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