ML20030B157
| ML20030B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre, HI-STORM 100  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2020 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Allen W | |
| References | |
| NRC-0777, OEDO-19-00454 | |
| Download: ML20030B157 (36) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Meeting: Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption Docket Number:
OEDO-19-00454 Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Wednesday, January 22, 2020 Work Order No.:
NRC-0777 Pages 1-37
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 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PETITION REVIEW BOARD
+ + + + +
DISCUSSION WITH PETITIONER SEEKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
[SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 (SONGS) 2.206 PETITION OEDO-19-00454]
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 2019
+ + + + +
The Petition Review Board met in the TWFN 7-D-30, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, at 1:00 p.m., Kevin Williams, Chair, presiding.
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 PRESENT KEVIN WILLIAMS, Chair, PRB, NRC ANDREA KOCK, NRC DAN DOYLE, NRC CHRIS ALLEN, NRC JON WOODFIELD, NRC MARLAYNA DOELL, NRC PERRY BUCKBERG, NRC ROB CARPENTER, NRC SOPHIE HOLIDAY, NRC STEPHANIE ANDERSON, NRC LATIF HAMDAN, NRC RICHARD CHANG, NRC ANDREW HON, NRC JAMES RUBENSTONE, NRC ZAHIRA CRUZ, NRC ALSO PRESENT AL BATES, Southern California Edison MARK MORGAN, Southern California Edison DERRICK BRYCE, Southern California Edison WILLIAM WIEGEL III, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption
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 WILLIAM WIEGEL, JR., Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption TORGAN JOHNSON, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption DONNA
- GILMORE, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption SUE GARCIA, San Diego Gas & Electric ALLEN TRIAL, San Diego Gas & Electric P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
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 1:00 p.m.
1 MR. ALLEN: Mr. Weigel?
2 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, sir.
3 MR. ALLEN: I just wanted to ask a 4
question as a point of going forward. The name of 5
your organization is Oceansiders Against San Onofre 6
Corruption. As we go through the introductions and 7
the preliminary statements, do you have any objections 8
to being referred to simply as Oceansiders?
9 MR. WIEGEL: No, that's fine.
10 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. If there's no 12 objections then, we'll go ahead and get started with 13 the meeting then. So I'd like to thank everybody for 14 attending this meeting. The purpose of today's 15 meeting is to provide the petitioner, Oceansiders 16 Against San Onofre Corruption, also known as 17 Oceansiders, an opportunity to address the Petition 18 Review Board, or PRB, regarding their petition to stop 19 spent fuel loading activities at SONGS and to relocate 20 the spent fuel to a less densely-populated area not on 21 a military installation.
22 My name is Chris Allen. I'm a project 23 manager in the Division of Fuel Management in the 24 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. I'm 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 also the petition manager for this petition.
1 The PRB Chairman is Kevin Williams, Deputy 2
Director in the Division of Material Safety and 3
Security, State and Tribal Programs, in the Office of 4
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. This is a 5
Category 1 meeting. The public is invited to observe 6
this meeting and will have one or more opportunities 7
to communicate with the NRC after the business portion 8
but before the meeting is adjourned.
9 I'd ask that you please silence your cell 10 phones at this time, as not to interrupt the meeting 11 or any of its speakers. There is a sign-up sheet 12 around the room, and I'll ask everybody in attendance 13 in the room to please fill that out.
14 As part of the Petition Review Board's 15 review of this petition, Oceansiders has requested 16 this opportunity to address the PRB. This meeting was 17 scheduled to begin at 1:00 Eastern time and, after 18 introductory remarks, we'll allow Oceansiders 35 19 minutes to address the Board. The meeting is being 20 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 21 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 22 become a supplement to the petition. Since this 23 transcript will also be made publicly available, no 24 sensitive or proprietary information should be 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 presented.
1 I'd like to open the meeting with 2
introductions. As I stated, the PRB Chair is Kevin 3
Williams, and we'll go around the rest of the room in 4
this direction, please.
5 MR. WOODFIELD: Okay. My name is Jon 6
Woodfield. I'm an inspector in NMSS, the Division of 7
Fuel Management, the Inspections Oversight Branch.
8 MR. BUCKBERG: I'm Perry Buckberg. I'm 9
the Agency 2.206 Petition Process Coordinator.
10 MR. CARPENTER: Robert Carpenter, NRC, 11 Office of General Counsel.
12 MS. HOLIDAY: Sophie Holiday, Office of 13 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Enforcement 14 Coordinator.
15 MR. DOYLE: I'm Dan Doyle. I'm the Acting 16 Chief of Storage, Transportation, and Licensing 17 Branch, Division of Fuel Management, NMSS.
18 MR. RUBENSTONE: My name is James 19 Rubenstone. I'm the Chief of Material Control and 20 Accounting Branch in the Division of Fuel Management 21 in NMSS.
22 MR. CHANG: Richard Chang, NMSS, Reactor 23 Decommissioning Branch.
24 MR. ALLEN: Would NRC personnel on the 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 phone please introduce yourselves?
1 OPERATIONS OFFICER:
Headquarters 2
Operations Officer, NRC.
3 MS. KOCK: This is Andrea Kock. I'm the 4
Director of the Division of Fuel Management at the 5
NRC.
6 MS. ANDERSON: Stephanie Anderson, Health 7
Physicist, NRC, Region IV office.
8 MS. CRUZ: Zahira Cruz, Project Manager, 9
Reactor Decommissioning, NRC.
10 MS. DOELL: This is Marlayna Doell. I'm 11 also a project manager in Reactor Decommissioning for 12 the NRC.
13 MR. HAMDAN: Latif Hamdan, Division of 14 Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 15 Safeguards. I'm also the 2.206 petition coordinator 16 for the office.
17 MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much. Are 18 there any representatives of the licensee on the 19 phone?
20 MR. BATES: Yes. This is Al Bates, 21 Regulatory Manager, representing Southern California 22 Edison. Here with me is Mark Morgan from our 23 Regulatory Affairs Department and Derrick Bryce, our 24 legal counsel.
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 MR.
ALLEN:
Thank you very much.
1 Oceansiders, would you please introduce yourselves for 2
the record?
3 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, this is William Wiegel, 4
III, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption.
5 MR. WIEGEL: I'm William Wiegel, Jr.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Torgan Johnson.
7 MS. GILMORE: Donna Gilmore, San Onofre 8
Safety also.
9 MR. ALLEN: Although it's not required for 10 members of the public to introduce yourself, are there 11 any members of the public on the phone that would like 12 to introduce themselves at this time? Hearing none.
13 I want to emphasize that we each need to 14 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 15 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 16 you do have something that you would like to say, 17 please state your name for the record.
18 For those dialing into the meeting, please 19 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 20 background noise or distractions. If you don't have a 21 mute button, you can mute your phone by pressing the 22 keys *6, and if you would like to speak you can unmute 23 the phone by pressing *6.
24 At this time, I will turn it over to the 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 PRB Chairman, Kevin Williams.
1 MR. WILLIAMS: Welcome to this meeting 2
regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Oceansiders 3
Against San Onofre Corruption. From here on, I will 4
reference them as Oceansiders.
5 I'd like to first share some background on 6
NRC's process. Section 2.206 of Title X of the Code 7
of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 8
which is the primary mechanism for the public to 9
request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 10 process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC 11 12 MR. WIEGEL: Sorry to interrupt, but we 13 are having a hard time hearing the gentleman speaking.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to move over.
15 Can you hear me better now?
16 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, that is better.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. For the sake of 18 argument, I'll start over. Welcome to this meeting 19 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Oceansiders 20 Against San Onofre Corruption. Hereafter, I will 21 refer to them as Oceansiders.
22 I'd like to first share some background on 23 our process. Section 2.206 of Title X of the Code of 24 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 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 which is the primary mechanism for the public to 1
request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 2
process. This process permits anyone to petition the 3
NRC to take enforcement type action related to NRC 4
licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 5
results of its evaluation, the NRC could modify, 6
suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any 7
other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a 8
problem.
9 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 10 of a 2.206 petition request is in Management Directive 11 8.11, which is publicly available. The purpose of 12 today's meeting is to give Oceansiders an opportunity 13 to provide any additional explanation and support for 14 the petition after having received the PRB's initial 15 assessment.
16 This public meeting is not a hearing, nor 17 is it an opportunity for Oceansiders or other members 18 of the public to question or examine the PRB on the 19 merits or the issues presented in the petition 20 request. Oceansiders will have 35 minutes for their 21 presentation. The NRC staff in attendance may ask 22 clarifying questions in order to better understand 23 Oceansiders' presentation and to reach a reasoned 24 decision on whether or not to accept Oceansiders' 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 request for review under the 2.206 process.
1 No decisions regarding the merits of this 2
petition will be made at this meeting. The meeting 3
will be transcribed, and the transcript will be made 4
publicly available.
5 Following this meeting, the PRB will 6
consider the supplemental information presented during 7
the meeting together with the original application in 8
making its final recommendation on whether to accept 9
the petition for review. Oceansiders will be informed 10 of the final recommendation.
11 I would like to summarize the scope of the 12 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 13 date. On August 3rd, 2019, Oceansiders submitted to 14 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding concerns 15 about spent fuel loading activities at SONGS.
16 Specifically, Oceansiders requested that the NRC issue 17 an immediate cease and desist to Southern California 18 Edison and require the permit holder procure safer 19 storage in thick-walled, easily transportable 20 canisters, and relocate them to a temporary storage 21 site further away from densely-populated areas and not 22 on a military installation.
23 On December 20th, 2019, the petition 24 manager contacted Oceansiders to inform them of the 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 PRB's initial assessment that the petition does not 1
meet Management Directive 8.11, Section 3.c.1 criteria 2
for a petition evaluation because NRC staff has 3
continued to carefully regulate the licensee's spent 4
fuel loading activities at SONGS, including the review 5
of the fuel storage facility design; inspections 6
encompassing the physical facility, as well as the 7
licensee's operational performance; and appropriate 8
enforcement actions.
9 Regarding Oceansiders' concern about the 10 environmental impacts of the spent fuel loading 11 activities, NRC staff concluded that these activities 12 are bounded by previously-issued generic environmental 13 impact statements and did not find any deviations from 14 previously-issued environmental statements for SONGS.
15 The petition manager also offered 16 Oceansiders an opportunity to address the PRB to 17 clarify or supplement the petition in response to this 18 assessment, and Oceansiders accepted the invitation.
19 As a reminder for the phone participants, please 20 identify yourself if you make any remarks, as this 21 will help us in the preparation of the meeting 22 transcript that will be made publicly available.
23 Thank you.
24 At this time, I will turn it over to 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 Oceansiders to allow you they opportunity to provide 1
any information you believe the PRB should consider as 2
part of this petition. You have 35 minutes for your 3
presentation.
4 MR. WIEGEL: Thank you for that. This is 5
William Wiegel, III, and I would like to begin with 6
addressing the response dated December 20th, 2019.
7 The first paragraph about response identifies that, 8
based on the PRB's initial assessment, it appeared 9
that all of the issues raised in our petition have 10 already been the subject of NRC staff review and did 11 not raise concerns with the NRC staff not considered 12 and resolved or not appropriately addressed in the 13 2.206 process. Accordingly, the preliminary decision 14 was not to accept the petition.
15 The first item we wish to present as the 16 petitioner, a petitioner request for the documentation 17 that the NRC had conducted third-party verified ASME-18 compliant investigations into the field conditions of 19 the Holtec canisters in response to an admission by 20 Dr. Chris Singh at the 1/19/19 NRC pre-decisional 21 enforcement conference webinar where Dr. Singh 22 admitted on record to,
- quote, manufacturing 23 incompetence, end quote, of Holtec equipment currently 24 in use at the site. This admission directly 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 invalidates all Holtec warranties and claims of safety 1
and directly calls into question whether the canisters 2
installed actually conformed to the certificate of 3
compliance and technical specifications that are 4
referenced further in the NRC's response where they 5
state, as a result of NRC staff remains confident that 6
the reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the 7
public's health and safety is maintained for as long 8
as fuel is stored in accordance with the requirements 9
of the SONGS license, the certificate of compliance 10 for the Holtec
- systems, and other typical 11 requirements. We have a situation where there's a 12 direct contradiction to the certificate of compliance, 13 as admitted to by Holtec's own employee, Dr. Chris 14 Singh, where he admitted to the manufacturing 15 incompetence and states there is no information 16 available to the public showing any investigation into 17 the manufacturing incompetence claims stated by Dr.
18 Singh. Therefore, we have no way to see if the steel 19 was manufactured to the adequate standards required 20 under this permit.
21 In order for this admission of the non-22 compliance with the certificate of compliance and 23 technical specifications, the NRC has a legal 24 responsibility to hold them to the burden of proof by 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 means of third-party verified ASME compliant test 1
results documenting the steel they manufactured and 2
subsequent use of the canisters that meets these 3
requirements in the certificate of compliance. Until 4
such time as an independent ASME-certified third-party 5
testing laboratory can be procured by the licensee to 6
verify the condition of the manufactured steel used to 7
build the canisters under this permit, the NRC will be 8
unable to meet its Directive 8.11-02 objective that 9
state to ensure the public health and safety through 10 the prompt and thorough evaluation of any potential 11 problem addressed by the petition filed under the CFR 12 2.206 process and immediately place a cease and desist 13 on the project until that can be secured.
14 The second issue we would like to bring up 15 is the response that the NRC staff has continued to 16 carefully regulate the licensee's decommissioning 17 activities at SONGS including review of the fuel 18 storage facility design inspections and appropriate 19 enforcement actions. Specifically, the NRC performed 20 a thorough review of UMAX independent spent fuel 21 storage installation designs at the time the entity 22 approved in 2017 through public rulemaking. In 23 addition, NRC staff from Headquarters Region IV 24 continuously performs oversight to ensure the storage 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 of spent nuclear fuel does not pose a threat to public 1
health and safety.
The NRC inspections of 2
decommissioning activities are documented and 3
inspection reports are publicly available.
4 Inspections at SONGS is specifically considered events 5
described in the petition regarding licensee's fuel 6
loading operations, potential scratching of the fuel 7
canisters, and training of SDG&E employees at NRC's 8
response include a detailed assessment of the 9
significant events, specific enforcement actions, and 10 subsequent consideration of corrective actions.
11 However, this statement directly contradicts the 12 following statement made by employees at the 1/24/19 13 webinar in which Scott Morris addressed the process to 14 determine what punitive actions, if any, were going to 15 be taken against Edison, who stated management failed 16 to recognize the complexity and risk associated with 17 long-duration fuel transfer campaign while using a 18 relatively new system design. Morris then posed a 19 question to Southern California Edison of how do you 20 justify that if you get caught, and Edison admitted 21 that it was guilty of poor planning, a lack of senior 22 management, and oversight. As previously stated, any 23 assertion of their ability to move forward without 24 further incident is not credible and presents a clear 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 threat to public safety.
1 PRB's statements directly contradict the 2
assessment made by the regional administrator and the 3
assumption of trust for Southern California Edison and 4
its contractors to self-correct and police are not 5
only therefore flagrantly irresponsible and directly 6
violates NRC's own mission statements. For example, 7
the NRC putting more trust in the licensee while 8
ignoring its own personnel acts with overseeing the 9
safety of the project is evident in an article 10 published by the LA Times in which a federal inspector 11 found many of the waste filled cans had been scraped 12 and scratched when they were lowered into the interim 13 storage facility. That article is referenced for the 14 Board to review in detail.
15 For the sake of time, I'm going to move 16 forward into the third item where, again, the NRC 17 states that they remain confident with a reasonable 18 assurance of adequate protection of the public health 19 and safety is maintained for as long as the fuel is 20 stored in accordance with the requirements of the 21 SONGS licensee's certificate of compliance for the 22 Holtec system and other applicable requirements. The 23 agency is committed to ensuring the continuation of 24 its ongoing regulatory oversight at the facility, as 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 reflected in the NRC's rigorous review of the fuel 1
storage design at SONGS, together with its well-2 documented inspection and enforcement of the 3
activities.
4 As previously stated, Holtec has admitted 5
it is in breach of the certificate of compliance.
6 Additionally, this Southern California Edison document 7
titled SONGS HI-STORM MPC visual assessment report is 8
recently released after being obtained by a FOIA 9
request which exposes Southern California Edison 10 conducted a visual assessment that was not a formal 11 inspection or an activity qualified to ASME Sections 7 12 and/or 16 or, I'm sorry, 11. 3, 5, and 11. Pardon 13 me.
14 In spite of this fact, the conclusions 15 section stated the scope of the visual assessment is 16 considered adequate. Therefore, even with incidental 17 contact during downloading operations, the SONGS HI-18 STORM MPCs remain in compliance with all applicable 19 ASME boiler and pressure vessel code requirements.
20 This inspection was not done to ASME qualifications, 21 and the margin of error in the report could put the 22 SONGS HI-STORM MPC standard of.175 inches of 23 available margin for localized losses of shell 24 thickness out of compliance with all applicable ASME 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 boiler and pressure vessel code requirements.
1 We hereby request the NRC call for an 2
immediate cease and desist order for the project until 3
such time as an independent third-party ASME Section 4
3, 5, and 11 test occurs and confirms that the SONGS 5
Hi-STORM MPC standards for.175 inches of available 6
margin for localized losses of shell thickness is 7
complied with. The NRC's acceptance of these non-ASME 8
sections for an otherwise qualified visual inspection 9
report as satisfactory downloading operations of the 10 canister is a violation of their mission statement and 11 warrants an immediate cease and desist be issued.
12 Regarding item number four, in the 13 response regarding the concern about the siting of the 14 facility and environmental
- impacts, the final 15 paragraph, you also requested that the NRC relocate 16 spent fuel away from military bases. Staff has 17 concluded that, pursuant to MD Section 2.A.2, the 18 request is not appropriate for the 2.206 process 19 because it's outside the NRC's jurisdiction. Public 20 law 88-82 referenced in the decision vests its 21 authority in the Secretary of Navy to determine the 22 appropriateness of granting an easement for the 23 purpose of siting a nuclear power plant, including all 24 of its purposes. Therefore, the NRC lacks the 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 jurisdiction to take the specific action the 1
petitioner requests.
2 We hereby request documentation from the 3
NRC that shows correspondence from the Secretary of 4
Navy where approval was granted for the licensee to 5
place an unsecured ISFSI on a military installation 6
with no engineering or protective consideration in its 7
ballistic impact or other potential enemy attacks. If 8
no documentation can be produced, we hereby request 9
the NRC conduct an immediate full factual hearing to 10 document whether the Navy considers the ISFSI 11 adequately hardened to withstand enemy attacks in a 12 time of war since military bases are legitimate 13 targets under the Laws of War. The NRC has 14 demonstrated the clear rightness of the need for the 15 Secretary of Navy to have jurisdiction over the 16 appropriateness of this location but has not showed 17 its due diligence in securing more approval for the 18 safety element of the approval process. Therefore, 19 until such times as written approval has been procured 20 from the Secretary of the Navy, an immediate cease and 21 desist must be placed on the project due to elevated 22 threat levels from active conflict areas, both 23 international and domestically. Failure to do so will 24 document complicity by the NRC in what amounts to a 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 potential weapon of mass destruction being 1
intentionally or unintentionally developed for enemy 2
use against the United States in a time of declared or 3
undeclared war on an active military installation.
4 In addition this, we would also like to 5
redirect attention to concerns of jurisdiction brought 6
up by W.L. Whittenberg, Assistant Chief of Staff, the 7
Marine Corps installation base, and the letter of 8
Joseph Street of the Coastal Commission where he 9
stated, for a SONGS site, the instrument at issue is 10 the easement in which the federal agency retains even 11 more rights to access the site subject to the easement 12 than it does with a lease to be addressed by the 13 Federal District Court in Manchester. The Navy and 14 United States Marine Corps understand the Commission's 15 reliance on the California Coastal Commission versus 16 Granite Rock Company case to assert jurisdiction under 17 the California Coastal Act over this federal property.
18 The federal property in the Granite Rock, though, was 19 under the proprietorial jurisdiction where state law 20 generally applies. The SONGS site, on the other hand, 21 is under exclusive federal jurisdiction where the 22 state generally does not apply. Thus, it is the Navy 23 and the United States Marine Corps' position that the 24 Commission only has jurisdiction over the SONGS site 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 through the different key provisions of the Federal 1
Coastal Zone Management Act; and, therefore, the Navy 2
and the United States Marine Corps object to the 3
Commission requiring or issuing a coastal development 4
permit under the California Coastal Act, the proposed 5
action at hand, or for any other proposed action at 6
the SONGS site.
7 Until such time that the NRC had procured 8
a letter of authorization, they are actually acting in 9
direct opposition of these statements by W.L.
10 Whittenberg that were given to the Coastal Commission 11 in collaboration with the approval of this permit.
12 MR. WIEGEL: This is William Wiegel, Jr.,
13 and I have 20 years experience as a judge advocate in 14 the Air Force. I'm very concerned about the fact that 15 the NRC used a blanket environmental impact statement 16 to cover the largest nuclear waste dump privately run 17 in the nation, which is on a military installation.
18 There are no other nuclear power plants on military 19 installations in the United States, and I have seen no 20 documentation regarding any analysis on the part of 21 the NRC to provide authorization for public policy 22 that would allow for a nuclear waste dump, and, in 23 this case, it's one which contains enough radioactive 24 cesium-137 to be equivalent to over a hundred 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 Chernobyls or 700 nuclear missiles, take your pick, 1
and to allow that on a military installation.
2 And one of the things that needs to be 3
addressed is the fact that military installations have 4
a different unique status under international law 5
regarding the laws of war. And if you put something 6
on a military installation, it's likely to get hit by 7
your enemy in a time of war. And no one can say how 8
long that material is going to be at San Onofre, but 9
no one can say that we won't be at war within the next 10 40 years or 50 years or however long it stays out 11 there.
12 And my concern is that no effort was made 13 to separately engineer that facility so that it would 14 be hardened. If you know anything about the military, 15 you know that they're very good at hardening sites to 16 protect them against enemy attack. If you look at how 17 we handle our chemical emissions in this country, we 18 scatter them out in hardened sites where they're not 19 all clustered together. The engineering on this where 20 you utilize, as Lee Brookhart of your own NRC 21 organization said, the ASME standards are not met for 22 pressure vessels. Well, guess what? Missiles provide 23 a lot of concussion and could easily rupture one of 24 those canisters.
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 There's been no analysis and no public 1
policy effort to say that a military installation is 2
an appropriate place to put that level of radioactive 3
material, particularly when we have, within 50 miles 4
we have eight and a half million people that live out 5
here. It's unconscionable that the NRC would have 6
done this and done it in the manner that they did.
7 You guys really need to have a full hearing on this 8
particular issue, and I would suggest that you ask the 9
Navy to help bail you out at this point and figure out 10 how to harden that site, build a dome over it or do 11 whatever. Thank you.
12 MS. GILMORE: This is Donna Gilmore.
13 There's no reason for the NRC to give exemption to 14 ASME nuclear pressure vessel standards for storage and 15 transport. There are other systems that have that 16 certification, and we need to protect our military and 17 all our resources, and there's nothing more critical 18 than doing that now. And I hope that you re-evaluate 19 your decision on this. Take a look at the Swiss 20 system if you want to learn what a good design is and 21 explain why you are rejecting ASME N3-certified 22 systems that are in hardened facilities.
23 MR. JOHNSON: This is Torgan Johnson.
24 I've been looking at this ISFSI presented to the 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 public after the early shutdown of the two reactors.
1 What I notice, along with a number of other people, 2
planners, the first thing was a red flag was the 3
siting of this thing. You couldn't have picked a 4
worse site location-wise just from the environmental 5
and natural hazards risk of this site.
6 The second thing that's come to light was 7
looking at the design of this system. My background 8
is architecture and urban planning, and I would say 9
that, as I've attended all these meetings through the 10 CEP and NRC meetings related to this ISFSI, there's a 11 cumulative number of red flags that the public has 12 identified. And what I see in these discussions about 13 the licensing approval process and then overlooking 14 the safety concerns and waiving safety regulations is 15 that you have a cumulative effect of all of these 16 things now at the site, and maybe the most glaring one 17 was Southern California Edison's address of a near 18 drop event was portrayed as a worker training issue 19 and not a hardware issue. And it parallels very much 20 what we've just seen with the Boeing issue with the 21 737 Max 8 issue. I think there was an immediate 22 response to blame the pilots for what, essentially, 23 was a hardware issue and a software issue.
24 We have the same problem here at San 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 Onofre where workers on site, some of them from the 1
construction industry who had very little training, 2
very little understanding of the risks, and absolutely 3
no procedures in place to be able to deal with an 4
accident, had confronted a near drop of one of these 5
50-ton canisters, not once but twice. In listening to 6
the whistleblower's discussion at a TDP meeting, he 7
said there's absolutely no safety on site. And the 8
safety is both proper training and having the right 9
staff to handle this waste but also to have the right 10 hardware. And I think what we have is we have a 11 system now where, from my perspective, and I've built 12 a lot of big projects, there's so many red flags that 13 have been overlooked or downplayed or just ignored 14 that you now have a string of issues that cumulatively 15 point to an absolutely defective system for which 16 there's no justification for continuing to use the 17 system. I don't understand why Southern California 18 Edison is willing to take these risks. Their judgment 19 has been very poor in the past. My hometown of Malibu 20 was just burned to the ground based on Southern 21 California Edison's judgment on their electric 22 infrastructure and something as small as a re-closer 23 on their electrical grid. If a small re-closer can 24 burn down an entire half of the town of Malibu, 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 imagine what 3.6 million pounds of high-level 1
radioactive waste located upwind of 8.5 million people 2
is going to do in defective canisters that can't be 3
inspected, that can't be reopened. We can repackage 4
this waste if there's a problem with it.
5 What I see is Edison stepping into a huge 6
PR disaster. You almost had it on August 8th and 7
again, I believe, on July 22nd of 2018, a huge PR 8
disaster which I don't know how Edison internally is 9
making decisions about risk, but I think that this 10 looks like a massive blunder in the process. Those 11 two near drops are synonymous with the two crashed 737 12 planes. And if there's no way to deal with what 13 almost happened twice, either with a hot cell or now I 14 know Edison is moving forward to deconstruct the spent 15 fuel pools, this is the only two known ways of dealing 16 with what almost happened twice. I think there's no 17 option but to stop the system, reevaluate, bring in 18 third parties. It's in Edison's best interests, and 19 it's in the NRC's best interests to not have an 20 accident. That near drop was just a couple hundred 21 yards from the transportation spine, the backbone of 22 California's transportation system. It's about 200 23 yards from the near drop event. That would have shut 24 off the I-45. It would have backed up all that 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 traffic and moved it over to the I-15 for the 1
north/south transportation, shutting off the Amtrak 2
system there, too. Let me just tell you, from a 3
planning perspective, and I've done a lot of 4
transportation planning, you can't move that level of 5
service and expect that to be picked up on the I-15.
6 You've got to shut off the transportation up and down 7
the coast here just from the drop, that one event.
8 Not to mention, there was no procedure for pulling 9
these things back in and how to deal with it when it's 10 dropped and it's damaged.
11 So this is a concerned citizen looking at 12 a system going terribly wrong. It's not a complex 13 issue. It's really a question of is the NRC 14 regulating in a way that it's looking at the 15 cumulative effects of all these things that have been 16 brought to your attention. And if you're Edison's 17 upper management, walking into another public 18 relations and physical disaster created by poor 19 judgment, in our opinion, this is a setup for an 20 accident that nobody wants to experience.
21 So what we're really asking for is that 22 you, the NRC, take this more seriously, combine all 23 the things that we've looked at, from the shims being 24 defective, to the canister damage. They're not only 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 damaged when they're dropped into these vaults, 1
they're damaged when they're pulled back out of these 2
vaults. So you're doubling the scratching and damage 3
and the carbon steel, the stainless steel contact, 4
which is the initiation for the damage that we're 5
concerned about.
6 This is a planned disaster, and I would 7
add to the Wiegels' concerns about terrorism. From an 8
architect and planner's perspective, we have error 9
compounded, which the term that comes to mind is 10 errorism, which can be as bad, if not worse, than 11 terrorism because it's condoned by your process of 12 waiving safety regulations, knowingly waiving these 13 regulations that, through technicalities, Edison is 14 allowed to proceed and Holtec is allowed to proceed.
15 I think it's in Holtec's best interest to put the 16 brakes on this system and reevaluate. But it doesn't 17 seem that there's a brake system in this process for 18 the public.
19 I wonder where the NRC's protection of the 20 public comes into play through the regulatory process 21 because really, from what I'm seeing, from reducing 22 emergency planning zones, waiving safety regulations, 23 not applying the ASME pressure vessel N3 requirements 24 to these canisters, that the public is not being 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 represented at all. That's really what we're doing is 1
protecting a utility that's putting the region in 2
danger and actually their continued existence in 3
danger. I don't think that they want to have another 4
disaster on their hands. They almost did, and they 5
didn't want to listen.
6 So it's the public's concern cumulatively 7
that you look at all these things individually and you 8
bring in the proper risk analysis to say when you have 9
this many problems it's a red flag and you stop the 10 system. In construction, we stop things for far less 11 defects and problems. We stop these things 12 immediately when we see them on the site. I'm shocked 13 to see the system proceeding, and I'm shocked to see 14 the NRC's unwillingness or inability to stop this 15 system when so many things, as you've heard this 16 morning, have been known for a very long time.
17 MR. WIEGEL: This is William Weigel, III.
18 So we're going to summarize now. So based upon the 19 inspection information presented today, in addition to 20 the previous information that's been presented to the 21 NRC, it is very clear this is an opportunity for the 22 NRC to dispel all of the talk of them being an 23 captured regulatory agency in favor of the licensees 24 and demonstrate to the public that they take their 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 mission statement seriously and call out these direct 1
violations of the certificate of compliance, which was 2
one of the criteria issued to us in response as to why 3
this was not going to be heard under the 2.206 4
process. We've given you direct evidence today that 5
it is, in fact, out of compliance until such time as 6
proven otherwise based on the statements from the 7
manufacturer of these vessels themselves. There is no 8
excuse for not taking this up under the 2.206 process.
9 It's unconscionable that that would not move forward 10 for the public hearing to be given to all the 11 concerned citizens and all of the activists that have 12 worked very hard to show all of the examples of 13 illusion and obfuscation from existing laws, removing, 14 exempting. The evidence speaks for itself in this 15 situation, and there's no excuse to not move forward 16 with the 2.206 process given all of this information.
17 This information will make it to the 18 public, and the PR disaster that will result from it 19 can be avoided by just continuing to honor the 20 commitment of protecting the public safety and hear 21 this in the 2.206 process, as it meets the 22 requirements as we've proven with our original and 23 subsequent information presented, including this 24 presentation today.
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 Again, we appreciate the opportunity to 1
have this conversation with you, but we, again, compel 2
you with everything possible to do the right thing 3
here and to not continue the stereotype of captured 4
regulatory agencies. It can't continue this way if we 5
want to have any hope for the future, and this 6
situation it's hard to even process that it's gotten 7
to this point, considering what's on the line:
8 personal property, public property, and just the flow 9
of goods and services from the southern border to the 10 northern border of the Northwest to the Southern 11 California region.
12 I will now give opportunity to anyone else 13 on our side that's going to make any final comments, 14 and then we will consider this a close to our time.
15 Anyone else? We will go ahead and conclude our 16 presentation at this time and turn it over to the NRC.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank William 18 Wiegel, III, William Wiegel, Jr., Donna Gilmore, and 19 Torgan Johnson for your comments. At this time, does 20 the NRC staff here at Headquarters have any questions 21 for Oceansiders? Are there any questions from the NRC 22 staff that are on the phone? Does the licensee have 23 any questions to Oceansiders?
24 MR. BATES: This is Al Bates from Southern 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 California Edison. We have no questions or comments.
1 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Al. Before I 2
conclude the meeting, members of the public may 3
provide comments regarding the petition and ask 4
questions about the 2.206 petition process. However, 5
as stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting 6
is not to provide an opportunity for Oceansiders or 7
the public to question or examine the PRB regarding 8
the merits of the petition request.
9 Are there any members of the public that 10 have any comments or questions?
11 MR. WIEGEL: I do. I'm a member of the 12 public. My name is Joshua Wiegel. I was just sitting 13 in on this meeting to help record and kind of all this 14 has brought to my attention right now, so I guess my 15 only question or comment would be for the NRC more so 16 than California Edison is any of this evidence that 17 was brought up new to you guys? Because it sounds 18 like there's no comments, there's no questions, and 19 you guys are all aware of all this; is that correct?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Could you 21 repeat your question?
22 MR. WIEGEL: Yes. Again, just as a 23 concerned member of the public and just hearing this 24 for the first time, it sounded like pretty compelling 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 information. And with no comment from the NRC and no 1
comment from Southern California Edison, my question 2
would be are you all aware of these things already?
3 Is this not new information?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: So the purpose of this 5
meeting is for Oceansiders to provide any new or 6
additional information that hasn't already been 7
provided to the PRB for its consideration. So we're 8
in listening mode --
9 MR. WIEGEL: Thank you for opening this to 10 the public, and I apologize for getting off topic 11 then. Thank you.
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no problem. We welcome 13 any questions there. Is there any other member of the 14 public that would like to make a comment or has a 15 question? So I think my question is for William 16 Wiegel, III. The information that was presented by 17 Oceansiders, do you intend to provide that to the NRC?
18 MR. WIEGEL: We have submitted that 19 information. I submitted that on Monday to Chris 20 Allen via email.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh.
22 MR. WIEGEL: So that information has been 23 presented.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I apologize. I have 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 not been able to review it --
1 MR. WIEGEL: No problem.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: -- and see if there's 3
anything new.
4 MR. WIEGEL: No problem at all.
5 MR. WILLIAMS: So for the purpose of this 6
meeting, I'd like to thank Oceansiders Against San 7
Onofre Corruption for taking the time to provide the 8
NRC staff with clarifying information on the petition 9
that you've submitted. Before we close, does the 10 court reporter need any additional information for the 11 meeting transcript?
12 COURT REPORTER: No.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. With that, this 14 meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 15 phone connection. Thank you and enjoy the rest of 16 your day.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 1:50 p.m.)
19