ML20028E467
| ML20028E467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/2020 |
| From: | Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | |
| Z CRUZ | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19268B745Z | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, NRC-0774 | |
| Download: ML20028E467 (36) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board (PRB)
Conference Call Re: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Number: N/A Location: Teleconference Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 Work Order No.: NRC-0774 Pages 1-36 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL RE:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3
+ + + + +
TUESDAY JANUARY 21, 2020
+ + + + +
The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m.,
Kevin Williams, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
PETITIONER: PUBLIC WATCHDOGS PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS KEVIN WILLIAMS, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards WILLIAM CHRIS ALLEN, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards STEPHANIE ANDERSON, Region IV*
PERRY BUCKBERG, Petition Coordinator for 2.206 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 petition ROBERT CARPENTER, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel RICHARD CHANG, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards ZAHIRA CRUZ, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards MARLAYNA DOELL, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards*
LATIF HAMDAN, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards BRUCE WATSON, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards JOHN WOODFIELD, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF ANDREW AVERBACH, Office of General Counsel DAN DOYLE, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards PETITIONERS RANDY GORDON, Barnes & Thornburg (on behalf of Public Watchdogs)
LUKE WOHLFORD, Barnes & Thornburg (on behalf of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 Public Watchdogs) 2 PAUL BLANCH 3
4 ALSO PRESENT 5 AL BATES, Southern California Edison 6 DEREK BRICE, Southern California Edison 7 DONNA GILMORE 8 MARK MORGAN, Southern California Edison 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:01 p.m.
3 MS. CRUZ: Okay, I would like to thank 4 everybody for attending this meeting. The purpose of 5 today's meeting is to provide the Petitioner, the Public 6 Watchdogs, an opportunity to address the Petition 7 Review Board regarding their petition to suspend all 8 the commissioning activities at SONGS.
9 Can you please mute your lines? Thank you.
10 My name is Zahira Cruz and I am the Project 11 Manager in the Division of the Decommissioning Uranium 12 Recovery and Waste Programs in the Office of Nuclear 13 Material Safety and Safeguards. I am also the petition 14 manager for this petition.
15 The PRB Chairman is Kevin Williams.
16 Deputy Director of the Division of Material Safety 17 Security State and title programs in the Office of 18 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
19 This is a Category 1 meeting. The public 20 is invited to observe this meeting and will have one 21 or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after 22 the business portion, but before the meeting is 23 adjourned.
24 I ask that you --
25 PARTICIPANT: Can you speak a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 slower? It's hard to hear you.
2 MS. CRUZ: Okay, I'll try. I ask that you 3 please silence your cell phones at this time as to not 4 interrupt the meeting or any of its speakers.
5 In case of an emergency, please follow the 6 Staff to the appropriate muster location. If any 7 non-NRC Staff need to use the restroom, please remember 8 that an escort is required so please ask one of the 9 Staff.
10 There is a sign-up sheet going around the 11 room. Please fill it out either now or some time before 12 you leave.
13 As part of the PRB's review of this 14 petition, Public Watchdogs has requested this 15 opportunity to address the PRB. The meeting was 16 scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time.
17 And after introductory remarks, we'll have 18 allowed the Public Watchdogs 35 minutes to address the 19 Board.
20 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 21 Operation Center and will be transcribed by a court 22 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to 23 the petition and will be made publicly available.
24 No sensitive or proprietary information 25 should be presented. I'd like to open this meeting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 with introductions.
2 As I have stated, the PRB Chairperson is 3 Kevin Williams. I would like the rest of the Petition 4 Review Board to introduce themselves. First at 5 headquarters and then on the phone.
6 Please be sure to clearly state your name, 7 your position and the office that you work for within 8 the NRC, for the record.
9 Again, my name is Zahira Cruz, I am a 10 project manager in the division of the Decommissioning 11 Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs in the Office of 12 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
13 PRB members on the phone, please introduce 14 yourself. Are you on mute, Stephanie, Marlayna?
15 MS. ANDERSON: All right. This is 16 Stephanie Anderson, health physicist, NRC Region IV 17 Office.
18 MS. DOELL: Marlayna Doell, I'm a former 19 project manager in the Reactor Decommissioning Branch.
20 MS. CRUZ: Okay. So will the Staff 21 present here in headquarters introduce yourself? The 22 PRB Staff.
23 MR. WOODFIELD: John Woodfield, NMSS, 24 Inspections Operation Oversight Branch. I'm an 25 inspector in that branch.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 MR. CARPENTER: Robert Carpenter, NRC 2 Office of General Counsel.
3 MR. BUCKBERG: Perry Buckberg, NRC Agency 4 Petition Coordinator.
5 MR. HAMDAN: Latif Hamdan, project manager 6 in the Division of Fuel Management in the Office of 7 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. I'm also the 8 office coordinator for the 2.206 petitions.
9 MR. WATSON: Bruce Watson, and I'm Chief 10 of the Reactor Decommissioning Branch in the Office 11 of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
12 MS. HOLIDAY: Sophie Holiday, Office of 13 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards enforcement 14 coordinator.
15 MR. ALLEN: Chris Allen, project manager, 16 Division of Fuel Management, Licensing Branch.
17 MS. CRUZ: Will any other NRC headquarters 18 participants on the phone please introduce themselves?
19 MR. DOYLE: This is Dan Doyle, acting chief 20 of the Storage Transportation Licensing Branch and 21 NMSS.
22 MS. CRUZ: Is there any participants from 23 the regional offices or any resident on the phone please 24 introduce themselves?
25 Public Watchdogs, can you please introduce NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 yourselves for the record?
2 MR. WOHLFORD: My name is Luke Wohlford, 3 I'm here with Randy Gordon. We are both with the law 4 firm of Barnes & Thornburg and are Attorneys for the 5 Petitioner, Public Watchdogs.
6 MS. CRUZ: And I think Charles Langley, 7 right? Okay.
8 Is there any representative from the 9 Licensee on the phone that wants to introduce 10 themselves?
11 MR. BATES: Yes. This is Al Bates, 12 regulatory manager representing Southern California 13 Edison. Here with me, I have Mark Morgan from our 14 regulator department, as well as Derek Brice, our legal 15 counsel.
16 MS. CRUZ: Okay. It is not required for 17 the members of the public to introduce themselves for 18 this call, but however, if there are any members of 19 the public on the phone that wish to do so at this time, 20 please state your name for the record.
21 MR. BLANCH: Yes, my name is Paul Blanch.
22 I am a technical expert representing Public Watchdogs 23 on this petition, on technical issues.
24 MS. CRUZ: Anyone else? Okay, so I'd like 25 to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 loudly to make sure that the court reporter can 2 adequately transcribe this meeting.
3 If you do so, if you have something to say, 4 please first state your name for the record.
5 For those dialing in to the meeting, please 6 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 7 noises or distractions. If you do not have a mute 8 button, this can be done by pressing the keys star-6.
9 And to unmute, press again star-6.
10 Thank you. I'll now turn over to the PRB 11 Chairman Kevin Williams.
12 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right. Welcome to 13 the meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by 14 Public Watchdogs.
15 I'd like to share some background on the 16 NRCs process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 17 of Federal Regulations describes the petition process.
18 The primary mechanism for the public to request 19 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
20 This process makes anyone to petition to 21 the NRC to take enforcement type action regulated 22 actions to the NRC's licensees or license activities.
23 Depending on the results of its evaluation, the NRC 24 can modify, suspend or revoke any NRC issued license 25 or take any other appropriate enforcement action to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 resolve a problem.
2 The NRC Staff's guidance for the 3 disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in management 4 directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
5 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 6 the petitioner an opportunity to provide any relevant, 7 additional explanation for support for the petition 8 after having received the Petition Review Board's 9 initial assessment.
10 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 11 an opportunity for the Petitioner or other members of 12 the public to question or examine the PRB on the merits 13 or the issues presented in the petition request. No 14 decisions regarding the merits of this position will 15 be made at this meeting.
16 Following the meeting, the PRB will conduct 17 its internal deliberations. The outcome of this 18 internal meeting will be discussed with the Petitioner.
19 As described in our process, the NRC Staff 20 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 21 understand the Petitioners' presentation and to reach 22 a reason decision on whether or not to accept the 23 Petitioner's request for review under 2.206 process.
24 I would like to summarize the scope of the 25 petition under consideration and the NRC activities NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 to date.
2 On September 24th, 2019, Public Watchdogs 3 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding 4 concerns about decommissioning activities at SONGS.
5 Specifically, Public Watchdogs requested that NRC 6 immediately suspend all decommissioning operations at 7 SONGS and require the Licensee to submit an amended 8 decommissioning plan to account for the spent nuclear 9 fuel being placed in storage at SONGS.
10 In addition, Public Watchdogs requested 11 that the NRC prepare a supplemental environment impact 12 statement that evaluates site specific environmental 13 issues not addressed in the decommissioning generic 14 environmental impact statement.
15 On December 18th, 2019, the petition 16 manager contacted Public Watchdogs to inform them of 17 the PRB's initial assessment that the petition does 18 not meet mandatory Directive 8.11, Section 3.C.1 19 criteria for petition evaluation.
20 Given that the NRC Staff has continued to 21 carefully regulate the Licensee's decommissioning 22 activities at SONGS, including its review of the fuel 23 storage facility design, inspections encompassing the 24 physical facility as well as the Licensee's operation 25 of performance and appropriate enforcement actions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 Regarding the concern about environmental 2 impacts of the decommissioning activities, NRC Staff 3 concluded that these activities are bounded by 4 previously issued generic environmental impact 5 statements and did not find any deviations from 6 previously issued environmental statement for SONGS.
7 The petition manager offered Public 8 Watchdogs the opportunity to address the PRB, to clarify 9 or submit the petition in response to this assessment.
10 And Public Watchdogs request to address the PRB in 11 person.
12 As a reminder for the phone participants, 13 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 14 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 15 transcript that will be made publicly available. Thank 16 you for your time and consideration.
17 Public Watchdogs, you now have the 18 opportunity to provide any additional information for 19 the PRB to consider as part of this petition. And there 20 will be 35 minutes for your presentation.
21 MR. WOHLFORD: My name is Luke Wohlford 22 and I am one of the Attorneys representing Petitioner, 23 Public Watchdogs, in connection with the 10 CFR 2.206 24 petition submitted to the NRC on September 24th, 2019.
25 On behalf of Petitioner, I want to thank NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 the Petition Review Board for this opportunity to both 2 clarify this serious public health and safety issues 3 raised in the 2.206 petition and to present supplemental 4 information related to the petition, which was not 5 available to Petitioners at the time the petition was 6 filed nor available to the Petition Review Board at 7 the time it made its preliminary decision not to accept 8 the petition for review.
9 I will begin by summarizing and clarifying 10 the issues raised in the 2.206 petition, and then I 11 will follow that up with a discussion of supplemental 12 information relevant to the petition that was not 13 available to Petitioner at the time the petition was 14 filed.
15 In its 2012 decision in New York v. NRC, 16 the United States Court of Appeals from the District 17 of Columbia Circuit cautioned that spent nuclear fuel 18 poses a "dangerous long-term health and environmental 19 risk. It will remain dangerous for time spans 20 seemingly beyond human comprehension."
21 Despite the incalculable hazards posed by 22 spent nuclear fuel, long-term storage and management 23 of spent nuclear fuel has proven to be an intractable 24 Sisyphean task in the United States. Decade long 25 efforts by Congress, Federal Agencies and various NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 stakeholders to construct a geological permanent 2 repository for the country's every growing stockpile 3 of spent nuclear fuel have been ineffective and no 4 viable plant currently exists for a permanent storage 5 solution.
6 Lacking a centralized permanent storage 7 solution, the NRC has permitted the vast majority of 8 the country's every growing stockpile of spent nuclear 9 fuel to be stored onsite at nuclear power plants across 10 the country.
11 When the nuclear power plant licensee 12 ceases operations, it is required by NRC regulations 13 to submit various plans and reports to the NRC.
14 Including a post-shutdown decommissioning activities 15 report, and a radiated fuel management plan and site 16 specific decommissioning processes.
17 Although it is understood by all in 18 government in the industry that there is currently no 19 permanent storage solution for spent nuclear fuel, or 20 even a meaningful progress toward a viable plan to 21 create one, licensee's routinely submit 22 decommissioning plans, which are predicated on the 23 false assumption that the spent nuclear fuel will be 24 removed from onsite storage facilities and transferred 25 to a centralized permanent repository in the relatively NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 near future.
2 The NRC, knowing full well that this 3 fundamental predicate underling licensee's 4 decommissioning plans is fanciful at best, routinely 5 grants licensing amendments allowing licensees to 6 implement these falsely predicated plans, effectively 7 authorizing licensees to store spent nuclear fuel 8 indefinitely without any plan or strategy for 9 management or funding such indefinite storage 10 operations.
11 This general policy of willful ignorance 12 taints various aspects of the NRC's regulatory mandate 13 related to the long-term storage and management of spent 14 nuclear fuel. For instance, the NRC issues 15 certificates of compliance for spent fuel storage 16 systems and devices. Like the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX 17 Canister Storage System and the Holtec MPC-37 18 canisters, which are currently in use at SONGS.
19 These systems and devices have limited 20 useful life spans and cannot safely store spent nuclear 21 fuel for its entire radioactive lifecycle. However, 22 based on the false premises of these systems and devices 23 will only be necessary for a relatively short time 24 frame, the NRC permits licensees to use them for onsite 25 storage of spent nuclear fuel without demonstrating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 any ability to replace them at the end of their useable 2 life.
3 Similarly, the NRC regulation could 4 require licensees to provide assurance that they have 5 the financial capability to pay for the total cost of 6 decommissioning and managing spent nuclear fuel. If 7 the NRC permits licensees to provide these financial 8 assurances based on the false premise that they will 9 only be managing spent nuclear fuel onsite temporarily.
10 Quite simply, the NRC permits licensee's 11 to implement falsely predicated decommissioning plans 12 with little more than a faint hope that a permanent 13 storage solution will become available when necessary 14 or that the industry will develop the technological 15 and financial capabilities to manage indefinite onsite 16 storage of nuclear fuel if a permanent storage solution 17 never comes available.
18 In her comments on the NRC's generic 19 environmental impact statement and continued storage 20 for spent nuclear fuel, former NRC Chairwoman, Allison 21 Macfarlane, issued a pressure warning regarding the 22 uncertainty and deficiencies in permitting licensees 23 to store spent nuclear fuel onsite indefinitely.
24 Specifically, Chairwoman Macfarlane 25 highlighted, one, the lack of experience and repeatedly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 repackaging spent fuel into new storage devices every 2 time, two, the lack of a guarantee the responsible 3 parties would pay for the cost of repackaging and 4 return, and three, unforeseen events in our natural 5 environment and society.
6 As Chairwoman Macfarlane warned, 7 "decommissioned licensees will likely not have 8 sufficient revenue to pay for the reoccurring expenses, 9 such as repackaging of spent fuel, construction of dry 10 transform facilities, an increase in security needs 11 assumed in the GEIS.
12 The NRC's general policy of allowing 13 licensees to implement falsely predicated 14 decommissioning plans pose a serious public health and 15 safety risk at all decommission nuclear facilities 16 across the country. But it poses unique, particularly 17 acute and holy unreasonable public health and safety 18 risks at SONGS.
19 Like other decommissioning plans submitted 20 to the NRC, the decommission plan for SONGS falsely 21 assumes that the Department of Energy will begin 22 accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry by 2024.
23 That all spent nuclear fuel will be transferred offsite 24 by 2049 and that the site will be restored to a condition 25 acceptable for unrestricted use by 2051.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 In other words, Licensee's entire 2 decommission plan is predicated on the arbitrary and 3 false assumption that spent nuclear fuel will be stored 4 at SONGS only for the next 30 years.
5 Situated only 108 feet from the pacific 6 ocean near one of California's most populated beaches, 7 within tsunami innovation zone and surrounding by 8 active fault lines, the SONGS independent fuel storage 9 insulation system is in perhaps the most perilous 10 location possible.
11 In considering licensee's application for 12 a coastal development permit to construct the SONGS 13 ISFSI, the California Coastal Commission discussed what 14 it considered to be reasonably foreseeable impacts of 15 the proposed development.
16 Specifically, the California Coastal 17 Commission found that "there remained a number of 18 significant uncertainties related to Edison's ability 19 to decommission and remove the ISFSI facility by 2051 20 as proposed. In the absence of the permanent federal 21 repository for spent nuclear fuel or the development 22 of some other federal, state or private interim offsite 23 interim storage facility, the SONGS spent fuel could 24 remain in the proposed ISFSI for many years beyond the 25 intended date of renewal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 There is therefore the potential that the 2 proposed ISFSI site will be undermined by shoreline 3 retreat and/or subject to flooding as a result of sea 4 level rise, storm rains or tsunami event."
5 The potential consequences in flooding at 6 SONGS could be disastrous. Including, but not limited 7 to, deformation or rupture of the canisters and the 8 simultaneous release of radioactive geysers from the 9 ISFSI.
10 Because of the significant uncertainties 11 and risk associated with Licensee's decommissioning 12 plan, the California Coast Commission approved 13 licensee's development permit for a period of 20 years.
14 Notably, however, the California Coastal Commission 15 expressly did not assess the impact of any failure, 16 malfunction or defect in the proposed ISFSI system on 17 radiological safety because that assessment is within 18 the exclusive regulatory purview of the NRC.
19 To Petitioner's knowledge, the NRC also 20 has not connected a site specific analysis regarding 21 the unique geological coastal and other environmental 22 hazards posed by the location of the SONGS ISFSI, nor 23 has it required licensee's to provide any assurances 24 that the ISFSI will remain viable at that location 25 beyond 2051, when Licensees arbitrarily assume that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 all spent nuclear fuel be transferred offsite.
2 Petitioners therefore respectfully submit 3 that the NRC should immediately suspend all 4 decommissioning operations at SONGS, including all fuel 5 transfer operations, conducting environmental site 6 specific environmental impact statement and require 7 licensees to submit an amended decommission plan that, 8 one, provides reasonable assurance that the current 9 SONGS ISFSI will remain viable beyond 2051 and, two, 10 contains specific plans supported by objective evidence 11 demonstrating the Licensee will be able to safely 12 retrieve and transfer the spent nuclear fuel from the 13 SONGS ISFSI to another location, if and when that 14 becomes necessary.
15 Now, these public health and safety risks 16 posed by the location and the SONGS ISFSI are multiplied 17 by Licensee selection, defective canisters and 18 demonstrating a track record for negligence, if not 19 recklessness, and transferring the spent nuclear fuel 20 from the relative safety of the wet storage pools to 21 the SONGS ISFSI.
22 The NRC is fully aware, over a couple of 23 weeks in 2018 Licensee nearly dropped two fully loaded 24 canisters nearly 18 feet into the ISFSI when the 25 canisters become caught on a quarter inch deck sealed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 guide rail.
2 Although Licensees failed to timely 3 disclose these near disasters to the NRC, subsequent 4 investigation ultimately forced Licensees to admit not 5 that these near disasters had occurred, but also that 6 each and every canister that is buried in the SONGS 7 ISFSI is damaged to some extend during installation.
8 In addition, Licensees have publicly 9 admitted that they do not currently have technology 10 available to them that would allow them to retrieve 11 and repackage spent nuclear fuel into new canister if 12 a failure occurs or even if routine replacement is 13 required. And that any process for retrieving and 14 repackaging spent nuclear fuel that might eventually 15 be developed would require either a spent fuel pool 16 or a dry transfer station.
17 Nevertheless, in July 2019 the NRC 18 concluded that Licensees would resume, could resume 19 fuel transfer operations without supplying Licensees 20 to demonstrate their ability to retrieve and repackage 21 spent nuclear fuel being buried at SONGS. On the 10 22 CFR 72.122L, "storage systems must be designed to allow 23 ready retrieval of spent fuel, high level with 24 radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste for 25 further processing or disposal."
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 By Licensee's own admission, the SONGS 2 ISFSI does not satisfy this clear regulatory 3 requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner respectful 4 requests that the NRC immediately suspend all 5 decommissioning operations, including all spent fuel 6 transfer operations, until such time as Licensees have 7 demonstrated that the SONGS ISFSI satisfies the 8 retrievability requirements set forth in the NRC's 9 regulations.
10 In addition to these serious public health 11 and safety hazards, there's a serious question as to 12 when the Licensees have provided or can provide the 13 requisite assurance that they will have adequate 14 financial resources to pay for the full cost of 15 decommissioning and spent fuel management in SONGS.
16 Licensees decommissioning costs estimate 17 estimates that the total cost of decommissioning and 18 restoring the SONGS site to a condition suitable for 19 unrestricted use will exceed $4 million. $1.3 billion 20 of which is allocated to spent fuel management in 2049.
21 This cost estimate is, again, based on the 22 arbitrary assumption that the Department of Energy will 23 begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry 24 in 2024 and that all spent nuclear fuel will be 25 transferred from SONGS in an offsite storage facility NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 by 2049.
2 Licensees have since updated their cost 3 estimate pushing back the anticipated date on which 4 the Department of Energy will begin accepting spent 5 nuclear fuel from the industry to 2028.
6 Notably, however, Licensees did not 7 provide the date by which they expect all spent nuclear 8 fuel to be removed from SONGS nor do they explain how 9 they will pay for the cost of spent fuel management 10 if an alternative storage solution does not become 11 available and spent fuel has to remain at SONGS beyond 12 2049.
13 NRC regulations expressly require 14 Licensees to provide assurance that they will have the 15 financial ability to pay for the entire cost of 16 decommissioning and spent fuel management.
17 Because it is all unlikely that spent 18 nuclear fuel will remain at SONGS beyond 2049, and 19 because Licensees has not provided any assurance that 20 they will have the financial ability to pay for the 21 cost of spent fuel management at SONGS beyond 2049, 22 Petitioner respectfully submits that the NRC should 23 immediately suspend all decommissioning and fuel 24 transfer operation at SONGS until such time as Licensees 25 provide the NRC with reasonable assurance supported NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 by objective evidence that that will have the financial 2 ability to maintain and managing spent fuel beyond 2049.
3 All of these reasons, which are set forth 4 in detail in Petitioner's 2.206 petition, necessity 5 an immediate suspension in all decommissioning 6 operations at SONGS, including all fuel transfer 7 operations. And require the NRC to demand Licensee 8 to submit a decommission, amended decommissioning plan 9 that accounts for the reality that spent fuel will 10 likely be stored at SONGS indefinitely.
11 I would now like to briefly address recent 12 developments that have only intensified the urgent need 13 for the NRC to immediately suspend Licensees 14 decommissioning and fuel transfer operations.
15 Notably, these developments occurred after Petitioner 16 submitted its 2.206 petition and after the Petition 17 Review Board made its preliminary decision not to 18 petition for review.
19 Now, the Petition Review Board has not had 20 occasion to consider these facts in its review of 21 Petitioners' 2.206 petition. First, on December 4th, 22 2019 Edison submitted in an advice letter to the 23 California Coastal Commission, requesting 24 authorization to disburse $405.5 million from the SONGS 25 decommissioning trust to pay for decommissioning and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 fuel transfer operations in 2020.
2 This requests amounted to nearly threefold 3 increase in Edison's previous estimate of 2020 4 decommissioning fuel transfer cost. Edison 5 represented to the Public Utilities Commission that 6 this significant increase was largely due to regulatory 7 delays and nearly a year long suspension for fuel 8 transfer operations following the "canister gambling 9 event in 2018."
10 Public Watchdogs objected to Edison's 11 request, and on January 6th, 2020, the Public Utilities 12 Commission suspended the request of disbursement by 13 up to 120 days, finding that Edison's advice letter 14 requires staff review.
15 During the course of the advice letter 16 process, Edison represented to the Department's 17 Utilities Commission that these funds were necessary 18 for it to continue its decommissioning and fuel transfer 19 operations.
20 As Edison currently does not have access 21 to funds and admits are necessary to continue its fuel 22 transfer operation, and it may not have access to such 23 firms for 120 days or potentially longer.
24 As already discussed, Petitioner 25 respectfully submits that the NRC should immediately NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 suspend all decommissioning operations at SONGS until 2 Licensees provide reasonable assurance supported by 3 objective evidence if they lack the financial ability 4 to pay for the full cost of spent fuel storage and 5 management beyond 2049.
6 At a minimum, however, the NRC should 7 suspend all decommissioning and fuel transfer 8 operations at SONGS until such time that the Public 9 Utility's Commission releases the funds that Edison 10 has stated are necessary for us to continue 11 decommissioning the fuel transfer operations in 2020.
12 Allowing Licensees to continue fuel 13 transfer operations to provide access to the funds 14 necessary to pay for those operations would 15 significantly heighten the risk of those operations 16 to public health and safety as licensees would have 17 incentive to cut corners and ignore costly and time 18 consuming safety measures.
19 Plus, even if the NRC does not suspend all 20 decommissioning and fuel transfer operations until 21 Licensees provide the long-term financial assurances 22 required by NRC regulation that should at least suspend 23 all such operations until safety regulators have 24 authorized licensees to access the funds necessary to 25 pay for those operations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 Now, in addition to this recent suspension 2 and necessary decommissioning funds, Licensees have 3 also recently confirmed they intend to demolish the 4 wet storage pools at SONGS, once all spent nuclear fuel 5 is transferred to dry storage.
6 Licensees have represented to the 9th 7 Circuit Court of Appeals that they expect to remove 8 all spent nuclear fuel from the wet storage pools by 9 July or August of this year and that they will demolish 10 the wet storage pools shortly thereafter.
11 As I discussed previously, Licensees have 12 publicly acknowledged that they do not currently have 13 access to technology that would enable them to retrieve 14 and repackage the spent nuclear fuel stored at SONGS 15 in the Holtec canisters if that becomes necessary.
16 Once more, Licensees have acknowledged 17 that any such technology that might be developed in 18 the future would require either a wet storage fuel or 19 a dry transfer station.
20 NRC's regulations require storage systems 21 to be designed to allow ready retrievable spent fuel 22 for further process in their disposal. By Licensees 23 own public admissions, they do not currently have the 24 technological capability to retrieve and repackage the 25 spent fuel being buried at SONGS upon the failure of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 a canister or even if routine replacement became 2 necessary.
3 Moreover, by confirming that they intended 4 to demolish the wet storage pools in a matter of months, 5 Licensees admit that they intend to remove structures 6 that would be necessary for the retrieval and 7 repackaging of spent nuclear fuel, when such 8 technological capabilities are achieved.
9 This further supports Petitioner's request 10 to sustain all fuel transfer operations at SONGS until 11 Licensees demonstrate that they can satisfy the 12 retrievability requirements that are plainly set forth 13 in the NRC's regulations.
14 In closing, I want to be clear that the 15 Petitioner appreciates the incredibly difficult 16 challenges the NRC is facing because of our government's 17 failure to obtain a permanent storage solution for our 18 countries ever growing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel.
19 However, the NRC is advocating its 20 paramount responsibility to protect public health and 21 safety by allowing Licensees to bury spent fuel at SONGS 22 in one of the most dangerous locations imaginable and 23 defective and damaged canisters cannot be retrieved, 24 repaired or repackage. And based on a knowingly false 25 assertion that all spent nuclear fuel will be removed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 from SONGS and transferred to a permanent repository 2 in the relatively near future.
3 Where this might strike some as an abstract 4 problem that will not require a solution for decades, 5 for the millions of people who live, work and play in 6 the vicinity of SONGS, Licensees' decommissioning 7 operations represent a luring eminent disaster that 8 threatens their homes, coast lines and their very lives.
9 Given all the uncertainties surrounding 10 the SONGS decommissioning, with all the incalculable 11 potential risks posed by Licensees decommissioning and 12 fuel transfer operations, is it possible to comprehend 13 why Licensees are in such a rush to move forward with 14 a falsely predicated decommission plan and burial of 15 spent nuclear fuel at SONGS.
16 The only reasonable, prudent and safe 17 course of actions for the NRC to immediately suspend 18 all decommissioning operations at SONGS and require 19 Licensees to submit an amended decommissioning plan 20 that accounts for the legality that spent nuclear fuel 21 will remain at SONGS indefinitely.
22 We thank you for the opportunity to make 23 this presentation and we'll follow up immediately after 24 this public meeting with a written supplement that 25 memorializes the points I've discussed today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 I look forward to answering any questions 2 you might have and we look forward to your final decision 3 on this petition. Thank you.
4 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you, 5 Luke. At this time, does the Staff here at NRC 6 headquarters have any question for the Petitioners?
7 All right.
8 Are there any questions from NRC Staff on 9 the phone?
10 Does the Licensees have any questions?
11 MR. BATES: This is Al Bates, we have no 12 questions or comments.
13 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you, Al.
14 Before I conclude the meeting, members of the public 15 may provide comments regarding the petition and ask 16 questions about the 2.206 petition process.
17 However, as --
18 MR. BLANCH: Yes, this is --
19 CHAIR WILLIAMS: I apologize, I couldn't 20 hear what you said.
21 MR. BLANCH: Yes, this is Paul Blanch, I 22 have a brief statement that I would like to make 23 representing the Petitioners and supplementing the 24 previous presentation.
25 CHAIR WILLIAMS: Okay. Give me --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 MR. BLANCH: If I may have your permission.
2 CHAIR WILLIAMS: Yes, give me one minute, 3 I need to finish one more sentence and then I'll turn 4 it over to you.
5 MR. BLANCH: Sure.
6 CHAIR WILLIAMS: As stated at the opening, 7 the purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 8 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to question 9 or examine the PRB regarding the merits of the petition 10 request.
11 So at this time I'll, Paul, is it?
12 MR. BLANCH: Yes, it is.
13 CHAIR WILLIAMS: Okay. Go ahead.
14 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I'm representing Public 15 Watchdogs and there was two issues that I have. In 16 early October a Freedom of Information Act request was 17 submitted by Public Watchdogs. And that number is 18 2019-00441, with expedited processing granted by the 19 Freedom of Information Act Office.
20 That particular FOIA request requested the 21 identification of the current licensing basis that is 22 discussed and defined in 10 CFR 54.3. And that is to 23 have a complete understanding of what the regulatory 24 applications with regulations are applicable.
25 It's vital that we need a complete list NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 of the current licensing basis that is defined in 54.3.
2 Our confusion is that portions of 10 CFR may or may 3 not apply. They may extend over to the ISFSI system.
4 Some of the ISFSI regulations defined in 5 10 CFR Part 72 may carry over into the 10 CFR 50 licensing 6 area.
7 That is one FOIA request that we absolutely 8 need. We cannot fully explain our petition unless we 9 know the applicable regulations.
10 The second is another Freedom of 11 Information Act request that I discussed with the FOIA 12 Office just last week. And his name was Mr. Wise in 13 the FOIA Office, was on the phone.
14 And that FOIA request was a request for 15 the flood analysis for the ISFSI system that the NRC 16 claims in NUREG-2214, has been conducted and is 17 available. Mr. Wise, the FOIA Office and I have 18 clarified what my needs were for that analysis. And 19 we are under a complete understanding of exactly what 20 is required.
21 We, as Public Watchdogs, need that analysis 22 requested under FOIA. Now, once we have that 23 information we may, or we may not, obtain additional 24 information that would supplement through our attorneys 25 or through an independent 2.206 additional concerns NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 that we may have.
2 And management Directive 8.11 allows 3 supplements, but until we have that information from 4 the NRC we can't totally close the door, so I support 5 what our attorneys have just stated as far as their 6 requested action, however, depending on the NRC's 7 ability to provide the brief question information, 8 there may be more supplemental information forthcoming 9 on this particular 2.206 petition.
10 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you.
11 So, I'm going to go back to the room. Is there anyone 12 in the room has any questions for Paul?
13 MR. ALLEN: This is Chris Allen, I'm the 14 project manager at NMSS. Mr. Blanch, you mentioned 15 a Mr. Wise. Would you happen to know Mr. Wise's first 16 name?
17 MR. BLANCH: His name is Charles, but this 18 conversation we had, obviously documented. He's, I'm 19 not even sure which branch of the NRC he's with. It's, 20 W-I-S-E, is his last name.
21 MR. ALLEN: Thank you.
22 MR. BLANCH: I think it's Charles.
23 MR. ALLEN: Okay, thank you.
24 MR. BLANCH: You're welcome.
25 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right. Is there any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 other member of the public that wanted to make a 2 statement?
3 MS. GILMORE: Yes, this is Donna Gilmore.
4 Can you hear me?
5 CHAIR WILLIAMS: Yes, Donna.
6 MS. GILMORE: Yes. As Lee Brookhart, the 7 senior NRC, senior inspector said, these canisters 8 cannot be inspected by ASME codes, nuclear pressure 9 vessel codes.
10 It is just unconscionable that the NRC will 11 allow all the exemptions to minimum manufacturing 12 requirements, SME re-certification should be required.
13 I'm aware that CASTOR, that makes thick-walled casks, 14 already meets all ASME requirements so there is no 15 reason for the NRC to base their approvals on hope that 16 nothing is going to go wrong. Thank you.
17 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you.
18 Is there any other person that would like to make a 19 statement? All right.
20 Public Watchdogs and their Attorney's, I 21 thank you for taking the time to provide the NRC Staff 22 with clarifying information on the petition that you've 23 submitted.
24 Following the meeting, the PRB will 25 consider the supplemental information presented during NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 the meeting, together with the original petition, in 2 making its final recommendation on whether to accept 3 the petition for review.
4 Public Watchdogs will be informed of the 5 final recommendation. And the final recommendation 6 will then be documented in an acknowledgment letter 7 if the petition is accepted, or a closure letter, if 8 the petition is not accepted.
9 Before we close, does the court reporter 10 need any additional information for the meeting 11 transcript?
12 COURT REPORTER: No, I think I have 13 everyone who is on the line.
14 CHAIR WILLIAMS: All right. With that, 15 this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating 16 the phone connection. Thank you for your time.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 1:45 p.m.)
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