ML23009B136
| ML23009B136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2022 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2022-CRS-0000, NRC-2190 | |
| Download: ML23009B136 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting with the Petition Review Board and C-10 Research & Education Foundation Regarding a 2.206 Petition Submitted on October 4, 2022 Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, December 14, 2022 Work Order No.:
NRC-2190 Pages 1-50 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4
+ + + + +
5 MEETING WITH THE PETITION REVIEW BOARD AND C-10 6
RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION REGARDING A 2.206 7
PETITION SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 4, 2022 8
+ + + + +
10 WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 14, 2022 12
+ + + + +
13 The meeting was held via Teleconference at 14 1:30 p.m. EST, Michele Sampson, Chairperson of the 15 Petition Review Board, presiding.
16 17 PETITIONER: C-10 RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION 18 19 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 20 MICHELE SAMPSON, Deputy Director 21 Division of Engineering and External 22 Hazards, Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation 24 GEORGE THOMAS, Senior Structural Engineer 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 Division of Engineering and External 1
Hazards, Office of Nuclear Reactor 2
Regulation 3
BRYCE LEHMAN, Structural Reviewer 4
Division of Engineering and External 5
Hazards, Office of Nuclear Reactor 6
Regulation 7
JUSTIN POOLE, Seabrook Project Manager 8
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 9
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 10 MATT YOUNG, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Region I 11 ROBERT CARPENTER, Attorney 12 Security and Enforcement Division, 13 Office of General Counsel 14 15 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 16 JAMES KIM, Project Manager 17 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 18 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 19 PERRY BUCKBERG, Senior Project Manager 20 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 21 JAMIE HEISSERER, Deputy Director 22 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 24 DAVE WRONA, Branch Chief 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
ED MILLER, Project Manager 3
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 4
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 5
6 ALSO PRESENT 7
SARAH ABRAMSON, C-10 8
NINA BABIARZ, Public Watchdogs 9
DOUG BOGEN, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 10 ANGEL KAIFER, C-10 11 CHARLES LANGLEY, Public Watchdogs 12 DAVID LOCHBAUM, C-10 13 PAIGE RODRIGUES, Office of Senator Markey 14 PATRICIA SKIBBEE, C-10 15 THOMAS SZABO, C-10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S 1:30 p.m.
MR. KIM: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank everybody for attending this meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to provide the Petitioner, C-10 Research and Education Foundation, or C-10, an opportunity to address the Petition Review Board, or PRB, regarding their petition requesting enforcement action against NextEra Energy, related to alkali-silica reaction, or ASR, at the Seabrook Station.
My name is James Kim, and I'm a project manager in the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'm also the petition manager for this petition and a member of the NRC's 2.206 petition core team.
The PRB usually consists of the chairman, usually NRC manager at the Senior Executive Service level, the petition manager, and an office or agency Petition Coordinator.
Other members of the Board are determined by the NRC staff, based on the content of the information in the petition request. The chairman is Michele Sampson, deputy director of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 Division of Engineering and External Hazards in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In accordance with NRC Directive Handbook 3.5 and Section III.F of the NRC Directive Handbook 8.11, the purpose of this meeting is for NRC 5
staff to meet directly with the petitioner, so 6
7 petitioner, may clarify or supplement the petition, based on the results of the PRB's initial assessment.
8 The public is invited to observe this 9
meeting, and will have an opportunity to provide 10 feedback on the 2.206 review process.
11 There are 3 categories of NRC public 12 meetings. The more detailed information on these 13 on the NRC public website 14 meetings can be found www.nrc.gov.
15 In the public meeting there will be no 16 safeguards, nor official use only information 17 discussed.
18 As part of PRB's original petition, C-10 19 has requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
20 The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and end 21 at 2:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
22 After introductory remarks, C-10 will 23 address the Board, followed by a brief question and 24 answer phase.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 The meeting is being transcribed by a 1
court reporter. The transcript will become a 2
supplement to the petition. The transcript will also 3
be made publicly available.
4 Is the court reporter present and will 5
also be able to record the meeting?
6 COURT REPORTER: Yes.
7 MR. KIM: I confirmed early in the 8
meeting, so I'd like to open this meeting with 9
introductions. To better facilitate introductions, I 10 have a list of people for today's meeting.
11 I'll read each person's name on the list.
12 When you hear your name, please acknowledge your 13 presence and clearly state your name, your position, 14 and the office organization you work for, so we'll 15 have the information for the record.
16 Again, my name is James Kim and I'm a 17 project manager in the Division of Operating Reactor 18 Licensing, in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 19 Regulation.
20 First, I'd like to introduce PRB members.
21 Michele Sampson.
22 CHAIR SAMPSON: Hi. Thank you, James. My 23 name is Michele Sampson. I'm the deputy division 24 director for the Division of Engineering and External 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 Hazards in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
1 I'm also the PRB chair. Thank you.
2 MR. KIM: George Thomas.
3 MR. THOMAS: Yes, this is George Thomas, 4
senior structural engineer in the Division of 5
Engineering and External Hazards, NRR. I'm a member 6
of the PRB.
7 MR. KIM: Thank you. Bryce Lehman.
8 MR. LEHMAN: Good afternoon. This is 9
Bryce Lehman, I'm a structural reviewer in Division of 10 Engineering, External Hazards, and a member of the PRB 11 as well. Thank you.
12 MR. KIM: Justin Poole.
13 MR. POOLE: Hi, I'm Justin Poole. I am 14 the Seabrook project manager in the Division of DORL 15 and NRR, and I am a member of the PRB.
16 MR. KIM: Matt Young.
17 MR. YOUNG: Hey, good afternoon everybody.
18 I'm sitting in for Sarah Elkhiamy, who is on the PRB.
19 She's unavailable today, so I'm sitting in for her.
20 I am the branch chief with oversight responsibility at 21 Seabrook from Region I King of Prussia office. Thank 22 you.
23 MR. KIM: Robert Carpenter.
24 MR. CARPENTER: Hi, Robert Carpenter, in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 the Office of General
- Counsel, Security and 1
Enforcement Division, and I am actually filling in for 2
Sara Kirkwood, who is the assigned attorney for this 3
petition.
4 MR. KIM: Thank you. Next, I'd like to 5
introduce NRC participants. Perry Buckberg.
6 MR. BUCKBERG: Good afternoon. My name is 7
Perry Buckberg. I'm a senior project manager in the 8
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'm also the 9
agency 2.206 petition coordinator, and I am aiding the 10 PRB.
11 MR. KIM: Jamie Heisserer.
12 MS. HEISSERER: Hi, good afternoon. My 13 name is Jamie Heisserer. I'm the deputy division 14 director of the Division of Operating Reactor 15 Licensing in NRR.
16 MR. KIM: Next, Dave Wrona.
17 MR. WRONA: Good afternoon, I'm Dave 18 Wrona. I'm a branch chief in the Division of 19 Operating Reactor Licensing in the Office of Nuclear 20 Reactor Regulation.
22 MR. MILLER: Ed Miller, project manager in 23 Operating Reactor Licensing.
24 MR. KIM: Is there anyone else from NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 who's not been introduced? Hearing none, next, 1
petitioner C-10, Sarah Abramson.
2 MS. ABRAMSON: Hi. My name is Sarah 3
Abramson. I am the executive director of C-10 4
Research and Education Foundation, the Petitioner for 5
this 2.206 petition.
6 MR. KIM: Anyone else from C-10?
7 MS. SKIBBEE: Yep, Patricia Skibbee. I'm 8
the president of the Board of Directors of C-10.
9 MR. KIM: Who else?
10 MR. KAIFER: Yes, good afternoon. My name 11 is Angel Kaifer. I'm a member of the C-10 board and 12 adjunct professor of chemistry.
13 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum. I'm 14 on the C-10 advisory panel.
15 MR. SZABO: This is Tom Szabo. I'm also 16 a member of the C-10 board.
17 MR. KIM: Thank you.
18 MR. SZABO: And I'm also a scientist.
19 MR. BOGEN: And I'm Doug Bogen. I'm 20 director of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, based in 21 New Hampshire, and allied C-10.
22 MR. KIM: Thank you. Anyone else from 23 C-10? Next, are there any licensed staff from 24 Seabrook Station in attendance? Hearing none, there 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 are no corporate members of the public to introduce 1
themselves for this call? However, if there are any 2
members of the public on the phone that wish to do so 3
at this time, please state your name for the record.
4 MR. LANGLEY: This is Charles Langley with 5
Public Watchdogs.
6 MR. KIM: Thank you. Anyone else?
7 MS. RODRIGUES: Hi, this is Paige 8
Rodrigues with Senator Markey's office.
9 MR. KIM: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, 10 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to speak 11 clearly and loudly, to make sure that the court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
If you have something that you'd like to say, please first state your name for the record.
For those who dialed in to the meeting, please remember to mute your phones, to minimize any background noise or distractions.
If you don't have a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys star-6. To unmute, press the star-6 keys again. Thank you.
The agenda for today's meeting, after this introduction, is for the petitioner to provide new information to the PRB, for the PRB to consider the petition's acceptability for review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 After petitioner's presentation, we'll enter a brief question and answer phase. At this time, I'll turn it over to PRB Chairman Michele Sampson.
CHAIR SAMPSON: Thank you, Jim. I'd like to welcome everyone to this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by C-10.
I'd like to prepare some background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
This process permits anyone to petition the NRC, make enforcement-type actions related to NRC licensees for licensed activities.
Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued
- license, or take any appropriate enforcement action.
The NRC staff guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition request is Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
The purpose of today's meeting is to give the petitioner an opportunity to provide any relevant additional explanation in support for the petition, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 after having received the Petition Review Board's, or 1
PRB's, initial assessment.
2 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 3
an opportunity for the petitioner, members of the 4
public, to question or examine the PRB on the merits 5
or the issues presented in the petition request.
6 During the question and answer phase, the 7
NRC staff may ask clarifying questions of the 8
petitioner and the licensee, if present. The licensee 9
could also ask the PRB questions related to the issues 10 raised in the petition, and then the petitioner and 11 the licensee could ask the PRB questions related to 12 the 2.206 petition process in general.
13 This is consistent with our guidance in 14 the Management Directive 8.11. No decisions regarding 15 the merits of this petition will be made at this 16 meeting.
17 Following today's meeting, the PRB will 18 complete its internal deliberations. We will consider 19 the petitioner's statements made at today's meeting, 20 along with the original petition. The outcome of this 21 internal deliberation will be provided to the 22 petitioner in a letter.
23 I would like to take a moment to summarize 24 the scope of the petition under consideration, and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 NRC's activities to-date.
1 C-10 submitted a petition to the NRC on 2
October 4, 2022. This petition requested that the NRC 3
take enforcement action against Seabrook Station in 4
the form of a confirmatory order, or a confirmatory 5
action
- letter, related to Seabrook Station's 6
compliance with the terms and conditions of license 7
amendment number 159, dated March 11, 2019.
8 To provide some background, Management 9
Directive 8.11, which is titled, Review Process for 10 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, documents the agency's process 11 steps.
12 The PRB first evaluates petitions using 13 the Management Directive,Section III.c.1, Criteria 14 for Accepting Petitions, to assess whether or not 15 further review is warranted.
16 A
petition must provide facts not 17 previously reviewed or resolved by the NRC to 18 facilitate further review.
19 On November 17, 2022, the petition manager 20 contacted C-10 via email, to inform you of the PRB's 21 initial assessment that your petition did not meet the 22 criteria for accepting petitions.
23 The petitioner explained in the initial 24 assessment and this email, the bases provided in your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 request point to the finding, NRC-issued inspection 1
reports dating back to 2021.
2 The NRC has taken related enforcement 3
action against Seabrook to date, which is commensurate 4
with the safety significance of the conditions that 5
bar effective safety-related, concrete structures.
6 The information provided in your petition 7
came primarily from previous NRC inspection reports 8
and next year of submittals, which have already been 9
considered by NRC staff as part of our existing 10 processes.
11 Therefore, the initial assessment is that 12 the additional information contained in your petition 13 does not warrant further NRC staff review.
14 The petition manager offered you an 15 opportunity to address the PRB to clarify or 16 supplement the petition in response to this 17 assessment, and you requested to address PRB in this 18 forum.
19 As a reminder for all 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 I will now turn it over to C-10, Sarah 24 Abramson, to provide any additional information that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 you believe the PRB should consider as part of this 1
petition. Thank you.
2 MS. ABRAMSON: Well, first, please allow 3
me to thank the Performance Review Board and all of 4
the NRC staff who have been a part of looking over our 5
petition and giving it careful consideration, 6
especially to Mr. James Kim for his excellent 7
communication throughout the process and giving us 8
updates on the status of our petition.
9 And we appreciate the opportunity to 10 provide clarifying and supplemental information. We 11 have coordinated with our subject matter experts in 12 the NRC and ASR arenas, to compile some points which 13 might give you some additional thoughts to consider as 14 you review this petition.
15 To start with clarifying information, a 16 background of the ASR issue goes back to the 2009 17 discovery of ASR in the Seabrook Station power plant, 18 and the 2010 submittal of the license renewal 19 application by the licensee, which was about 20 years 20 prior to its 2030 expiration date.
21 In 2010, the NRC reported that they were 22 without a technical basis for ASR because it was so 23 novel that the research was limited, and that long-24 term studies were needed.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 In 2011, the NRC reported that industry inspections must determine the extent and weight of the ASR degradation, because it was an active, ongoing form of degradation that was not self-limiting, and would continue to fail indefinitely. So, incurable.
In 2012, ASR was identified in 131 areas in the plant. These are only the areas where the ASR is so advanced that cracks reached the surface and were able to be identifiable.
In 2014, the NRC and the National Institute of Standards in Technologies signed an interagency agreement to study ASR structural performance on power plants.
And then, in 2018, C-10's perception that the license renewal as it was approved by the NRC, did not have strict enough guidelines to handle the dangers of the ASR issue, and in 2019 there was a ruling from the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, ASLB, that did impose some stricter restrictions than were originally approved.
Notably, what was included, and I'm quoting the ASLB representatives that ruled on that --
Ronald
- Spritzer, Chairman Nicholas Trikouros, Dr. Sekazi Mtingwa, this is in the docket dated August 21, 2020, page 140 -- that NextEra must be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capable of filling their intended functions.
The structures that have ASR must be proven with a reasonable assurance that they can continue to perform their intended functions.
So, with that in mind, we are focusing this petition really trying to realize two possible outcomes. We would ask that at least one of them be brought to fruition through this process.
One, if our petition is denied on the basis of not providing additional information to the NRC that it's not already aware of, then I ask if this is an opportunity for C-10 and/or ASR experts, whether they be ones that we are in relationship with, or ones that the NRC gathers on their own, to gain entry into the plant and do a new independent assessment similar to what was done initially, to really establish where all of the ASR is occurring, and to the totality of all structures that are affected.
How else can we get additional information that the NRC doesn't know, without having access to things beyond the NRC's quarterly inspection reports and other materials.
We also do not have visibility to see where violations go once they are published in the inspection reports. They are moved to the corrective NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 action list, which C-10 and the public is not allowed 1
to have access to.
2 It is on the corrective action list that 3
items like the ASR-related violations that have been 4
issued in the past year, what their status is and how 5
long they have been languishing, or how quickly they 6
were resolved.
7 This gives us a lack of ability to hold 8
accountable the licensee to those stricter license 9
amendments which were fought for and awarded, or 10 (2) if C-10 and the public is not allowed to gain 11 access to the plant, or scientists with ASR experience 12 are not allowed access to the plant, could we at least 13 be provided the quantitative and qualitative data, the 14 measurements of the ASR progression, in one or all 15 structures, so that independent analysis and 16 calculations can be done as to what the actual 17 severity is, and what the risks, the structure's 18 operability, is?
19 C-10 offered to withdraw the petition --
20 it was included in our petition -- as an opportunity 21 to make it more streamlined for the NRC to choose to 22 electively investigate the assertions that we made 23 and, if appropriate, issue a confirmatory order or 24 confirmatory letter, or behind the scenes work with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 the Atomic Committee on Reactor Safeguards, to put something more robust in place that accomplishes the safety goal in regards to tracking this ASR issue.
So, the tasks that need to be addressed is likely much more than just, for example, the missing extensometers that were not installed by the licensee, which were one of the violations that occurred in the last year, and that through a thorough investigation focused on ASR, or logically and ideally with at least one outside ASR expert
- included, would we have meaningful progress towards compliance?
The standard for regulation across most federal agencies, is that the best available control technology be used to mitigate public safety and health risks, as we are an industrialized society.
Does the NRC feel that their regulation enforcement on ASR fits well within that ethos? As everyone well knows, innovation is constant, and so we hope that the Performance Review Board takes this moment as an opportunity to accept our petition to at least move into the next phase of performing a full investigation of ASR issues prescribed, and real review of if the technologies that are currently being used are satisfactory.
24 In the absence of the acceptance of our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 petition or an investigation, if C-10 or concerned ASR scientists really were given access to that quantitative and qualitative ASR-progressive data in one or more structures, we could provide examples, models, proofs of concept, of some of the more current technologies that are available.
There are 3D imaging softwares that can show a modeling of the cracking that is occurring inside the structure, which could lend a lot more information into what the integrity of the structure is and its operability.
The data is already being collected. It's already being stored. The costs of adding a single ASR expert contractor, or even just letting a non-profit have access and do it for free, is not an unreasonable or undue burden on the licensee.
What we want to pursue here is an investigation into the actual current state of ASR at the plant. How well-resourced are the NRC and plant to handle these specific license requirements related to ASR, what would it take to get an update on what actual number of areas are affected by the ASR concrete damage?
Undoubtedly, every rational person here can assume that the ASR will be found in many more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 areas if a concerted effort was launched to truly learn at the full extent, and if the NRC found it prudent to require a list of measurement and mitigation measures once ASR is identified, which is exactly what the ASLB did.
They agreed that ASR is a very serious issue. It causes stress on the structures that poses a serious operability and safety risk, and that's why these license amendments were awarded.
So, if we all agree that ASR is dangerous and these things are needed when we find ASR, then we should all make the logical, easy jump to, we want to know every single place that has ASR, and if a licensee isn't even able to install seven out of 54 required extensometers, how much faith can we have that they actually are looking for ASR in everyday operations?
Supplemental information, the other piece that was offered to be presented here by us as the petitioner.
In the time since our October 4th submittal of this
- petition, the third-quarter integrated inspection report was published. And included in that report was a green, non-cited violation for failure of proper compensatory fire NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 patrol measures.
That same exact violation was published less than a year prior, in the quarter four report for 2021 for a different area of the plant.
Holistically, this speaks to resource issues at the plant, which are well-documented. We have already seen in previous documentations a mass resignation of seasoned employees at the plant, decreasing the staff members inexperience, and diluting even further the little ASR knowledge that had been earned so far.
To this day, the licensee nor the NRC has contracted an independent ASR-scientific expert to collaborate on compliance measures, to our knowledge.
A team of PhD structural engineer students, we understand, were hired by the licensee to design the buttresses and other corrective actions to support tier-three structures that were facing the worst of the ASR damage, and those structures were nearing their operability thresholds. This does not seem to us like a reasonable attempt at hiring an expert.
We are aware that the licensee is hiring an independent audit company to help with compliance.
This, too, warranted the logical and attainable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 additional alternative solution of hiring one or more ASR experts to oversee compliance, including the soundness of the methodology used to take the qualitative and quantitative measures, and also the competency to project trends of how far the ASR will progress by the next inspection interval.
As you know, that was another violation that was cited in the last year. The licensee failed to properly project those trends.
Also included in the third-quarter report for this year was an observation that an area in the cooling tower was identified as having ASR that, once measured, was near the allowable threshold. It is our understanding that the inspectors identified this area.
Why, how, could this have been missed by plant staff.
Even in this incredibly humid environment and moisture is one of the primary drivers of ASR progression, we are deeply concerned about the rate of progression even beyond where it already sits, which is near the threshold.
Our specific concerns and questions about this new finding are forthcoming and will be submitted, perhaps in a new petition or a new line of questioning with other NRC folks, but if we are able NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 to compel the Performance Review Board to accept our petition, perhaps logically these findings would be included in the investigation as you're considering what, if any, corrective action to take.
When ASR is being tracked consistently in the structures that are already identified, the findings are worse than expected, worse than we projected when we fought for these stricter requirements in 2019.
The license requirements are not nimble enough, and even if fully complied with -- which they are not, prompting this petition -- they're not sufficient.
Then, we are adding in the fact that the ASR requirements are repeatedly neglected, either, or in combination, of incompetence, lack of resources and staff by the plant, or willful negligence, so that we can perhaps not know the full totality of the ASR in the plant.
The NRC, as stated by the inspectors themselves, have been doing their best with the resources available to them, and we do believe that to be true, as evidenced by this finding in the cooling tower. They're finding it when they can, where they can.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 They are a few bodies in a plant with hundreds of employees. It is a little surprising that the employees are not finding the ASR at a more regular basis on their own.
The reliance on the use of the typical inspection in regard to sampling technique, inspectors don't look at everything every time. They can't.
It's impossible. And the sampling technique has worked historically for most functions in a nuclear power plant.
But with ASR, it's different. You need to know every single place where it's happening, and you need to know exactly how bad it is in every single one of those places.
Having an entire area neglected, or seven areas, like where missing extensometers were not installed, is a hallmark of what we fear isn't being properly completed.
A particularly critical area is a cooling tower. We'd spoke with inspectors just yesterday.
When they look at corrective action list items that are for a valve or something related to a cooling tower, it immediately gets heightened in that performance operability determination.
24 In some of the cooling towers, they say, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 well, the cracks are moving slowly itself, we'll keep an eye on it. That doesn't seem like the right path for escalation. There should probably be some different structures by which we assess and implement mitigation measures, or alarm measures, for ASR.
C-10 is trying all avenues to get the ASR issue the attention it deserves. We requested and were granted a meeting with the Atomic Committee on Reactor Safeguards, ACRS, in April of 2022, that was attended by C-10 members.
We brought an outside ASR
- expert, Dr. Saouma, who participated in the license amendment legal challenge in 2019. Various NRC participants, and also legislative aides from various legislature's offices.
This meeting was focused on this ASR issue, and it aimed to compel the ACRS to create more stringent guidelines for many of the reasons that I stated. But many great points were brought up in that meeting that I didn't bring up here, as it didn't relate directly to our petition.
But some of the points did relate directly to our petition, and so I will introduce them here as supplemental.
24 In June, we submitted these questions, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 following that April meeting. It took until a couple of weeks ago for us to receive a reply, a confirmed receipt reply, and a we're-looking-into-it.
So, as far as I know, nobody on -- maybe some, but not all, on the Performance Review Board have seen some of these points.
NextEra's Integrating Department Standard 3618, the Structures Monitoring Program, was hidden here and some of the plants that we made were focused directly on the corrective action program that was designed and implemented by the structural engineers that were hired by the licensee, NextEra, who the structural engineers, we were told at the annual public meeting in May of this year -- the NRC inspectors who worked closely with the structural engineering team -- confirmed that nobody on that team had ASR experience.
They studied, learned, tried to implement ASR as a part of being on this team, but did not have any expertise walking into it.
So, some of the questions we had:
wouldn't it be more appropriate to label this a temporary corrective action?
I know that corrective action is a term that's been used in the NRC for other things -- a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 valve fails or a pipe leaks -- you're able to replace the part, you're able to put on a patch. That's a permanent fix. You can call that a corrective action because it is corrected.
There's nothing that anybody can do that will correct ASR. The concrete will continue to degrade and it will not be fixed by a buttress or any other structural support.
This is another example of how ASR is novel and unique, and needs novel and unique reforms.
Another question was, what kind of analysis was performed prior to installing the bolts and braces, and was it performed by an ASR expert?
We're taking bolts that are very long and screwing them into concrete that had cracks in them.
Again, we want to know the level of expertise and the competency on the part of the licensee to handle these very serious tasks.
One main concerns that by constraining the expansion along one direction, you are simply reorienting it. So, just providing support in one area, the cracks are going to continue. The force of the ASR expansion is going to continue. They're just going to send that force in a different direction.
24 So, the structure may not be weak in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 direction that you're focusing, but it would be weak in another.
Could there be a point where too many of these patches becomes alarming or ineffective? It could have so many corrective action buttresses in a single severely progressed ASR area. How are you quantifying if too much interference with the natural state of the concrete is actually a detriment?
Another point was that mention has been made publicly that the advanced finite analysis is being performed by very smart PhD structural engineers.
That was in a transcript. We wanted to know more information about those folks -- ASR, our expert expresses -- and he says, ASR modeling is quite complex and well-understood by only a
handful of people in the world.
He noted that, because he's in that field, no researcher has been using ASR as a thermal expansion model for over fifteen years, which shows maybe again that that lack of being tuned in to the innovation and the best available technologies.
What is the experience, what is the peer-reviewed literature, by those smart people that have been tasked with this very important task.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For a finite element code to make a reliable prediction, which is the process by which this team was coming up with the corrective action program, it must first be validated against benchmark problems. Had that been done?
The code, is it using the most widely-accepted engineering software, which is ANSYS right now? Has that program software actually been validated for ASR?
We weren't able to find any public information that it's an appropriate tool, what we believe the tools being used that is appropriate, or even accepted for ASR modeling, although there are suggestions they are.
And then, would NextEra agree to perform a validation of those studies by analyzing and reporting ten of the problems that they approached, and making it public so that it can be peer-reviewed.
This is basic scientific process. This is the process by which we do almost all of our innovation, and we would expect it to be done here as well.
All of this that our experts and our team have written are poignant questions, and they're immediately thought up by an ASR expert.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 This is months spent by a team that might 1
not have thought of this because, again, they just are 2
learning about ASR through the lens of the Seabrook 3
Station and don't have a breadth of knowledge on the 4
topic.
5 If there were prompts to complete these 6
inquiries, perhaps we could have done some qualitative 7
and quantitative analyses and modeling to present as 8
an addendum to our petition, and that would have met 9
that new information threshold, but without having 10 transparency, we can't possibly provide you anything 11 new, except for what I've presented here today.
12 So, with the arguments and the information 13 that I've presented, we hope that you are compelled to 14 either accept the petition, or in some other avenues 15 within the NRC, perform some more investigative 16 research into the handling of ASR at Seabrook Station.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. LOCHBAUM: Would it be okay for me to 19 supplement Sarah's remarks? This is Dave Lochbaum on 20 the C-10 advisory board.
21 MR. BUCKBERG: It would be if Sarah 22 prefers that mode.
23 MS. ABRAMSON: Yes, Dave. Please do.
24 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thanks. Again, this is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 Dave Lochbaum on the C-10 advisory board. Had the NRC 1
inspected all ASR requirement areas, we wouldn't have 2
needed the petition.
3 But the NRC inspected a sampling, as 4
Sarah's indicated, of the ASR requirements, and found 5
some non-compliances.
6 What the petition sought to do was 7
determine what problems exist in the non-inspected 8
areas. If the NRC has inspected only five percent of 9
the ASR requirements, that would suggest that there 10 are nineteen times as many problems in the non-11 inspected areas.
12 If the NRC had inspected 25 percent of the 13 ASR requirements, that would suggest that there could 14 be as many as three times as many problems in the non-15 inspected areas.
16 The NRC doesn't even know if its findings 17 are the worst or bounding non-compliances. There's 18 some. There's no indication of what's left on the 19 rest of the area.
20 And the new thing the C-10 sought to 21 achieve was better awareness of the non-inspected 22 areas, so there'll be less guesswork or luck relying 23 and protecting the public. There'll be more 24 certainty, there'll be more knowledge, there'll be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 more skill. And that's what the C-10 petition seeks 1
to do. That would be a good outcome for everybody, 2
even NextEra, as Crystal River showed when they went 3
to the lowest bidder for concrete repairs. See how 4
that worked out for them. Thank you.
5 MR. KIM: Okay, thank you for your 6
presentation, Ms. Abramson, and thanks again for 7
taking time to provide the NRC staff with clarifying 8
information on this petition you submitted.
9 As stated at the beginning, we enter now 10 into the question and answer phase of the meeting. At 11 this time, does the PRB have any questions for the 12 petitioner?
13 If not, how about the licensee have any 14 questions for the PRB related to the issues raised in 15 this petition?
16 Does the petitioner or licensee have any 17 questions about 2.206 petition process?
18 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum.
19 Could I ask a question about the 2.206 process?
20 MR. KIM: Go ahead, yes.
21 MR. LOCHBAUM: During the introductions, 22 there were at least two substitutions of NRC staff 23 persons on the PRB. Who will participate in the final 24 decision-making? Will it be the replacements or the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
34 original person? I'm a little confused. I've never 1
experienced substitutions like that before?
2 MR. BUCKBERG: Jim, would you like to?
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KIM: Yeah. One of the PRB member, she was not able to attend the meeting. So, her branch chief substituted for the absent PRB member, who's aware of these ASR issues.
CHAIR SAMPSON: So, these were last-minute, unexpected substitutions. We do have a court reporter, and so we will have a full transcript of the meeting available. And we will ensure that the full PRB has the full record before the process is finalized.
MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum. I appreciate that. That answers my question. And I understand the process better now, so I appreciate that.
MR. CARPENTER: Dave, this is Robert Carpenter, Office of the General Counsel. I'll add that the attorney that has been covering this petition is actually out sick. But she and I are in the same division. We work closely together, and we'll discuss the meeting and we'll discuss the issues of the petition prior to any decision being made, and we'll likely make those decisions together.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
35 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thanks. This again is Dave 1
Lochbaum. I appreciate that. I wasn't implying that 2
the process was improper. I just wanted to understand 3
it better and now I do. So, thank you.
4 MR. YOUNG: Yeah, Dave, I'll echo that 5
same thing. The other Petition Review Board works for 6
me and she'll review the transcripts prior to any 7
decision being made.
8 MR. KIM: Well, if we've already concluded 9
the meeting at this time, when does the public need 10 provide feedback regarding 2.206 process?
11 MR. SZABO: Excuse me. This is Thomas 12 Szabo. I wondered if I could ask a question.
13 MR. KIM: Sure.
14 MR. SZABO: The findings of the NRC were 15 that the intended safety function was met. And I 16 wondered what was the reasoning or criteria used to 17 attain that solution or conclusion?
18 So, in other words, despite the fact that 19 ASR was discovered and violations were found, the 20 overall conclusion was that the plant was meeting its 21 intended safety function. Could you clarify, please?
22 CHAIR SAMPSON: So, your question really 23 goes to the technical aspects of our inspection 24 process and how we disposition inspection findings.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
36 That's not a topic that we would specifically cover in 1
today's meeting.
2 But our significance determination process 3
and the overall process for NRC's inspection and 4
oversight program is publicly available on our website 5
and we have that information available.
6 But it's not a detailed area that we would 7
address at today's meeting. The purpose is to receive 8
additional information from the petitioner about the 9
petition review process. So, we wouldn't address that 10 specific question today.
11 MR. SZABO: Thank you.
12 MS. SKIBBEE: I have a question. Pat 13 Skibbee, 10-C board. Somebody say it's okay to ask a 14 question.
15 CHAIR SAMPSON: Yes.
16 (Simultaneous speaking.)
17 MR. BUCKBERG: If it's on the 2.206 18 process, that'd be great.
19 MS. SKIBBEE: Oh, sure. Yeah.
20 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you.
21 MS. SKIBBEE: I think it's sort of a two-22 part question. That criterion, that in order for the 23 Board to accept a 2.206 petition, that petitioners 24 have to show or submit information that the Board 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 doesn't already have and it has not been shown in the NRC inspection reports.
And so, my question is, how is that possible? How and where would a petitioner obtain such information?
And the second part of that question is, where in the PRB regulations is that criterion cited?
MR. BUCKBERG: If I might respond, the first part of your question, how might a member of the public or similar entity come up with information like that, it could be a fairly high bar.
We believe that we have a thorough knowledge of each power plant. We have resident inspectors and staff inspecting otherwise, and it takes some effort. I can't really describe what it might take but it's a high bar and we keep the process working.
We keep it current because of the outside chance, the small chance, that there might be a safety significant finding we're not aware of. That a licensee is not aware of. And it's a method to have it brought to our attention. That's what the process is for. But you're right, a lot of petitions are based on NRC information, NRC document information, and that information we already have and we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
38 considered.
1 There might be something compelling in 2
this petition, or based on the clarifying information 3
we've received today and that has the PRB reconsider.
4 That's always a possibility. But your first point is 5
good. It's not an easy task for a member of the 6
public. Remind me the second part of the question.
7 MS. SKIBBEE: Where is the criterion cited 8
in the PRB regulations?
9 MR. BUCKBERG: The regulations itself --
10 by the way, this is Perry Buckberg, I didn't state my 11 name before for the court reporter -- the regulation, 12 10 CFR 2.206, is three paragraphs long. It just gives 13 the general description about a member of the public 14 submitting a request for enforcement action.
15 The detailed processes are in our 16 Management Directive 8.11, which is available through 17 the website. And the acceptance criteria for 18 petitions are spelled out in that directive.
19 MS. SKIBBEE: In 8.11?
20 MR. BUCKBERG: 8.11.
21 MS. SKIBBEE: And that's a PRB website?
22 Or is it an NRC website?
23 MR. BUCKBERG: It's available through the 24 NRC website. The PRB itself is a subset of that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
39 process. You can email me. I can send you a link, 1
provide you the ADAMS number, if that would help you.
2 MS. SKIBBEE: Oh, that'd be great. Yeah.
3 How do we do that?
4 MR. BUCKBERG: Do what, the ADAMS?
5 MS. SKIBBEE: No, I know how to do ADAMS.
6 I mean, how would you email me?
7 MR. BUCKBERG: I don't know. That's why 8
I said I could provide you the ADAMS number.
9 MR. CARPENTER: Hey, Perry?
10 MR. BUCKBERG: Yes, Rob.
11 MR. CARPENTER: This is Rob Carpenter, OGC 12 again. Also, if you just Google NRC management 13 directives, you will get a list and you can easily 14 just click on 8.11 and get the full text of the 15 management directive. That's the easiest way to find 16 it.
17 MR. LEHMAN: Yeah, this is Bryce Lehman.
18 I put the ML in the chat, but Google's probably 19 actually easier.
20 MS. SKIBBEE: Okay. So, how come I can't 21 access the chat? I'm not seeing any chat down there.
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MR. LEHMAN: Yeah, sorry. It might not go 24 to everybody.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
40 MR. BUCKBERG: I was concerned about that.
1 So, let me read it off. The ADAMS number is ML -- let 2
me focus here. Bear with me for just a moment.
4 MS. SKIBBEE: Okay, thank you very much.
5 Can I have one very last question? And this is really 6
a question from such a position of ignorance. What 7
does ML stand for?
8 MR. BUCKBERG: That's -- I'm with you.
9 MR. LEHMAN: Main library.
10 MR. MILLER: Perry, I can take that one if 11 you want. So, when we talk about ADAMS, that's the 12 Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System.
13 Within that system, there's a number of different 14 libraries.
15 The one that is most often used is the 16 main library, and that's what ML stands for.
17 MS. SKIBBEE: Okay, thank you. That makes 18 perfect sense.
19 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks, Mr. Miller. I'm 20 going to write that one down myself. But numbers are 21 in chronological order, more or less. The first two 22 number after the ML are the year, and every docketed 23 document has its own independent number.
24 MS. SKIBBEE: All right. Thank you very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
41 much.
1 MR. BUCKBERG: Of course. Thank you.
2 MS. ABRAMSON: This is Sarah Abramson from 3
C-10, and I had another question on the process a bit 4
and that criterion that we just discussed of having to 5
provide new information.
6 To echo a little bit what Dave Lochbaum 7
was saying, would you consider ample evidence that 8
there is critical information that you do not know?
9 Is that compelling? Does that qualify as meeting your 10 criterion? Or would we have to go fetch that 11 information? I think involve us trying to get 12 permission from the licensee to find the ASR in their 13 plant.
14 MR. BUCKBERG: It would be, process-wise, 15 if you make enough of a case that we're missing 16 something here, without presenting what exactly we're 17 missing, it could compel a PRB to take a further look 18 to accept the petition.
19 It may not be a matter of accepting the 20 petition, but it can compel the NRC staff to take a 21 look. It could lead to further review, work analysis, 22 whatever could come of it.
23 So, anything you can provide specific-wise 24 is most helpful. But if there is enough of a question 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
42 raised, the NRC will respond accordingly.
1 MS. ABRAMSON: Okay. But I guess I'll 2
say, the probably single-most thing that spoke to that 3
particular point was that discovery of that new fully 4
progressed ASR in the cooling towers.
5 It's an indication that there are ASR 6
areas that are going to be newly discovered every time 7
you look, that are fully progressing, they've been 8
there for a long time, and so we could have found them 9
but didn't because the processes are weak currently.
10 And so, I guess I've leave it with that.
11 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Let me make one 12 point regarding the acceptance criteria. There's 13 about one page of acceptance criteria information.
14 Not having new information is one small part of it.
15 There are several categories. So, in the management 16 directive it's pretty descriptive.
17 MS. ABRAMSON: Okay, I'll read it again.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is Dave Lochbaum 20 again. Process-wise, the NRC isn't able to impose new 21 requirements on licensees that aren't in the 22 regulations. Why does the NRC feel it's fair to 23 impose new requirements on the public that it doesn't 24 define in its regulations? He wanted to impose this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
43 new information requirement. Why didn't you go 1
through a rulemaking process, like you do when the 2
licensees are involved? Why did you use an extra 3
legal process to deny public petitions? That was a 4
rhetorical question, apparently.
5 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you.
6 MR. KAIFER: My name is Angel Kaifer. I'm 7
a member of the board of C-10, and I'm also a resident 8
of Hampton, which, as you know, probably is adjacent 9
to Seabrook. So, my house is just a few miles away 10 from the Seabrook power plant.
11 And I have to say that, listening to this 12 conversation and relatively new to the C-10 board and 13 relatively new to the area of New Hampshire, where the 14 plant is, I don't feel very reassured that the 15 processes that are in place to protect the public 16 around the plant.
17 I may sound very harsh and I'm sorry about 18 that. I'm not trying to be. But there seems to be 19 some requirements from C-10 to petition the NRC to 20 consider a situation in the plant that is concerning, 21 because it's very well known that there's ASR in the 22 plant and this is -- I'm going to give you a situation 23 for the concreting in the plant and the containment 24 structures in the plant. And what I gather from this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
44 conversation -- and again, I'm very sorry to say 1
this -- is that I'm not very reassured that we are 2
very well protected around the power plant.
3 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be critical, 4
but that's the impression that I'm getting from this, 5
my first meeting of this type.
6 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you.
7 MS. ABRAMSON: This is Sarah Abramson 8
again with C-10. And, Perry, I just wanted to 9
clarify, I think the reason why myself and other C-10 10 representatives are closing in on that criterion is 11 because that was the only criterion that was specified 12 in our letter of denial as the reason for denying our 13 petition. And so, I just wanted to clarify that 14 point.
15 And also highlight that whether it was a 16 result of our meeting with the ACRS or our petition 17 process, and I do understand that there isn't ASR-18 specific inspection planned for early-2023, I would 19 hope that before that that is planned and executed, 20 perhaps all the NRC folks who are attending here, 21 whether it be to the PRB or some other avenue, that 22 this is taken into careful consideration about what 23 exactly that inspection looks like, because it seems 24 like it's extracurricular to the license requirements.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
45 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks, Sarah.
1 MR. KIM: Any other questions or comments?
2 MS. BABIARZ: Yes. Yes, this is Nina 3
Babiarz out in San Diego with Public Watchdogs. And 4
of course, we've submitted 2.206 to the NRC and it 5
appears that everybody that's representing the NRC 6
here this morning -- because it's still morning in San 7
Diego -- is intimately familiar with the 2.206 8
process.
9 So, I'd just like to pose the question, 10 with regard to the 2.206 process -- I'm sure somebody 11 here must know of the history -- how many 2.206 12 submissions have actually been accepted in the history 13 of the process by the NRC? And I'm sure there's 14 somebody here that could speak to the accuracy, or 15 lack thereof, in answering that question. Thank you.
16 MR. BUCKBERG: There have been dozens --
17 there's been hundreds of 2.206 petitions submitted to 18 the NRC. And without precise numbers, dozens have 19 been accepted for further review, leading to the 20 director's decision -- we refer to it as the full-21 blown process -- where new research, new analysis, is 22 undertaken by the NRC based on the contents of the 23 petition.
24 That's a process that takes upwards of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 nine months, though it can take longer sometimes.
It's happened very infrequently lately. Not very much ---
MS.
BABIARZ:
I'm sure you must be familiar with what the percentages. And then, I guess, a follow-on question would be, as we've never been able to get an answer to in the responses we've received to our 2.206 filing, according to your criteria, the ability for the NRC to define their response, quote unquote, non-credible.
The NRC appears to be unable to define a term that they're using to deny the acceptance of a 2.206. Would somebody from the NRC be familiar with the terminology that the NRC is using to deny 2.206, that it's non-credible?
And we've spent several years trying to get the NRC to define the terminology that you're using to deny us. That would be quite helpful.
MR. BUCKBERG: Regarding the first part of your question, percentages, since 2000 approximately a third of the petitions that were submitted were accepted for further review, albeit most of these were between 2000 and 2015, our new process -- the new management directive issued in 2019, did provide another bar for petitioners to meet basically, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
47 before it's accepted for PRB review.
1 So, it's been about a third since 2000.
2 The process itself goes back much further, before my 3
time, and for 9/11, for TMI, for other issues, there 4
was a process in place but the records are pretty hard 5
to get a hold of. I don't have data on that, so I 6
focused on 2004. And if that's helpful.
7 But each petition is looked at by NRC 8
staff. There's many in the meeting right now. And 9
all of the merits are considered.
10 Regarding your second question, I really 11 can't answer that in this forum. We believe that 12 previous petitions have been adjudicated based on 13 their merits, and including the Public Watchdog's 14 petitions. Thanks.
15 MS. BABIARZ: That wasn't actually my 16 question. I'm just asking for a definition of a 17 terminology that NRC consistently uses -- that is, 18 non-credible -- and you've been unable to define the 19 terminology that you're using. I'm just asking if 20 somebody here at the NRC could define the terminology 21 that you're using as non-credible. Thank you.
22 CHAIR SAMPSON: Yeah, I can address that 23 point. I would note that the purpose of today's 24 meeting is related to the C-10 petition for (audio 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
48 interference) that the committee has reviewed.
1 Information is available on the public website.
2 And the staff's assessment and basis for 3
decisions should be documented in the closure for the 4
petition, which is available from the public website.
5 So, I don't see that there would be 6
benefit from us trying to define a term related to 7
petitions that are not the subject of today's meeting.
8 MS. BABIARZ: And thank you, Ms. Sampson.
9 That answers and validates my question that the NRC 10 can't define the terminology by which it is denying 11 those six petitions. Thank you.
12 CHAIR SAMPSON: So, to restate, our basis 13 for denial should be documented for each petition.
14 So, there should be --
15 MS. BABIARZ: It is. And that's why I'm 16 asking if someone from the NRC can define the 17 terminology that's being used. I would think that 18 would be a simple definition, not an opinion.
19 MS. ABRAMSON: Sarah Abramson from C-10.
20 I have two more things if we have time. One, I want 21 to clarify, I don't think the term non-credible is 22 used for our petition, so I just wanted to put that on 23 the record for the transcript.
24 And also, that we did cite precedent 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
49 examples of actions that were taken in what we believe 1
are analogous situations in terms of the level of 2
negligence or non-compliance.
3 You noted that those were through the ROP 4
process and not through the petition process. And so, 5
do you feel that a denial of the petition would 6
preclude us from using another avenue, like the ROP?
7 Would that be the dominant end?
8 CHAIR SAMPSON: So, I'm not positive this 9
is exactly an answer to your question. But the 10 decisions made through the 2.206 process relate only 11 to the 2.206 process. Any other processes available 12 to the public are available to you.
13 You certainly can pursue any and all 14 agency processes. We welcome that input. The current 15 oversight program for Seabrook is through our reactor 16 oversight process, the ROP. And that is where the 17 findings that you cited were identified.
18 MS. ABRAMSON: I thank you.
19 CHAIR SAMPSON: I would like to just thank 20 everyone for their participation in today's meeting 21 and the thoughtful discussion provided.
22 And, Jim, I think if you have any closing 23 remarks, I think we're at time.
24 MR. KIM: Okay, before we close, does the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
50 court reporter need any additional information for the 1
meeting transcript?
2 COURT REPORTER: No, thank you.
3 MR. KIM: With that, the meeting is 4
concluded and we terminate the meeting connections.
5 Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7
off the record at 2:34 p.m.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com