been her 5
personal records, we'll reach out to you afterwards.
6 MS. GAVUTIS: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIR TAYLOR: Debbie.
8 MS. GRINNELL: There -- unfortunately, I 9
think that the look at construction doesn't seriously 10 get a look by the NRC after they get their license.
11 But unfortunately, because what you have is an active 12 and progressive form of degradation, and there were 13 numerous problems with containment, not containment 14 but concrete that occurred during the construction 15 period, and that was really from 1970 to 1980 or 16 longer.
17 These were serious issues, and they 18 couldn't possibly not have a very negative effect on 19 this plant, given that now it has ASR. It always had 20 ASR, but it wasn't an active and progressive form that 21 it is now. But when you look back to the construction 22 documentation, what you see is this is a problem that 23 we said at that time was passive. We're not really 24 worried about it.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 But to now look at that and say my God, 1
there's ASR that's active everywhere, and these were 2
the problems that at that point we didn't take 3
seriously. They were unresolved. Many of them were 4
unresolved, but there wasn't an overwhelming feeling 5
that this was going to be a safety issue.
6 I think we can look at ASR developing in 7
these very weak areas as a serious problem. Thank 8
you.
9 CHAIR TAYLOR: Thank you, Debbie. Well 10 again, I want to thank C-10 for the time and for 11 coming down to talk to us today, and appreciate your 12 perspectives, and we have a lot to review as we go 13 forward. So with that, I'm going to adjourn the 14 meeting. Thank you again.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 3:50 p.m.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433