ML25339A142

Pre-decisional Enforcement Conference (Pec) Public Meeting on September 3, 2025 Official Transcript

ML25339A142
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/03/2025
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
NRC-0453
Download: ML25339A142 (0)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Public Pre-Decisional Enforcement Conference with Holtec International Location:

teleconference Date:

Wednesday, September 3, 2025 Work Order No.:

NRC-0453 Pages 1-111 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433

1 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+ + + + +

PUBLIC PRE-DECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

+ + + + +

The meeting was convened via Videoconference, at 9:00 a.m. EDT, Brett Klukan, Facilitator, presiding.

NRC PRESENT:

BRETT KLUKAN, Facilitator MICHELE BURGESS, Enforcement Coordinator, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Division of Fuel Management (DFM)

MARLONE DAVIS, Senior Transportation Storage and Safety Inspector GEROND GEORGE, Branch Chief, NMSS, DFM SHANA HELTON, Director, NMSS, DFM SHANNON ROGERS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel TOMEKA TERRY, Project Manager, NMSS, DFM

2 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 ALSO PRESENT:

CHUCK BULLARD, Vice President, Engineering Mechanics, Holtec JEAN FLEMING, Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Holtec KIMBERLY MANZIONE, Director of Licensing, Holtec ABRAR MOHAMMED, Director of Engineering, Holtec

3 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 CONTENTS Introduction/Opening Remarks.......................4 Overview of NRC's Enforcement Process..............6 Preliminary Inspection Findings...................23 Presentation......................................30 Break for NRC and Holtec to Caucus................74 Questions and Answers.............................75 Closing Remarks...................................94 Public Comments...................................96 Adjourn..........................................111

4 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 9:00 a.m.

MS. TERRY: Good morning, everyone.

Hope everybody's having a good morning.

So, this morning, today is Wednesday, September the 3rd. We'd like to welcome you today to the regulatory conference, both in office participants and virtual attendants, for Holtec International.

My name is Tomeka Terry, and I am the Project Manager over the regulatory conference.

Please allow me a moment to quickly go through some of the meeting logistics.

Next page? Today's conference is a hybrid meeting and being held at NRC Headquarters office as well as Microsoft Teams.

Attending, as many elected to join this meeting, also on telephone bridge line to hear a social audio from the presenters.

Our visitors, in case of emergency, please follow directions of NRC staff for exit and safety precautions.

All observers not participating in the conference will be placed on mute.

5 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 I ask everyone in the room, please silence your cell phones during this regulatory conference.

For anyone on the Teams or the bridge line, we ask you to please also mute any background noises, including your computer speakers and your cell phone.

In addition to NRC in -- interest in the feedback from the participants or observers about how we conduct meetings.

Any person listening on teleconference bridge line, you would like to provide your feedback to NRC on this meeting may obtain a feedback form by downloading on the forms in ADAMS, ML011160173.

Again, I'll repeat it again, ML011160173. This form is also available at the public meeting notice at NRC website page, nrc.gov.

Next slide, please? The public is invited to observe this meeting and will have the opportunity to communicate with NRC at the business portion but the meeting -- before the meeting is adjourned.

When we reach our portion of the meeting, we will give you instructions on how to mute and

6 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 unmute to ask questions on the phone line.

Reminder of all conference participants, please state your name, affiliation, and clearly wherever you're speaking from -- the benefit of all participants for awareness of the public attendance.

Next slide? I would like to go quickly through today's agenda. Today, we'll begin with opening remarks and introduction from NRC and Holtec.

Then NRC will provide a short overview of the enforcement process. NRC will then provide a summary of the apparent violations.

NRC will then turn the meeting over to Holtec to provide their presentation. That can include any clarification, discussion between NRC and Holtec.

NRC will then break for a short internal caucus, then return with any follow-up questions or clarifications. We will turn to close remarks from both Holtec and NRC.

Then NRC will close the conference part of the meeting. At that point, NRC will open the meeting for any questions that the public may have for NRC, then adjourn the meeting.

At this time, I will turn it over to our

7 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 Division Director of Fuel Cycle, Shana Helton, for opening remarks and introduction.

MS. HELTON: All right, thank you, Tomeka, for walking through our agenda for today.

Good morning. As Tomeka said, I'm Shana Helton. I'm the Director for the Division of Fuel Management at the NRC, and I appreciate everybody being here today to have this important discussion.

A regulatory conference is being conducted between NRC and Holtec International concerning potential violations of 10 CFR 72.48, 72.146, and 72.172, following an onsite inspection held at Holtec corporate offices in Camden, New Jersey on October 21st through 25th in 2024.

The inspection assessed the adequacy of Holtec's design activities for spent fuel storage casks to the applicable requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or 10 CFR, Part 72, which are the licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high level radioactive waste, and reactor-related greater-than-Class C waste, and select portions of 10 CFR Part 21, reporting of defects and noncompliance.

The NRC staff examined activities

8 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 conducted under Holtec's NRC approved quality assurance program to determine whether Holtec implemented the requirements associated with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of applicable dry cask storage system NRC issued certificates of compliance.

During today's conference, we will discuss five apparent violations of NRC requirements that we are evaluating under the traditional enforcement process through NRC's oversight process and enforcement policy.

Apparent Violations A and B, which we will discuss later, are currently being considered for escalated enforcement, and we propose that we focus the initial discussions today on those issues.

Holtec will also have the opportunity to present information on Apparent Violations C, D, and E as well.

NRC staff will consider all the information we hear from Holtec today as well as the information gained for our inspection activities in making our final determination on whether violations exist and, if so, what type of enforcement is appropriate.

9 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 The apparent violations are described in a publicly available choice letter and inspection report Number 2024-201 that we issued to Holtec on July 18th, 2025.

The letter is publicly available within our records component of the NRC's ADAMS under Accession Number ML25177C973 associated with EA 044.

If anyone didn't catch that reference and you want it, feel free to reach out to a member of the NRC staff, and we'll provide it.

The letter that transmitted the NRC's inspection report offered Holtec International the opportunity to either request a pre-decisional enforcement conference or to request alternative dispute resolution with the NRC to address the apparent violations. Holtec requested today's pre-decisional enforcement conference with the NRC.

At this point, I'll have the other NRC presenters introduce themselves, and I'll turn first to Michele.

MS. BURGESS: Hi, I'm Michele Burgess.

I'm the Enforcement Coordinator for the Office of NMSS. So I work with Shana.

10 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 MR. GEORGE: Hello, I'm Gerond George.

I'm the Branch Chief for the Inspection Oversight Branch in the Division of Fuels Management.

MR. DAVIS: Good morning, my name is Marlone Davis. I'm the Senior Transportation, Storage, and Safety Inspector and was the team lead for the inspection.

MS. ROGERS: Good morning, I'm Shannon Rogers, the Deputy Assistant General Counsel of Security and Enforcement in the Office of General Counsel.

MS. HELTON: All right, thank you, everybody. And now I'll turn it over to Holtec for introductions.

MS. FLEMING: Hi, good morning. I'm Jean Fleming. I'm the Vice President of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for Holtec.

MR. BULLARD: Good morning. I'm Chuck Bullard. I'm the Vice President of Engineering Mechanics at Holtec.

MS. MANZIONE: I'm Kim Manzione. I'm Director of Licensing for Holtec.

MR. MOHAMMAD: Good morning. I'm Abrar Mohammad, Director of Engineering Thermal at Holtec.

11 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 MS. HELTON: Right. And, Jean, did you have any opening remarks you'd like to provide?

MS. FLEMING: Thanks, Shana. We just appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion to align on the facts of the inspection report as we see them. So we're looking forward to a good dialogue today.

MS. HELTON: Great, thank you. We are, too. And as we get into it, just a few more remarks on my part. I want to emphasize the fact that today's conference is to inform the NRC's final decision on the enforcement.

The information that we're presenting today doesn't represent a final determination on the NRC's part. We're giving our view of the facts as we see it, and this is Holtec's opportunity to provide additional information and perspectives and for NRC staff to ask clarifying questions and ensure that we're really coming to a meeting of the minds in terms of the relevant facts of the situation.

So I encourage a very good dialogue between the NRC and Holtec and appreciate that you were able to share your slides with us in advance, which is helpful as we're preparing the questions

12 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 that we want to get answers to today to inform our final decision.

You know, as I said earlier, I think our primary focus today will be on the Apparent Violations A and B which have, from our viewpoint, a potential significant safety risk based on our current understanding of the issue, which is that the malfunction of the HI-STORM FW overpack could result, and if that happens, and that malfunction, the fuel within the MPC could exceed temperature limits. And if the condition is left unchecked for a period of time, the MPC could exceed pressure limits during normal operation.

I look forward to hearing from Holtec because, based on your slides, it appears that you have not reached the same conclusion about the safety significance, and I'd like to understand where you're coming from and ensure that on the NRC side, we're dispositioning the enforcement issue commensurate with safety and risk significance.

And as I said earlier, you also have the opportunity to give additional perspective about the other apparent violations as well.

One thing that I'd like to note, you

13 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 know, we're in the enforcement conference, and we've got a pretty well-prescribed procedure. But we're also keeping top of mind a recent guidance document to the NRC staff that the NRC's Executive Director for Operations recently issued on driving regulatory decisions through more effective communications.

That guidance is available on our public website.

And I think that, you know, that guidance actually is very well-represented by the types of conversations we've typically held at pre-enforcement conferences.

And I encourage NRC staff, as they have in the past, and even more so today, to be very open with their observations, really ask probing questions, and draw out the detailed information that we need to make a final decision. And I know we've got the right staff at the table to have that type of conversation.

So with that, you know, I encourage everybody to be candid in providing perspectives on the apparent violations, the safety significance, the circumstances surrounding the apparent violations, and, from Holtec's standpoint, any corrective actions taken and planned and any other information that you believe bears relevance on our decision.

14 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 In accordance with our normal practices, the documents associated with today's conference, including any materials provided by Holtec International, either already will or will be soon available for public inspection in our ADAMS system.

And now, Michele, please, it's your turn to go over our regulatory enforcement conference process.

MS. BURGESS: Okay, we have our slide up.

So my name is Michele Burgess. I'm one of the enforcement coordinators in NMSS, and I just want to take a quick moment just to go real quickly through the enforcement process, just the basics of it.

So a regulatory conference, or PEC, is an important step in our well-established deliberative process. So we -- to assess and disposition any of these issues.

The main purpose of the conference is, as Shana said, to provide the licensee -- to provide you with an opportunity to share with us any information that you have that you want us to consider as we make our final decision as regarding the apparent violations, the safety significance, corrective

15 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 actions, any remedial actions that you might have taken or interim actions that have been put in place to mitigate the safety significance or potential.

All of those things go into, and I'll go through a slide in a bit, all the factors that go through coming to our final enforcement decision.

So I'd just like to real briefly explain the enforcement process as specifically as it pertains to escalated enforcement, in case we end up there, so the process is clear.

And all of this information is more fully described in our -- NRC's enforcement policy and our enforcement manual. All of that guidance is available publicly on the NRC website.

So the NRC process consists of several steps. And the purpose of the process is to make sure that we have all the pertinent information we need for all of those factors. All those factors fit together to lead us to what the right endpoint should be for the -- if there's going to be an enforcement action and if there is, what that action might be.

So the first step that we have is records review, inspection, investigation. It's gathering information. Then we do our first review of those

16 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 issues.

So if we identify a potential violation, then we make you aware of that. You have your exit meeting where you initially become aware of the issue.

And then we issue the -- a choice letter so that you guys have our documentation in writing, something to work from so we know where we're going to start this conversation. The -- so the choice letter is that formal written documentation of it.

So the next step that we have is a pre-decisional enforcement conference, or ADR. You guys chose the PEC. And in a PEC, it's this open discussion to bring all those facts together.

The benefit of a PEC is the ability to have some conversation back and forth. A written response is static. You know, we have to interpret what's on the piece of paper.

The benefit, I believe, in a PEC is we have the ability to ask clarifying questions.

Something's not clear or there's something, a fact missing, we get this exchange where we get to make sure that we truly understand what you're trying to give us so that we can factor that into our final

17 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 decision.

So, and that's the step we are here. You can see on the slide. We're part way through that process.

After the PEC, we'll review all of the information, so everything that was gathered in inspection stage, everything that's gathered here today. And sometimes out of the PECs, there's some additional clarification that comes up that's over and above your slides that, if you provide anything in the day or two after, we usually offer that opportunity, we'd like to be able to include all the facts.

So if there's something extra that gets discussed today, we'll try to keep track of that, and we'll ask you to send that to us so that we can credit everything, count everything in our final decision.

And then the final step is we'll make our final decision, and then we'll issue that in writing to you guys.

Next slide? So possible outcomes, there's four main possible outcomes. The first is we could get to the end of this and, based on the information you've given us, decide there is no

18 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 enforcement action to be taken.

We can issue an NOV, a Notice of Violation. So that's the written notice that the violation has occurred. And it may require a written response if we still haven't addressed all of the corrective actions that would be needed to both restore compliance short-term, and to prevent it long-term.

There could be a Notice of Violation with a civil penalty. The factors that I was talking about and with corrective actions and the significance, those factor in to what that endpoint is with the severity level and the CP at the end, the civil penalty at the end.

And in rare cases, NRC can issue an order. And that could be used to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or require some other action of the licensee.

Next slide?

So for determining significance, NRC uses a scale, significance levels of severity levels one through four. Severity level one being the most significant, and severity level four being the least significant. Severity levels one, two, and three are considered escalated

19 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 enforcement, and they would be candidates for that civil penalty or additional action.

Shana's already indicated that AVs --

Apparent Violations A and B are being considered for escalated.

Next slide?

So the factors in determining the severity level, we look at multiple pieces. First, we consider if there's any actual consequences. And that's overexposures, unintended releases.

The next thing we consider is if there's any potential consequences. So even if nothing actually happened, what could have happened if it wasn't caught or what could have happened if there were slightly circumstances different circumstances that are still possible and feasible.

The third thing we look at is whether or not there was any impact to the NRC's ability to perform our regulatory oversight. And finally, is whether or not there's any willful aspects. In this particular case, there's no willful aspects that we're considering.

Next slide, please? So here's our chart

-- our metro map. So after we've determined the

20 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 significance, then we use this metro map to have a systematic process to go through and determine if a civil penalty is warranted, so that it's repeatable.

It's a consistent process that uses the factors the same way for all the different cases that we would apply.

And each -- for each violation that's classified as severity level three or above is the candidate for this monetary civil penalty. We want to have a very deliberative process if we're going to be imposing something like that that could impact a licensee.

So the civil penalty assessment process, there's three main factors. One is enforcement history and the severity level of the underlying violation. The next big factor is whether it's licensee identified or revealed by some other, either external event, or NRC. And the third big factor is corrective actions.

For us to be able to assign corrective action credit, so to reward licensees with our process, we want to encourage licensees to find these things and fix them and correct them. It's both the short-term, correcting the immediate what's going on

21 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 right at the moment, but also what's been put in place to keep this kind of violation from happening -- a different situation from happening in the future.

And then NRC -- you'll see the D on all four lines, we have the option, in some cases, to exercise discretion, depending upon the circumstances. Again, that's in -- spelled out for use of discretion in Section 3 of our enforcement policy. So there are some circumstances where discretion is appropriate.

So although each case is different, you know, absent the use of discretion, the three main outcomes is no civil penalty, a civil penalty that's the base amount, and then two times the base amount.

So following this conference, we're going to make a decision based on the information that we have obtained during the inspection, considering any new information, clarifications that you can provide at this meeting, and, just like Shana said, I'd like to emphasize that corrective action credit is an important part of the step.

When we want to get this information for you so we can make sure that we're crediting you with anything that is applicable to the case that can help

22 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 us get through that metro map and land at the right end point based both on the significance of the case, but also the things that you're doing to remedy the situation. So your actions are important in this, not just what the situation was, but what you guys are doing to fix the situation and keep it from happening again.

Appeal rights, so NRC licensees and certificate holders have appeal rights. And you can challenge any NRC action. The instructions for challenging an action will be in either the action itself or in the transmittal letter for the action.

And when civil penalties are issued, the particular action provides hearing rights as well, which is another opportunity to request ADR at that point, just as a reminder.

Next slide? So our enforcement outcomes are normally publicly available. In this case, it would be publicly available. If an NOV is issued, it'll be publicly available in ADAMS and on our NRC website. If a civil penalty is imposed or an order is issued, we normally also have a press release, and that's usually within a day or so of the final action being issued.

23 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 I want to emphasize, again, that we're conducting this conference doesn't mean we've made a final decision. Right? This is where we want to get to the right place. And our inspection report that we issued is our starting place with our understanding of the facts as we know them at this point.

So, again, just like Shana had said, I encourage you guys to, you know, give us all the information. Be up front and candid.

I'm looking forward to a

good conversation. We've already seen your slides.

There's a lot of information in there. So we've already been looking at that and, you know, just staging things that, you know, we just want to make sure we have clarification on. So I think that we're going to have a good discussion today.

So I'd just like to close by reminding you that everything I have regarding sanctions, civil penalty, our process, everything is in our publicly available guidance. So you can go to nrc.gov and search on enforcement and find all of our guidance documents. They're all publicly available. So all of the presentation that I did today is available in

24 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 those publicly available sources.

So I'm going to turn to Marlone now and let you go through the violations -- apparent violations.

MR. DAVIS: All right, thanks, Michele.

So the five apparent violations that are the subject of today's Regulatory conference were described in our NRC inspection report issued on July 18, 2025. As Shana mentioned, we do have that ML number if that -- the public needs that.

But that report documented the findings from our inspection which began the week of October the 21st -- through the 25th, 2024. The final exit for the inspection was held on July 2nd, 2025 of this year. Based on the schedule, personnel availability, and numerous discussions with Holtec, internal discussions, that's what delayed most of the inspection from the time that we performed the actual inspection on site to we did the final exit in July.

With the five apparent violations of NRC requirements are being evaluated under our traditional enforcement policy in accordance with our enforcement policy and enforcement manual themselves.

Apparent Violations A and B are being considered for

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 escalated enforcement, as Michele and Shana mentioned. Apparent Violation C, D, E are being considered for non-escalated enforcements at this time.

However, as Shana and Michele mentioned, the NRC staff has not made a final determination on any of the five apparent violations. I will now go through each of the five apparent violations as discussed in the inspection report.

Next slide, please? So the picture for Apparent Violations A and B, which was the -- which

-- what drove the pre-enforcement conference, we were looking at the potential safety significance of the issue.

The picture on the left shows the previous vent design where the lower vent is at the bottom of the overpack where water can easily drain during a flooding event, a snow event, a heavy rain event. The picture on the right shows that the change to the overpack vent, with the raised vent design, where the internal configuration will not allow water to easily drain.

Therefore, again, for those events such as flooding, heavy rains with winds, snow overloads,

26 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 we noticed doing that design and looking at and comparing the designs that the water would not easily drain. And operators greater than 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> may not be able to easily assess that there is water inside of the overpack itself.

Next

slide, please?

So Apparent Violation A was -- we looked at two things from a design control perspective, the 72.48 and the design control itself. So the first Apparent Violation A, 10 CFR 72.48(c)(2)(vi), changes, tests, and experiments, and, again, for the (c)(vi) is a different -- a malfunction with a different result. And that's what really (vi) is. You have the event, but the -- you have a different result than what is in your Final Safety Analysis Report.

And so we say that Holtec failed to obtain a CoC amendment prudent to 72.244 prior to implementing a design change that raised the air inlet vents which were previously on the bottom of the HI-STORM overpack are now being in elevated positions above ground, which was the design change.

That particular design change made what was deemed a non-credible event, that is, blocking all inlet vents greater than the 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> described

27 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 in the Final Safety Analysis Report, to credit a vent that would -- that was -- what was deemed non-credible now that is now credible during not only normal heavy rains and winds, off normal when you have partial blockage of the inlet vents, and full blockage during a flood event. And when that flood drains down, you would have internal flooding within that, and you would not be able to see inside of that overpack.

Apparent Violation B, next slide, again, that's the design change itself. And it's 10 CFR 72.146, part of the 18 criteria from quality assurance standpoint which we normally say Criteria 3 for design changes. And Holtec failed to subject design changes made on the HI-STORM FW overpack to design control measures commensurate with those applied to their original design.

Again, that original design where it was easily to be able to -- operators to be able to visually see any debris, any water flow, and anything obstructing that inlet vent to raised vents where you have internal -- could have potential internal flooding and operators would not be able to see it for over that, again, that 32 period -- 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> as captured in the Final Safety Analysis Report.

28 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 That particular design change failed to identify rainwater, floodwaters that enters the overpack can remain trapped inside the overpack, blocking the air inlets for an extended period due to the elevated positions of the air inlet vents.

Apparent Violation C, Charlie, 10 CFR 72.48(d)(1), changes, tests, and experiments; (d)(1)

-- (c)(2) is normally where we have the eight criteria which are simply yes/no questions; (d)(1) is the documentation or the evaluation itself.

And when we looked at Charlie, C, and in this case, Holtec failed to include a written evaluation which provided the bases for the determination that operating the HI-STORM 100 overpack without a lid outside the fuel handling building does not require a CoC amendment.

In this case, when we reviewed the 72.48 evaluation, we noted that the overpack came out without the lid on. And when we looked at the screening, we determined that this particular screening should have answered yes in two of the questions that were asked in their screening procedure where they could have an adverse effect on the MPC itself. And that's with a tornado missile

29 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 hitting the MPC directly, not the lid, but the actual MPC. And so that's when we looked at it affecting a component.

In reviewing that particular Apparent Violation C, again, we looked at two evaluations which they took credit for which was bounding, and both were two different configurations. And so when we said Holtec stopped at a screening and failed to perform an evaluation to demonstrate the MPC would not adversely be impacted in a configuration not previously analyzed in the FSAR as updated. And, again, that's that particular configuration with the lid off and the MPC exposed in a vertical position in the overpack itself.

Apparent Violation Delta, or D, again is (d)(1), where it was not a full -- the written evaluation provided, again, provided the basis for the determination that it does not need to come in for NRC review and approval. And Holtec failed to provide the basis for changing an element of an MOE when they updated software and did not compare the results of the revised software with those described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.

Again, the Final Safety Analysis Report

30 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 is what the NRC had reviewed as a part of that initial licensing. And those results, when changing an element of an MOE, you have to compare those results to what's in the Final Safety Analysis Report because that is what the NRC made their final decision on.

And when you change an element, then you have to make sure that it's looking at whether or not it's essentially the same or did it get conservative or non-conservative. And if it's in a non-conservative direction when you do the comparison with those results in the FSAR, then you would most likely need to come in for the NRC unless there's other items that are out there that may change that.

And so that's -- that was Violation D.

When we looked at this as a part of the inspection, we noted that they did do a verification and validation of the code itself, but did not compare those results back with those in the Final Safety Analysis Report, which is called for in the guidance itself.

The final Apparent Violation E was a corrective action where Holtec failed to identify and correct a condition adverse to quality for a design basis analysis used for the development of the

31 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 stress/stain curves for their storage and transportation system.

This was a

white paper that was referenced in the Final Safety Analysis Report and they had a wrong value. And we discovered this during the Amendment 7 review where the -- where that value which was not the correct one, changed the analysis itself.

So, when the NRC discovered this, we assumed that Holtec would have put it into their corrective action program. But during our follow-up review for that particular violation or enforcement, there was no quality issue which is what Holtec as a QI, or a condition report, written for that particular issue.

And so that's what the Apparent Violation E is about, is for a corrective action properly identified and correct condition adverse to quality.

With that, I will pass it over to Tomeka.

That concludes the presentation on the apparent violations identified.

MS. TERRY: Okay, thank you, Marlone.

We will now open the floor for any quick questions to NRC from Holtec staff on our

32 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 presentation. There will be a full opportunity for NRC and Holtec on discussion at the Holtec presentation.

Any quick or clarifying questions at this time?

MS. FLEMING: We have no questions at this time.

MS. TERRY: Okay. So, we'll turn it over to Holtec for their presentation.

MS. MANZIONE: Great, thank you. Okay, you can go to the next slide.

Yeah, I'm just going to talk through a little bit of background, which has mostly been covered Shana and Marlone already. And then, for each of the violations, we want to walk through a little bit of additional information we want to provide you, as well as our perspective on the safety significance.

So, you can go to the next slide. I'm not going to repeat all of this. I think we've heard this already, but we do want to talk about kind of each of the violations individually.

So, you can go to the next slide. So, this is just a direct quote from the inspection

33 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 report, as has already been presented related to the air inlet vents on Apparent Violation A.

So, you can go to the next slide. And I just wanted to show some pictures of what the previous design looked like. And you can see the thin vertical vents at the bottom, and then, the version that we're talking about in this 72.48, which has an angled design of the vents, which was really intended to minimize some of the radiation streaming through those vents.

You can go to the next slide. So, if you look at our licensing basis and the Holtec FSAR for the HI-STORM FW, it has -- it indicates, and this wording has been there since the initial revision of that FSAR that was submitted to the NRC with the initial approval, that says, a blockage of the vents cannot be realistically postulated, although we do consider a flood or snow or tornado debris which might cause a significant blockage.

And so that is due to, as it says right

there, the location of the vents in the circumferential direction.

There is no documentation in the existing licensing basis, either the FSAR or the original approval of the SET that

34 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 there was credit for -- taken for water existing those ground level vents.

And so, what the documentation indicates is that there is no pathway for rainwater to enter the vents. That's what the FSAR says, that's what has been in there since Revision 0.

That still remains true in this new design that we're talking about. The vents at the top are still on the sides of the overpack. They're still completely circumferentially around the entire overpack. They are covered with perforated screens.

Rain would have to go completely sideways to enter the vents. That's consistent with what the FSAR says in both the original design and the changed design.

Although we state in the section that vent blockage is considered non-credible, we did perform an accident analysis for full and complete vent blockage due to the fact that there may be sites with significant floods or snow that would block those vents. And that is fully documented in the FSAR, again, for both the old version as well as the new version.

You can go to the next slide. So, we disagree with the statements in the violation that

35 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 indicate this is a new malfunction. As I said before, blockage of vents from normal rainwater condition is still non-credible because those upper vents are still in the same design that they were in the original design.

The overpack continues to maintain its structural integrity and the cooling passages in the overpack, as I said, are not credibly blocked. So, therefore, the overpack maintains its heat transfer function. However, the scenario of vent blockage is considered an accident condition and is fully analyzed in the FSAR.

You can go to the next slide. So, during the design process for the new version, Holtec did consider the possibility of the accident condition, because we have that blockage in the FSAR as an accident, like flood where water would credibly enter the vents.

We did include in the design a drain line which was intended to support post-flood, post-accident recovery actions. And so, if a site were to have an extended event, such as a flood, such as snow, that would block their vents in an accident condition, they would be able to go out and drain any

36 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 water that remained.

Just from an operating experience statement, we want to note for all of you and for additional information that we did -- when this came up as a question, we did ask the users to go and look at those drain lines. And we had a number of sites check their loaded casks, loaded ones, and I think that's important, and I'll talk about that in a second, and removed those plugs to see if any water had gathered in those drains.

And, on loaded casks, we have heard no evidence that any rainwater has collected in any of those, which aligns with the licensing basis that we have in the FSAR. So, the operating experience supports what the FSAR has always said.

Unloaded casks, and I understand there has been some operating experience, and we've heard it, too, that unloaded casks might have some water in them. Those unloaded casks are not subject to the same configuration requirements that the loaded casks are.

We don't necessarily know that the screens were installed or the lids were installed.

They just may be stored in a completely different

37 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 scenario than the loaded casks are. And so we're not

-- that operating experience is not really relevant to the actual, you know, the actual considerations we made for design. We don't necessarily -- when we make design changes, we think about the loaded licensed casks, not unloaded stored casks.

Okay, I'll go to the next slide. I also wanted to note that there is some precedent for this on similar designs. The HI-STORM 100, which is a different Holtec system under a different docket, we submitted a similar design with the same kind of elevated vents that you see.

That was submitted because -- to the NRC for full review and approval because we were making changes to heat loads and things that are in the CoC.

It was not submitted because of the vent design specifically.

However, because those vent designs are there, we certainly considered that when we were doing the 72.48 to see if there was any, you know, knowledge gained from your review of that.

Very similarly, the HI-STORM 100 system also indicates that it's not credible for rainwater to enter the system and there's no credit taken for

38 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 it exiting the bottom vents. And during the NRC review and approval of that design, rainwater intrusion was not identified as a new malfunction.

We did not change any of the analysis of the vent blockage. There was no change to the LCO.

And so, again, just from a precedent standpoint, it would seem strange to subject this HI-STORM FW version with a very similar licensing basis to different considerations than the HI-STORM 100 was subjected to.

Okay, I'm going to go on to B, if you go to the next slide, because A and B, I think, kind of work together. So, again, this is just a direct quote from the inspection report about the violation which is the design control violation.

If you'd go to the next slide? So, it's essentially the same as Violation A. You know, our position is the same as it is with Violation A that we did not change the ability of the system to keep rainwater out because the vents which keep water out is at the same -- are the same or very similar design to what exist before.

We did evaluate the new design to design control measures that are commensurate with those

39 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 applied to the original design. We evaluated every discipline and determined, if it was impacted, we performed new analyses of the design where it was needed. We documented the changes following our design control process. We call it an engineering change order.

But we performed all that documentation.

We followed our 72.48 process. We understand that Violation A has a question about our regulatory determination, but from the written description in the violation, we don't see identified which design control measure the NRC believes is not aligned with what we did in the original design.

And so, to us, they're the same --

essentially the same violation. And as I said, I think we followed our design control change process.

You might disagree with the regulatory conclusion, but our design control process was followed.

Okay, you can go to the next slide. So, safety significance, and I know, Shana, you said you were interested in this, so we quoted the enforcement policy here about the low to moderate or greater safety significance being escalated enforcement.

This design change, from our perspective,

40 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 doesn't have any safety significance. The rainwater intrusion remains non-credible. We have operating experience that backs that up for loaded casks.

There is no rainwater accumulation in the system.

For accident scenarios, we do evaluate a 100 percent vent blockage. The PCT limit is 750 degrees Celsius for accident conditions. We performed that accident analysis at full design basis heat load and for 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> of blockage, you're still within your accident temperature and pressure limits.

It is important to note that, even if water were to enter the system at design basis heat loads, that water would begin to evaporate away.

At lower heat loads, obviously, it would take a little longer for that water to evaporate away.

But then, you have a little bit longer before you need your airflow.

There are -- there is a heat load where you are low enough that water doesn't evaporate, but then, from a safety perspective, you no longer need the airflow because you're cool enough.

Again, this is not our licensing basis evaluation. We're providing this as kind of a consideration of the safety significance. Our

41 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 licensing basis evaluation is still the 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> of blockage.

Sites are required, if they have a flood that is going to last longer than 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br />, they are required to do a site-specific analysis and evaluate if their heat loads are acceptable.

So, if there is a longer accident duration, that's already covered in our CoC. But we did want to provide this kind of as a safety -- to consider the safety significance of it. We're not suggesting that this replaces the licensing basis accident analysis.

Okay, I'll go on to Violation C, if you can go to the next slide? So, this is the one, and Marlone already talked about it, where we performed a screening and did not perform a full evaluation for a site that was exiting their building with the lid off of the HI-STORM overpack, lid on the MPC, not on the HI-STORM overpack.

If you'd go to the next slide? We disagree with the conclusions that indicate the screening question should have been answered yes.

So, I'll start with Question A, which is about adversely affecting design function of the MPC.

42 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 The screening that's mentioned in this violation clearly states that no design function of the MPC is adversely affected.

The site that we are talking about, the site-specific tornado missiles are bounded by the ones in the FSAR. So, the combination of weights and wind speeds provides less kinetic energy than those evaluated in the FSAR.

And so, all impacts are already bounded by what is in the FSAR. There's no adverse impact to the ability of the MPC to maintain its confinement boundary.

The second question that was brought up in the apparent violation is related to a change in MOE. We did not perform a new evaluation in support in this proposed activity. The FSAR already contains a direct missile strike to the MPC lid. And as I said, the tornado missiles are already bounded. And so, we did not need to perform a new evaluation.

The violation statement does seem to acknowledge it, because it says there was no method of evaluation used. And so, we think that, yes, we correctly answered that question in saying there was no change to the MOE because we did not modify any

43 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 analyses in support of that documentation.

You can go to the next slide. So, we think there's clearly no safety significance. I understand this is not being considered for escalated enforcement, but I think it's important to note that the MPC is already evaluated in the FSAR for a direct missile strike to the lid. The site's missiles are bounded by those already evaluated.

And, like I said, we do fully evaluate this, but I also wanted to add to this the fact that I think we've had extensive discussions over the past few years about tornado missiles and determined the likelihood of a tornado missile occurring during the short period of time where these HI-STORMs are being moved is extremely, extremely low.

And

also, in particular, on this violation, the site that this was used at is a site that has moved every fuel assembly to dry storage and so, this condition no longer exists going forward because all of the fuel at that site -- it's a decommissioning site and every fuel assembly has been moved to dry storage and there's no intent to move HI-STORMs any further until they're transported off site.

44 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 Okay, you can go to the next slide which is apparent Violation D which is, as Marlone alluded to, is the MOE question related to a change in code for ANSYS.

And so, I'm going to start, but I'm going to ask Chuck to chime in. You can go to the next slide.

And so, we did acknowledge in our 72.48 that changing from ANSYS Version 11 to Version 2020 was a change in an element of an MOE and that that then requires, as the guidance lays out, a discussion of whether those results are the same or conservative or non-conservative.

And so, we performed verification and validation of the new code. And that's documented in accordance with our process.

However, in an attempt to essentially make smart decisions about how we verify and validate codes, what we used to verify and validate the ANSYS program are representative cases of what we use in the FSAR.

And so, while they may not be exactly identical, we use representative cases, and I'll ask Chuck in a second to talk about, you know, how parts

45 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 of ANSYS represent what we did in the verification and validation that we found in those representative cases that the results between both Version 11 and Version 2020 were essentially the same.

So, if you'd go to the next slide?

Chuck, I'm going to ask you to talk about the representative cases.

MR. BULLARD: Sure, I can speak to that a little bit. So, you know, ANSYS, which is a widely used finite element code has a multitude of element types, material models, solution types, static, dynamic, response spectrum, et cetera.

So, when we do our validation and verification of ANSYS, it's important that we cover the cross section of element types and material models and analysis types that we use regularly in our dry storage work.

So, we have kind of carefully curated a set of 39 validation problems that cover a wide swath of element types, et cetera. And we use those consistently as we do the V&V for ANSYS specifically.

And we carry those forward with different version updates over time.

The problems that we've selected, and

46 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 there's a couple examples given here on this slide, you know, we regularly use 3D solid elements.

You know, there's an element type in ANSYS, SOLID185. So, we've carefully chosen that element type among the population set so that we have confidence that when we use that element, it gives us a correct and accurate results.

Similarly, of solid shell elements, another example given here on the slide, SOLSH190, and there are many others and different solution types.

So, we've kind of curated this set of validation problems so that we, you know, we cover the specific dry storage applications.

And the solid element that I mentioned is the very same element that's used in the common -- in the FW common lid, which is the subject -- that analysis is linked to this apparent violation. And similarly with the solid shell element.

So, there is a certain connectivity or correspondence between those validation problems and the specific application problem in ANSYS.

I think where we differ with the NRC staff in terms of the guidance, when you look at NEI

47 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 1204, and it talks about change in method of evaluation related to software, it says, first and foremost, that if you change the software version, you have to do the validation and verification which is Step 1. I think we all understand that.

But there -- you have to recognize that, if you do the validation verification of the new software revision, which may be done ten years later, that that problem set that you do the verification and validation may not be identical or the same and the original work from the previous version.

So, the guidance, for that reason, we believe it then goes on to say, then, after you do the V&V, you need to make sure that you re-analyze one or more representative cases that were used to validate the previous version to make sure that there's a commonality or an overlap between them.

It doesn't explicitly say in the guidance that those representative cases have to be taken from the licensing application, it just says that you have to have, you know, one or more representative cases that were analyzed between both software versions, which makes sense to understand the impact.

So, in our case, as we considered the

48 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 guidance and look at our validation and verification process, we had made it easy for ourselves because the same 39 validation problems were analyzed, in this case, using ANSYS Version 11 some years ago, and we've re-analyzed those same 39 cases with ANSYS Version 2020 today.

So, as we see things, that population of 39 cases which are the same across both programs, they serve as a representative set of cases that are common to both codes so that we can accomplish both the validation and verification and infer from those results what the, you know, what the impact is of are they essentially the same or is there some difference in results.

As we've indicated in the slides, and it's not unexpected, that the different in results across those two cases is less than 1 percent. And ANSYS goes through its own validation process and it's often the case that, you know, that they maintain fidelity, as you would expect, as the versions are updated.

So, I'll stop there and turn it back to Kim.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes, thanks, Chuck.

49 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 I think you can go to the next slide, which is kind of -- concludes a little bit what Chuck was saying.

And Again, we understand this is not being considered for escalated enforcement, but we thought it was important to note the safety significance is nonexistent with this apparent violation.

It's a change in code year for a well-validated code.

As Chuck alluded to, we believe the cases we ran and compared results are representative as the guidance demands, representative of those in the FSAR. We acknowledge they're not identical, but they are representative which is the key word in the guidance.

Just as a note, the previous version was from 2007. The Version 2020 that we're using now is, obviously, released in 2020. Version 11 is not the current industry standard and it's not supported by ANSYS. And so, changing to the new code is a much better approach just from an industry standard perspective.

But that doesn't mean we're -- we still

50 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 need to do the due diligence that we did to confirm that the results are the same.

The system maintains its ability to keep all of its limits and acceptance -- it meets all the acceptance criteria.

And I don't think anyone who looked at this during the inspection or in the inspection report had a safety concern over using the new code.

It was a how it was documented issue, as we understand it.

Okay, the next slide is the last violation, apparent violation, that we'll talk about today which is the one related to the position paper and entering that into the corrective action system.

So, if you'd go to the next slide?

We did revise that position paper several times to address staff questions during the Amendment 7 review. It is a reference in Amendment 7.

But the methodology itself is fully documented in the FSAR in Amendment 7.

The position paper is a convenient tool to communicate information back and forth to the NRC, but the licensing basis stands on its own as the FSAR as documented.

51 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 We did perform kind of, in response to the previous enforcement considerations, we did perform a full root cause. The position paper wasn't really part of any of that documentation because it was a part of the separate application review.

We did, based on the inspection that occurred at our facility in October 2024, we have added this now to Holtec's correction action process.

But it is not typical of our process to include position papers that are not part of the licensing basis.

And most position papers indicate on them that they're not QA validated.

To enter that into the corrective action system during an NRC review process is not typical of our approach, but we have, as a response to the NRC's concerns in October 2024, we did enter this into the corrective action process.

As kind of alluded to earlier, there's no real safety significance to the issue. The FSAR stands on its own. It is the licensing basis regardless of supporting references and all related analyses that we did using the methodology that is in the FSAR, you know, fully followed the FSAR and are

52 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 independent of that position paper.

But we did, as I said, we did add it to our corrective action system in response specifically to the NRC's questions.

Okay, I think to the next slide is kind of just summarizing what I said before.

We don't see any safety significance to any of the apparent violations.

Specifically, for the ones being considered for escalated enforcement, we think the operating experience that we have supports the existing licensing basis and that we were -- we consistently documented the 72.48 evaluations with that licensing basis.

The proposed activity identified in Violation C, as we said, the screening questions appear, to us, to be answered correctly.

And the code year, the apparent Violation D, which is related to the code year, we used representative cases to demonstrate exactly what the guidance asks us to demonstrate about essentially the same results.

And then, the apparent Violation E, while we have added it to our corrective action program, it

53 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 has no regulatory or safety significance. The licensing basis in FSAR is correct and accurate and we continue to follow that.

And I think that's all I wanted to say, unless -- okay, that's it, thank you.

MS. TERRY: Thank you, Kimberly. So at this time we'll open up for NRC Staff or Holtec conversation, participates, only to ask additional clarification questions and information that may have been presented today.

When the questions and answers session is included, the Staff would depart to a caucus. And purpose of this caucus is to determine if any additional questions is needed to ask or clarify our understanding of the issue or

get, identify additional, any additional information that's needed to arrive at a regulatory decision. The NRC Staff will then return to Microsoft Teams and conclude the meeting.

MR. KLUKAN: So I just ask, this is Brett Klukan, the Facilitator, that for the benefit of those on the phone, as well as our remote court reporter, that as you engage in this dialogue that you state your name before speaking. Just so the

54 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 court reporter has the easier time keeping track of who's talking at any time. Thank you.

MR. GEORGE: Thank you, Brett. I am Gerond George, chief of the inspection and oversight branch. Marlone and I will start the questions.

First, Kim, thanks for the presentation.

In the presentation, in many sections, there was a disagreement with the violations. So I do want to understand, I know on the Apparent Violation Echo you said you did enter it in the corrective action process. For Apparent Violations A, B, C and D, have you entered any corrective actions and corrective action process or taken any corrective actions associated with it yet?

MS. MANZIONE: So we have a tracker in our corrective action process for these, but I think we, because we've indicated that we disagree and wanted to provide this information to you, we haven't necessarily made any changes to our 72.48 process.

MR. GEORGE: Got you.

MS. FLEMING: And just so I can add onto the outcome of this PEC with the inspection report of where the violation stand, will lead to potential corrective actions going forward, including exemption

55 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 requests and a license amendment request. So it's too early at this point to start putting in a QI for multiple exemption requests from the users, which is what, Kim, you said somewhere between ten and 15 exemption requests would come in. In addition to a license amendment request.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MS. FLEMING: So that would be our corrective actions going forward.

MS. MANZIONE: But we didn't want to take those actions until we had a final determination on the violations.

MR. GEORGE: Okay. Understand. So let's go back to A and B. That's the ones that we really want to talk about today. And on slide, let me go to Slide 6 for you guys, from the Holtec presentation. I don't know if, Tomeka and Christian you can pull that up.

You do clearly talk about, there was no pathway for rainwater to enter the upper vents, so we understand that. And we do talk about operating experience that you have for the loaded casks. Do you have any operating experience for those unloaded casks where there has been water?

56 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 MS. MANZIONE: Yes. I think we've heard from some users that prior to loading, when they've done their pre-use inspections, they have seen some water. I don't think we're disagreeing with your, I think you have heard similar things, and I don't think we have any disagreement with that. But on unloaded specifically.

MR. GEORGE: Okay.

MS. HELTON: This is Shana Helton, NRC.

Yes. So you had mentioned in your remarks about the differences in configuration between unloaded casks and loaded casks. Can you spend a little more time describing what those differences and configuration are?

And also, if the differences are locked down in the FSAR for the users?

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. So this is Kim Manzione. So none of the differences are locked down in the FSAR. There is no requirements in the FSAR for really how you store unloaded casks, it is simply that there is a pre-use inspection, right, where you do inspect the cavity and you ensure that there is no foreign material, things like that inside the cavity.

But there is no licensing basis

57 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 requirements for how you store unloaded casks, which is why, and every user may do it differently so I can't necessarily provide you, you know, significant details of how each user does it. If we wanted to reach out to them we could get those storage procedures, but it's not a, it's not an explicit licensing basis requirement for how to store them prior to use.

MS. HELTON: Yes, thank you. And I understand that. There is the pre-operational procedure inspections that happen. I was really looking for, I think you mentioned there is a lid that may not be installed when it's stored unloaded and the screen might not be in the unloaded configuration. And that's where my question is really focusing.

What are the differences, what needs to happen for the loaded casks and are those things, for the loaded cask, described in the FSAR or COC?

MS. MANZIONE: So yes. For the loaded casks, certainly. The full storage configuration is acknowledged. You have to put the lid on there, there is lid bolts, there is screens that are installed. All of that.

58 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 Some of those, and I don't want to say, some of those, some sites may choose to do that for their unloaded casks. Some sites may choose not to.

And that's why some sites may have a weather cover that kind of goes over it. That's not, it's just not, it's not required to be the same configuration, so I cannot verify for you that every site does it the same way.

So, like I said, we could go investigate the specific locations that found unloaded system ones and figure out how they're stored, and maybe we can figure out a culprit, but it's just not going to be consistent necessarily across the sites.

MS. HELTON: And then when you say the lid, you know, you mention that's ones of the configuration changes. Do you credit the lid for kind of giving cover over the top vent that would help prevent rain --

MS. MANZIONE: The vents are in the lid.

And so when I say the vents are designed, that's the lid including those vents, is designed to prevent

water, rainwater entry during the licensed configuration. Yes.

MS. HELTON: Thank you.

59 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 MR. DAVIS: So I just want to follow-up on this storage from loading and unloading. Is there like quality requirements for the storage of those unloaded overpacks?

MS. MANZIONE: That would be under the general licensee's program. But certainly they need to make sure that really, from a Part 72 license, that before they put any fuel in it that it meets the COC requirements.

MR. DAVIS: And does Holtec also have storage requirements prior to delivery or before delivery?

MS. MANZIONE: We certainly have, our manufacturing facility certainly has, you know, procedures in place for how we handle casks.

MR. DAVIS: Sure. Okay.

MS. BURGESS: Just one clarification.

So, this is Michele Burgess. So one clarification.

So of the information that you have for ones that did have water in it, you don't know for sure some of them could have been the same configuration, so it could have accumulated water because you don't know what the configuration for all the ones that did have water in them?

60 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 MS. MANZIONE: So, this is Kim Manzione.

So we know none of them had fuel in them. So it's not the same configuration because fuel includes the heat from the fuel and things like that.

MS. BURGESS: But absent that, as far as the lids and the screens and the --

MS. MANZIONE: I don't have that information with me.

MS. BURGESS: We don't have that information?

MS. MANZIONE: No.

MS. BURGESS: Okay.

MR. GEORGE: Okay, Gerond George again.

I'm going to Slide 8 now because we don't have a lot of time, but I want to get some very pertinent questions.

So in my opinion you guys started discussing how the drain line was included to recover from a flood accident, or you may have water or some kind of accumulation inside the overpack. I read the SR, I didn't read that. So is that a new configuration or action that you guys are bringing up? Am I missing, where is this credited in the FSAR for recovery from a flood or internal flooding?

61 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 MS. MANZIONE: Yes. So if you look in the chapter on accidents under flood it does indicate, it's always indicated that, you know, post flood there might be some operator needs to check that all debris has been removed. And so this we added to this design as an easy way for operators to do that.

MR. GEORGE: So, Gerond George again.

So have you provided the general licensee's procedures on how to do that?

MS. MANZIONE: I do not believe so, but MR. GEORGE: Okay, thank you.

MS. MANZIONE: -- we can check on that.

MR. DAVIS: Also, is the drain line a part of the licensee drawings? Like dimensions?

MS. MANZIONE: It is not dimensioned on the licensee drawings. No.

MR. DAVIS: Okay. And malfunction of the drain line also? For example, getting silt or debris into those drain lines to clog it?

MS. MANZIONE: Yes, it's not credited to be, it's not credited for anything, right? It's simply a post-accident. So yes, as part of your

62 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 post-accident if you were using that you would have to, part of the point is to go out and make sure that any silt is removed, silt, dirt, whatever you want to call it, from the overpacks. And so you would then use the drain line to do that. But it's not credited for anything so it doesn't need to be unblocked on a normal basis.

MR. DAVIS: So it's credited in the flood or not credited?

MS. MANZIONE: No, no. It is simply a convenient tool to help you do your recovery actions after the flood. So not credited. You could go with a borescope down the vents and check if you didn't want to open the drain line.

MR. DAVIS: Okay. And they would have to use a borescope because you can't visually see from --

MS. MANZIONE: I think the post recovery actions from the flood require a more thorough inspection than the daily vent blockage and --

MR. DAVIS: And so --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MR. DAVIS: -- which is different from the original design where they can just look at it,

63 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 right?

MS. MANZIONE: No, you're still required to go look and make sure that there is nothing remaining in the overpack after a flood on all designs.

MR. DAVIS: Okay.

MR. GEORGE: Okay, Gerond George here again. So back to Slide 8 and 12. This question I have is really about the credibility of obtaining water in a loaded cask. So of course, you know, we do understand the operating experience that you have so far, and what we've seen so far. We've obtained some of the same operating experience, is that we've identified water accumulation in the unloaded casks, correct?

We currently have not seen any water in all the loaded casks, but we don't know how many have been inspected, right? We understand the heat load in that configuration, the loaded configuration, could cause some water to evaporate or, again, not accumulate.

But our question is, have you done any type of analysis that determines how much time it takes for any water accumulation to evaporate in

64 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 those conditions?

MR. MOHAMMAD: Hi, this is Abrar Mohammad from Holtec. So yes, we have looked into the aspect of how long it would take for some water to boil off, but nothing that has been officially documented. But this was internally for their own purposes.

When the questions started to come, we started to investigate it because the first thing that struck us was about not being credible. And the second thing they started to think about, even if the question is asked, it's so hot in there. A design basis heat load is where the vent flow action is needed that the water could boil off. And we did some calculations unofficially, but nothing that has been documented.

MR. GEORGE: Okay, going along the lines of heat load, so you talk about your full design basis heat load analysis and talk about 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> of blockage. As I read that analysis, and what's in your FSAR, that's 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> to get to the design basis heat clad temperature level, correct?

MS. MANZIONE: The accident limit. Peak clad temperature. Is that --

MR. GEORGE: So 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> to 570 C, or is

65 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 it 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> to 400 C?

MR. BULLARD: 570 degrees Celsius.

MR. DAVIS: So that's the accident.

Create off normal accident temperature.

MS. MANZIONE: The flood is an accident, correct --

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MS. MANZIONE: -- so we use the appropriate --

MR. GEORGE: How long does it take to get to the 400 C, which is your design basis --

MR. DAVIS: For normal operation.

MR. GEORGE: For normal to abnormal operation?

MR. MOHAMMAD: Just a clarification. Do you mean at design basis heat loads?

MR. GEORGE: Yes.

MR. MOHAMMAD: Okay. Design basis heat loads under 400 percent duct blockage we expect it to reach 400 degrees Celsius somewhere in the range of six to eight hours.

MR. GEORGE: Six to eight hours. Thank you very much.

MS. MANZIONE: But I do want to, right,

66 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 our licensing basis is very clear that full duct blockage is an accident event, right? And so I want to make sure that that so far, that's not a licensing basis evaluation. We're happy to provide that for context, but I just want to make sure we're not changing our licensing basis to that.

MR. DAVIS: No. And again, again, if you look at how the violation was written we're looking at

normal, off normal and accident conditions, right, because that's the design basis.

And so that's why we was asking the question, you know, from heavy rains, a PME, a participation maximum event.

So that's along the lines of the questions. By the way, this is Marlone. Just in case.

And so, on the same lines, so when you have that flooding event, and I think you look at the overpack being fully submerged at some point in time, and then you have the drain down, the dry off, that you look at water getting into the events at that point in time and the internal flooding of that.

MS. MANZIONE: This is Kim Manzione.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question because

67 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 we do write the analysis as a 100 percent duct blockage from a flood. And so yes, we evaluate that.

And that's the 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br />. Did I understand that correctly?

MR. DAVIS: That is correct, right? And again, have you looked at the internal flooding because based on the position of the new inlets that you could have internal flooding afterwards. The water being trapped inside of the overpack.

MS. MANZIONE: So the post-accident recovery actions for a flood maintain the same as they were in that you have to go and make sure that there is nothing, no blockage remains trapped in the overpack --

MR. DAVIS: Okay.

MS. MANZIONE: -- is that -- okay.

MR. GEORGE: I want to ask one more question on this and then we'll go to Shana because I see your list, Shana, over here.

Let me see. Tornado missile. Sorry about that. I forgot my question, I apologize. Go ahead, Shana.

MS. HELTON: If I can jump in.

MR. GEORGE: Yes.

68 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 MS. HELTON: Shana Helton, NRC. And actually, the Staff's questions are really aligned with kind of the questions that I had as well. So I appreciate the conversation.

So for the, you know, I think one of the salient points here is, you know, the operating experience that we've seen for the unloaded configuration with water trapped in the overpack, but for loaded casks my understanding is there is no operating experience where that has been an issue.

And my question, so focusing on the unloaded one where the water was in there, do you know, from your OPE, what event led to the trapped water or is that also something that's uncertain because you're not necessarily aware of how it was stored and what conditions it was under?

And, you know, I'm really thinking about, like the flooding is an accident, but is there a normal or off normal event that could have led to the flooding and the overpack that would block the airflow and whether or not there is appropriate analysis or direction to the user that for normal, or off normal event?

If that could occur because of the vent

69 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 redesign, are there actions they need to take in that scenario that aren't addressed in the FSAR?

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. So this is Kim Manzione. I don't have that information. I don't have, I don't have from any site sort of a, this occurred and then we found water. We can certainly, you know, question them on that, and again, question their storage configuration and question to kind of get to the bottom of why unloaded casks are seeing something. But we have not, we have not pursued that again because of the fact that they're unloaded and, you know, we just haven't gone down that path yet.

MR. BULLARD: I mean, one thing I could add, and we don't know that this is the cause, but when HI-STORMs are delivered to a site they are delivered without concrete because of shipping and handling considerations. They are void of concrete when they arrive at the site.

So the sites offload the HI-STORM, it's up righted. And then at some point in time they place the concrete in the HI-STORM body. When they're doing that they need access to the top of the HI-STORM cask, the body. So the lid is not installed in that scenario.

70 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 So there is at least a possibility that when a site is placing the concrete and the concrete is curing, there could be no lid in place for, I don't know, a period of a day or more, or several days. I don't know the specifics. But that is an opportunity where if there is rain it could collect in the open HI-STORM and perhaps remain there until the cask is closer to being loaded.

MS. HELTON: Thank you.

MR. GEORGE: Okay, I finally remembered my question. Gerond George.

So we do know the general licensees have taken some precautionary actions because of this issue. Did you send something out to the general licensees to take those actions?

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. So this is Kim Manzione. So yes, as soon as, right. As soon as this was brought up during the inspection, actually timing wise we had a user's group conference like one week later and so we provided them the feedback that this was an issue of concern to the NRC. We talked about, as a group we have a very helpful active user's group. They talked about what actions they were all taking.

71 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 We have not prescribed those actions.

Right? I wouldn't say that we've told them what to do but we've certainly had those conversations as a large group and sites have chosen to take actions based on that. They're not, like I said, not dictated to them but certainly we made the users aware. And we've been having continual, you know, twice monthly follow-ups on the issue to make sure that it's discussed.

MS. HELTON: Yes, thank you. This is Shana Helton again, NRC. I've got a follow-up question.

So I'm aware of one site where the, at least one site where the heat load was limited. And I think in part to address the issue of potential conditions where the vent could get blocked.

And I was just curious, what led to the limiting of the heat load? Is that something, I think you mentioned that there is direction in the FSAR to the user that if they have certain conditions at their site they need to do an analysis to determine if it's appropriate. And is that the process that led to learning the heat load at a site or is there another direction you --

72 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 MS. MANZIONE: So this is Kim Manzione.

Are you talking about the site that got a Level 4, severity Level 4 violation?

Yes. So that particular site, and, Abrar, you can step in if I'm incorrect, that heat load limitation was for a completely unrelated reason.

It was due to a loading configuration that they have at their site. And so because of how they load they needed that heat load restriction during loading. And so it had nothing to do with the vents. That we performed that analysis and supported them in that. So it was completely unrelated to this issue.

I know that it's been used in kind of dispositioning some of those, that discussion at that site, which is not unreasonable, but it was not performed because they had these events. What I was referring to in terms of the flood is that based on where different sites, ISFSI pads or their flood levels might be different.

And so you might, certain sites might have a design basis flood that reaches the top of the vents, certain sites might have a flood level that's

73 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 kind of only one inch up on the overpack. And so there is a requirement in our certificate of compliance that if you, if the site has a design basis flood, that is up above the vents for six, eight days, they need to do a site-specific analysis to make sure that they are not exceeding any other peak cladding temperatures during that event.

So that, you know, has been there, again, for a long time. But also was unrelated to that particular site's choice to do that evaluation.

MS. HELTON: Thank you for that, Kim.

MR. DAVIS: This is Marlone. The other question, you mentioned that the HI-STORM 100 came in for review. Did that, was the tech spec also included with that particular one?

MS. MANZIONE: This is Kim Manzione. So yes, we updated the technical specification for the changes that were related, which were heat loads. We did not change any of the technical specifications related to this. The vent design specifically.

MR. GEORGE: Okay. We got about five minutes left for this present session so I do want to get to C, D and E. The apparent violations. Do you have any questions on C, Marlone?

74 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 MR. DAVIS: Yes. You mentioned the configuration of the MPC being hit missile. What configuration was that in? Is that when it's in the overpack?

MR. BULLARD: So that accident scenario in the FSAR is originated from the MPC being in the HI-TRAC because the HI-TRAC lid has an open center.

That being said, the qualifying analysis for the MPC is, which uses energy-based methods, takes no credit for the surrounding overpacks. So it's agnostic to the fact that it's the HI-TRAC or the HI-STORM. It looks at a direct impact strike on the MPC.

So when we, later on when we were considering this proposed activity to bring the HI-STORM out without the lid, from the point of view of the analysis, with the missile strike on the MPC, it was decoupled from the overpack. Whether that be the HI-TRAC or the HI-STORM overpack. So it seemed to us that that was relevant and applicable to that proposed activity.

MR. DAVIS: And that's one analysis because if I can recall correctly, it was two bounding analyses being used for this particular one?

MR. BULLARD: I'll have to check. I

75 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 mean, I know the primary concern is a missile impact, a strike on the lid. The best of my knowledge that's all contained in one count package but I'll --

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MR. BULLARD: Okay.

MR. DAVIS: And if we need to clarify what configuration it was in, was it in an overpack, was it in a HI-TRAC, did they not matter. And then what section of the FSAR that would be in, that would be great. That's it.

MR. GEORGE: Thank you. For, now we're on apparent Violation D. I'd like to go to Page 18.

I would like to thank my Staff for jumping on these slides, appreciate you guys.

So we do understand the verification validation process. And we understand NEI 1204 guidance. One of my questions is, how did you compare the results to determine that the results of the new Ansys were conservative against the results that are in the FSAR?

MS. MANZIONE: So this is Kim Manzione.

And then, Chuck, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

So what we're saying is, we confirmed that the cases that represent the FSAR, we're not

76 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 saying we compared to FSAR results, cases that represent the way Ansys is used in the FSAR were compared between a version 11 and a version 2020. So I don't think we ever said we compared directly to the FSAR. The representative cases we used, we're acknowledging they're not FSAR cases. But they are representative of how it is used in the FSAR.

MR. GEORGE: Okay. Gerond George here again. I got a follow-on question on that. Since this issue has been brought up, have you ran the FSAR case and have you done some kind of comparison against that?

MR. BULLARD: I don't believe we have for this specific case. No.

MS. MANZIONE: But that's certainly, what I guess I would add to this, Kim Manzione, what I would add to that is, pending the outcome of this PEC, that would be certainly a corrective action that we would be considering taking, you know, based on what the outcome of this is. I, you know, as we said, I think we believe that what we did was representative, but obviously kind of the results of this, that would be a corrective action that we would certainly want to take if we needed to take corrective

77 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 actions.

MR. GEORGE: Okay, for Violation E, apparent Violation E. So one of the questions that we have is that you have, we do understand you put it in your corrective action program. Have you, let me make sure I get this question right.

Have you completed, or do you plan to complete so kind of extended condition that determine how much impact this change or this incorrect value may have had?

MR. BULLARD: We have entered it into our corrective action program. We have completed the investigation, including extensive conditions, causal factors. So that quality issue violation and investigation has been completed. We can --

MR. GEORGE: Thank you.

MR. DAVIS: Yes, if you can provide a copy of that.

MR. GEORGE: Yes. I know we'll --

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. DAVIS: Yes. Yes, because -- and since that's being completed I won't ask my questions. This is Marlone again. Because I was

78 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 trying to understand how that position paper is used.

Is it used in referencing other calculations, but I'll take a look at the final.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes, we can provide that.

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MR. GEORGE: So, Tomeka, that concludes our questions from the NRC side. I believe we're about to go break and a caucus, correct?

MS. TERRY: Can you hear me? Okay. So NRC is now in the process of a recess, briefly, to discuss the information that has been presented today. We'll determine if there is any add, any questions or clarification that was requested by NRC regarding the information discussed today.

And this is normally taking about 30 minutes. And this will allow NRC and the Staff to briefly review what has been presented this morning and determine if there is any clarification regarding information for Holtec has presented. If you have any follow-up questions we will present them to the licensee and reconvene the meeting and presentation.

We encourage Holtec to use this recess to determine if they have any additional information they would like to present. Please note that all

79 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 public attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions to the NRC. Both Holtec and NRC provide their closing remarks.

From the NRC Staff participate in the caucus, please disconnect from this meeting and go to Teams to join the internal caucus on Teams. And we'll be sitting out the NRC Staff for commenters to participate. All attendees may hold on mute until we return. Bridge line as well.

MR. GEORGE: And we will reconvene around 11:00 a.m.

MS. TERRY: Yes, 11:00.

MR. GEORGE: Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:32 a.m. and resumed at 11:01 a.m.)

MS. HELTON: So I think we're unmuted.

And do we have the camera back up again? Great, thank you.

Appreciate the time that you took to explain a number of things to us this morning. We're going to share some of the questions that we had with you. And we have some requests for, you know, you mentioned some information that we don't have so

80 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 we're going to go through that and outline what we think we need to help determine the safety significance severity level, whether a violation exists.

We're also going to ask some questions about, you know, if a violation were given to Holtec for certain issues what would the corrective actions be. This meeting is being transcribed. And while I understand that, you know, for several of the apparent violations, no corrective actions have been taken yet because you're awaiting to see the outcome of the PEC and what the final determination will be.

That said, anything that you tell us today will be on the transcript. And any corrective actions you describe we can refer to the transcript in our decision making for, you know, should we arrive at a violation. What the appropriate enforcement around that would be. Including in consideration of any civil penalties.

So any thoughts that you have, you know, our Staff is going to be very specific with our information needs and, you know, I just ask that our Staff be clear about why we need it and how that fits into our decision making. And any information Holtec

81 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 can give us on potential corrective actions, that would help us in our decision making as we go through the, when you, Michele, the metro map, on our enforcement process. So I'll turn it over to Gerond.

MR. GEORGE: Again, my name is Gerond George, I'm the chief of the inspection oversight branch. So again, thank you for your guys' presentation and being willing to answer our questions.

Of course we're looking for information, as Shana said, to be able to be make our final determination on the issues. And so we did end our conversations with your presentation. We called out a few things that we'd like to see.

So for Apparent Violations A and B, I think really where we need to really understand if we can get anymore details on the operating experience that you have for those loaded casks, and unloaded casks, that may be susceptible to accumulating water.

For those that have accumulated water it would be helpful if you guys could provide us any information that you have on the storage configuration of those loaded casks.

And of course, the reason we're asking

82 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 about the storage configuration is because the discussion that you guys led talked about accumulating water is incredible, right? We just want to know, do we understand what mechanism is driving water to go into the cask? And that's the one question that I think you guys were trying to answer as well.

And then we need to understand how those configurations were different than the loaded casks.

Again, I think we do understand the, what the investigations that were done on the loaded casks did not identify any water in those casks. Of course if you have some that have identified water it would be great to know that.

But that may give us additional information or evidence that there is something with the loaded casks. It could be heat, it could be something else. How you seal those casks. It could be something else that is precluding water or, water from getting into the cask.

But I do say that, that still doesn't, in our view, still doesn't take away maybe the flooding concern. And being able to recover from the flooding concern. So we do have some additional information

83 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 needs on that too.

In your presentation you talked about crediting this drain line. Or I'm not going to use the word credit. That you could use the drain line to recover from a flooding event. Also we know some of your FSARs are from the newer versions of the FSAR.

They do talk about recovery from those types of events as well.

So we need you to provide those FSAR sections that describe the actions, or the general licensee's actions, to recover from this flooding event. If that includes use of the drain, please provide that. Also, and if you have drawings that show the drain line that would be great as well.

MS. MANZIONE: Can I add into that?

MR. GEORGE: Go ahead.

MS. HELTON: You know, part of the interest of the Staff is, not just the flow of the water through the drain line, but what are the recovery actions as silt accumulates. And even after the water drains, blocking the airflow.

MS. MANZIONE: Can I just ask one clarifying question? You're interested in that specifically for these versions or for all versions?

84 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 MR. GEORGE: For the versions that we're talking about. Yes.

MS. MANZIONE: For the elevated event versions only, okay. I just want to make sure we get you what you need.

MR. GEORGE: Yes. Okay. And again --

MS. HELTON: Well, and with that --

MR. GEORGE: Go ahead.

MS. HELTON: Sorry. This is Shana Helton, NRC. I'm bad about saying our names, sorry about that.

Yes. If the new versions are relying on the same information that you use for the old versions, and that's relevant, then I think we're interested.

But, you

know, bottom line we're interested in understanding the airflow and how there are procedures or analyses that give reasonable assurance that following rain, flood, snow, whatever event that would wind up with blockage of the vents that within the 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> that it's draining and there is no self-blockage that impedes the airflow and impedes the cooling of the cask. You know, our understanding from the actions that general licensees

85 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 have taken today is that the drain plug has been effective and so we've got no imminent safety concern.

I just want to make that very clear, we've got no imminent safety concern. But what is it that is in the FSAR that would drive the user to do the surveillance needed to pull the drain plug if needed and, under the right conditions.

MR. GEORGE: Gerond George here again.

And with that, we'll be asking what recovery procedures did you provide to your general licensees for use of these different means of either inspecting after a floods or after these events and taking the recovery actions that need to be taken.

Also, I'd like to add to that, we did, you did in your conversation talk about you did communicate with your user's group on actions they may have taken in response to this event. If you guys have a formal document that clearly identifies, or you sent out to your user's group of this is what they should do, until we complete disposition of these violation, and you're corrective actions, that would be very helpful in our determination as well to maybe give some corrective action credit.

86 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 Are there any questions on that? On those. For Apparent Violations A and B?

MS. HELTON: Sorry, this is Shana Helton again, NRC. You know, the teams understanding is we're thinking about what we needed for information needs is that these are all documents or analyses that Holtec has readily available. Is that correct?

MS. MANZIONE: This is Kim Manzione.

Yes, readily available. I'm just thinking of the operating experience kind of on how we package that for you might be the, only the most, not difficult part, but just packaging it away that's easily understandable.

And that's the only one that I think might take a little bit. Having to go back to the users and figure out what their storage configuration looks like at the individual sites. What events that would be to me, the kind of time consuming, you know, concern on time consuming item knowing you guys want to respond quickly to this.

MR. GEORGE: So let me think about that.

We may need to discuss. I know we're trying to complete this by middle of October. If, I would ask, maybe you can get this to us in a couple of weeks,

87 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 but if you feel that may not be doable we can negotiate. But we would need that information --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MR. GEORGE: -- before we make our final determination which --

MS. MANZIONE: No, that's where I want to make sure you have all the information you need.

I just know that that, right. We're talking about a bunch of different utilities and a bunch of different sites and that just might take, I mean, a couple of weeks doesn't seem unreasonable.

And we certainly can, can provide you all the QI that you ask for. The FSAR exceptions. All that stuff we can provide up front. And then if it takes us another week to get that information from the users than we would do that. We wouldn't hold all the information until, you know, we got the last piece. That's the, but I just wanted to call that out because that involves so many different organizations.

MR. GEORGE: No, problem. So while I'm discussing let me, I'll think, and maybe I can get some advice and maybe give you a due date on that.

But let me think about it while we're talking.

88 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 MS. BURGESS: Yes. So, Gerond, that's what I was going to say, let's get to the end of the list and then see how that parses out with the timing on that, to finish by October. You know it's, a couple of weeks is a longer time frame than would allow us to finish by the middle of October if we want to --

MR. GEORGE: All right.

MS. BURGESS: -- disposition this and move it out. But when we get to the end we can see if it's one --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MS. BURGESS: -- thing or multiple things.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. Understood.

MS. BURGESS: And then figure out what's a good time. Getting the right information is more important than getting partial --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MS. BURGESS: -- information.

MS. MANZIONE: And we want to make sure we support you, I just --

MS. BURGESS: Right.

MS. MANZIONE: -- you know, cognizant of

89 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 operating reactors and priorities.

MR. GEORGE: Thank you, Kim. Okay, we'll go to Apparent Violation C. I wrote this maybe incorrectly, but I want to make sure I, you guys can get the intent of what we need.

So, and this issue, again, dealing with a movement of a cask without the overpack lid and direct impacts to the MPC and your analysis for that.

So, Chuck, in your discussion you did talk about, in your SR analysis, where you do have an FSAR analysis that looks at the MPC being impacted while it's in the HI-TRAC, correct?

But what specific analysis do you have in the FSAR, or could cover the configuration that this certain issue was in?

Do you have an analysis, or could you show us in your analysis that's referenced in the FSAR what you, how you evaluated those direct impacts on the MPC?

I think you said that the analysis was completed without the overpack, or it was assumed that the overpack was there. Help me out there.

MR. BULLARD: Yes, there is an explicit calculation for missile strike, a direct missile

90 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 strike, on the MPC lid.

MR. GEORGE: Okay.

MR. BULLARD: The original motivation for that was consideration of the MPC and the HI-TRAC. So if you look at the supporting calculation in the text discussion it may make reference to the HI-TRAC. But the formulas, the inputs, the calculations, there is no input that's derived from the HI-TRAC.

MR. GEORGE: Okay.

MR. BULLARD: So we can share that with you. If we were to do the calculation, let's say for the MPC and the HI-STORM, it would look exactly the same. Maybe the text would be changed to say, this isn't HI-STORM. You know, the HI-TRAC. But the calculation otherwise would look identical.

MR. GEORGE: Okay.

MR. BULLARD: We can give the relevant FSAR sections and share that calculation.

MR. GEORGE: Yes. I would like you to share those relevant FSAR sections and the calculations that you already have to capture it.

Okay, for Apparent Violation D, Delta, that was the issue dealing with the use of an old

91 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 version of Ansys against the new version of Ansys.

Our request on that is just very simple. Have you done any additional comparison against your FSAR, your FSAR results?

We know what your answer was earlier, that you have not. But from our standpoint in using, you know, our NEI guidance, it leads us to after you do the verification and validation you still need to show where you're conservative, non-conservative or essentially the same. And our guidance, the way to do that is compare against the results in the FSAR.

So, do you have any information that can show us that the results that you have, if you ran the FSAR analysis, would be conservative, and essentially the same, to the FSAR representative case?

MR. BULLARD: Understood. This is Chuck Bullard. Just a clarification. Are you asking that question specific to this violation and this proposed changed, or just more broadly?

I ask that because there probably are historical cases where we've run something in the FSAR using two different versions. But I think you're asking specifically --

92 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 MR. GEORGE: For this specific case.

Yes, for this specific case.

MR. BULLARD: Understood.

MR. GEORGE: Are there any questions on that? Marlone, did you have a comment? And if you have, oh, go ahead.

MR. MOHAMMAD: This is Abrar from Holtec.

Just a quick question on D. So when you say specific scenario from the FSAR, is there any scenario that you're referring to or could it be any scenario from the FSAR? Just one scenario in a comparison.

MR. DAVIS: So this is Marlone. So the code originally had results that were presented in the FSAR. The version 7 or 11. They had original results. And so you should be comparing those particular results to your new results.

MR. MOHAMMAD: Understood. And that could be for any scenario?

MR. DAVIS: No. It's particular for this change.

MR. MOHAMMAD: Got it. Understood.

Thank you.

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MR. GEORGE: That's this change to the

93 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 methodology, correct?

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MR. GEORGE: Yes. No, specific, you know --

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

MR. GEORGE: -- evaluation. It's really the change to the methodology that we're talking about here.

MS. HELTON: This is Shana Helton. And correct me, but, you know, I think that what we're really looking for is something we could point to, to show that the use of the representative cases wasn't an non-conservative. Introducing a non-conservatism because when we're looking at the criteria of the guidance that we endorse, I think we're looking to see that when you compare the versions it's either conservative or essentially the same. So we're trying to better understand what the representative cases mean compared to that criteria.

MR. BULLARD: So just to confirm understanding, you know, we've analyzed a current set of represent cases, representative cases, and made the claim that they're essentially the same on the basis of those. You're looking for going beyond

94 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 that, a very specific comparison to the FSAR case to confirm that that holds true in the context of that FSAR change?

MR. GEORGE: Yes. Go ahead, Marlone.

MR. DAVIS: Yes. Yes, again, I think that's the, once you do that that's, you're in Charlie 2 space at that point in time, but Delta 1 is, here's the guidance, here's what you should be doing as part of the evaluation to demonstrate the basis and the determination. But yes, that particular results to be compared.

MR. GEORGE: Okay. And for Apparent Violation E, that's really simple. Again, thank you for giving us the status on that corrective action for that issue. If you could provide us your status of the corrective actions, and specifically what corrective actions you've taken for that wrong value that would be very, very greatly appreciated to get to our final significance.

You guys have any questions or want any more discussion on any of those? Okay.

MS. HELTON: Well, sorry to take us back.

I know we want to save a little bit of time for closing remarks and --

95 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 MR. GEORGE: Yes.

MS. HELTON: -- any Q&A. But going back to AVD, the Ansys, I believe that the Staff's intent isn't to have you run a new analysis in response to our information request, you know, we just want to better understand how you get to the, essentially the same conclusion.

MR. GEORGE: And we, and -- in our investigation or inspection of that

specific, specific regulation, we want to be able to come to that same conclusion. Same correct conclusion.

That's it.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. And any new analysis we might do for a corrective action, if that were to come out, to be a violation. I understand.

But you're looking for what exists today?

MR. GEORGE: Exists.

MS. MANZIONE: I understand. Yes.

MS.

HELTON:

Yes, and as we're discussing, sorry. This is Shana Helton, NRC. As we're discussing, you know, and you're giving more, your perspectives here today, I think the, what you would do for a potential corrective action is helpful to us in driving the decision making and enforcement.

96 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 But that's different than what we're looking for in terms of information needs for the Ansys calculation.

We're just really looking for, you know, you ran representative cases, came to the conclusion they were essentially the same and we need a little more help understanding how you came to that conclusion. And if you have some documentation you can provide to help us with that.

MR. DAVIS: Yes, I will.

MR. GEORGE: All right. So we're done with that, we can move on.

MS. BURGESS: Yes, so this is Michele Burgess.

So we have the questions, the clarifications that we were looking for. So some of the stuff is actions that you guys are going to take and send off to us.

To make sure that we have all the information in hand, we can take, you know, we can put all the facts together, and including some of the things, and I want to parse out the stuff you've already done versus, okay, it's stuff that you're going to do so then it would fall into the corrective action, and all of that, that you would provide to us. Just parsing out what you've done versus what

97 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 you're going to do or what you would plan to do. In particular, if we do decide that there is a violation.

Having all of that information in hand when we make our decision, then we can use all of it.

There isn't a second PEC. Right? There is not a second round. So what I'm looking for as the keeper of the process is, if I get all of that at one time, I get to use all of it as we go through that chart that we received.

So I am kind of leaning forward a little bit saying, if you have stuff that you would propose, that hasn't been done yet, I'd like to have it because then I can use it. I could credit all of the facts in the process.

So timing-wise? We talked a little bit about timing. We want to get this disposition as quickly as possible. It's everybody's, right, goal.

Timing wise, what would be a doable given the things that you guys have heard that we're looking for?

Usually when we do these it's follow-up on stuff that has already been done. So it's usually very short time frames that licensee needs. Usually it's like within the week. Somebody, they give it to us by Monday.

98 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 Step 1 looks like it might take, not that it's hard, but it might take longer to get together so --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. This is Kim Manzione. I do think, right, from what we heard I think the majority of the things do seem like pulling out sections of the FSAR that exists, giving you a QI that exists. You know, documenting what we've done or haven't done for that representative cases. So I think all of that, you know, seems realistic in the, I don't want to commit to a specific date, but roughly a week time frame that you're talking about. Whether it's Monday, Tuesday, we'll take a look.

But that other piece that does involve, you know, many different utilities and, you know, we want to make sure we give you verifiable information, right? I have a lot of communications that are probably less formal documentation.

I've got to make sure that the utilities are, understand what information I'm sharing. So that's the one that just concerns me timing wise I think.

MS. FLEMING: Can we say, and Kim, if this is not doable, September 9th, next Tuesday we

99 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 will have the majority of the information to you.

And then the OE from the users the following --

MS. MANZIONE: Yes. I mean, I think September 9th for everything except the OE from the users. I think we can say we'll shoot for the following

week, but we'll obviously keep in communication if we're having any, as I said, I want to be cognizant of the fact that the people we're getting that information from are operating power reactors and so I do want to make sure we're not, hopefully they can get me that information. But I just don't have the control to get it, so we'll try for the following week, but we'll just keep in contact if something is, you know, if we're missing one particular utility we'll, you know, we can let you know that that's the one that we're struggling with because they're in another condition.

MS. BURGESS: And this is Michele. I think this sounds reasonable. When you respond with what you have on the 9th, if in there you said, and here's our plan for, you know, here's when we, because you'd have some extra time --

MS. MANZIONE: Correct. Right. Then I'll have a couple --

100 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 (Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BURGESS: -- and now you might be able to predict what that date might be.

MS. MANZIONE: Yes.

MS. BURGESS: Just go ahead and include it in there and then that way it's captured. We know what it is. It's a future action --

MS. MANZIONE: Correct.

MS. BURGESS: -- and it's part of what we have. And then we can plan around that. So I just want to get that logistic in before we moved on to closing stuff. Good? Okay, thanks.

MS. HELTON: Sure. Yes, why don't I let Holtec go first because you might have some more things to say that we'll be interested in capturing.

MS. FLEMING: Yes, I don't think we have any additional information regarding the five apparent violations, we just would like to thank you for the opportunity to come present this additional information. I think we did have a good dialogue.

We appreciate your questions. And like we said, we'll respond with that additional information that will hopefully give the clarity of our positions. So thank you.

101 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 MS. HELTON: Okay, great. Yes, thank you. This is Shana Helton. My thanks to the NRC Staff for coming well prepared to ask questions. And my thanks to Holtec for coming well prepared to discuss the facts of the case with those slides that you presented today.

This is very helpful for us. And we've got more information from today. And I understand we'll get more by September 9th, potentially the operating experience come a little after that. I agree completely that we need to be mindful of the demands being placed on operating reactor licensees.

So thank you. I think we were really successful with this today. And I believe, I lost my place in the order of things, but I believe, Brett, do we turn it over to you for Q&A at this point?

MR. KLUKAN: We are. If we're ready to close the business portion of the meeting, we'll open it up to public comments. It sounds like we're there.

So, with that, welcome members of the public. My name is Brett Klukan, I am the facilitator for this meeting this morning. So as discussed in the meeting announcement that was posted

102 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 on the NRC public website, now that the business portion of the meeting has concluded we will reserve some time for public comments, or questions, regarding the substance of what we've discussed today. Particularly the conversations we've been having around the five apparent violations.

So please limit your, or direct your comments and questions to, again, the matters that we've been discussing today. Specifically the five violations, the canisters, whatnot.

Okay. So with that, if you would like to ask the NRC Staff a question, or pose a comment to the NRC Staff regarding any of the matters that have been discussed, please raise your hand using the Teams app. It's a little hand that says raise under it within the application. Or if you're on the phone press star-5. Again, that is star-5 if you are on the phone. You will then have to press star-6 to unmute yourself once I have called upon you. But again, if you would like to speak at this time regarding any of the matters discussed, please raise your hand.

And with that, I see we have one phone number ending in 99. So if you're phone number ends

103 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 in 99, I have allowed your microphone. When you begin, please state your name and any affiliation so that it can be captured as part of the record. So with that, I've allowed your microphone. Please unmute yourself by pressing star-6. Again, that is star-6 whenever you are ready. And again, this is phone number ending in 99.

MS. WALKER: Hello?

MR. KLUKAN: Hi.

MS. WALKER: Can you hear me?

MR. KLUKAN: We can barely hear you. So you might have to get a little closer, speak a little louder. And if you can begin with your name?

MS. WALKER: Hello. My name is Kaleigh Walker. I'm a member of the public around the Holtec UMAX system at San Onofre so I've been tracking the Holtec canisters, and the other canisters that the NRC has approved.

And I'm concerned about canister degradation over the long term. A lot of these canisters are moving into the aged management portion of NRC oversight pretty darn quick, as time flies.

But regarding what was discussed today, so if the water, if the canister is so hot, if the

104 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 water accumulates in the bottom, the canister is so hot that the water boils off, what would be the tritium radiation emitting from the air vents? Has that been analyzed?

It seems like there would be quite a load since it's a high neutron environment for the radioactive hydrogen. And I'm pretty sure you don't measure it, but are the calculations, that's the concern.

And then, if the water does not boil off, because the canisters are not that hot and it has to be drained or pumped out or something, you mentioned silt or something in there, what, how is that going to effect the integrity of the canister? It just seems like that's going to set up the environment for vertical degradation of the -- all sorts of stainless steel degradation mechanisms happen when there are contaminants, including perhaps the fact that the canisters are scrapped against the carbon steel guide, what do you call those, the internals of the cast that protrude when it's been found that the canisters, you know, scrape against that.

They actually gouged against carbon steel at San Onofre but the NRC kind of hasn't acknowledged

105 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 that. So my concern is the degradation down, you know, as we move forward. Because Holtec says these canisters will last forever, but I'm not convinced about that. The vertical channels is what I was looking for.

Anyway, those are the concerns members of the public have regarding the viability of the canisters overtime because it doesn't seem like the degradation mechanisms of the canisters, of the stainless steel, is being taken seriously. Thank you.

MR. KLUKAN: Thank you very much. So I heard two questions there. So the first one is with regards to, we'll handle them one at a time. First one is, so as water accumulates within that and then boils off, in this accident scenario, what would be the projected tritium release associated with that?

MR. GEORGE: This is Gerond George, again, branch chief, inspection oversight branch. So again, Ms. Walker, at this time we have not seen that any water has accumulated in the loaded casks. Also, we were still not sure the mechanism that's allowing the water in those casks, so it would be very hard for us to postulate, I guess, any water boil off

106 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 would, would be any water boil off, number one, and number two, it's very difficult right now for us to postulate what type of tritium would be in that, because again, it would be mostly rain or the flood waters from some other location. And, you know, we don't have that information at this point in time.

And we don't have the information to show that that is a problem.

MS. HELTON: And this is Shana Helton.

I'll just add on. You know, just for clarity, the water that we're talking about never comes into direct contact with the fuel because the fuel is inside the welded canister and maintained in an inert environment. We're talking about a very, a fairly transient event.

So the NRC does not have an imminent safety concern regarding this. I think it's a matter of ensuring that should a flooding event happen general licensees, that we have reasonable assurance.

They're going to take the actions they need to take to drain that water properly. This isn't a concern with retards to the issue that you raised on tritium.

MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. So her, Ms.

Walker's other question with regards to, so you do

107 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 have water accumulate in there, or potential silt, as was suggested, and then you have to drain it down.

What has the potential degradation associated with the water and other material, particulate matter being in there, being analyzed for what impact it would have on the canister?

MR. DAVIS: This is Marlone Davis, senior safety inspector. And I was one of the main authors of the aging management program, to look at precursors. I don't believe the HI-STORM 100 FW is in that 20 year, at this time for license or CFC renewal. But when it does come into the 20-year we do have a program, the licensees have a program, and we have an inspection procedure that go out and look at the licensee's program to see if they are looking for those precursors to degradation of the MPC, the overpack and the ISFSI pad. The important safety type of equipment.

And so, just big picture wise, there is operating experience thing that we're looking at from an aging management standpoint to gather all those information when we are looking at those precursors.

To look at degradation of those important safety pieces of equipment.

108 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 MR. KLUKAN: All right, thank you very much. Next we're going to go to Donna Gilmore.

Donna, I have allowed your microphone. Please begin once you've unmuted yourself with your name and any affiliation.

MS.

GILMORE:

Donna

Gilmore, sanonofresafety.org. Number one is, what sites are currently using this design with the raised inlet air vents, and is this, these models with the raised designed are they still allowed to be used given the process that's going on or if they switch back to the other type of vents?

And regarding Marlone's comment regarding aging management, as far as I know there is no way to actually inspect these canisters for cracks and crack growth rate, and no way to remediate that problem that's been approved by the NRC.

MR. KLUKAN: All right. Well thank you very much, Donna, we appreciate you joining us. And thank you as well, Kaleigh, for joining us as well.

So I'm going to now turn your questions over to the NRC Staff.

So the first question was, and I'll bundle the first two questions together. What sites

109 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 are currently using these canisters with the elevated vent design, and have they been asked to change over to a different design as a result of this NRC investigation?

MR. GEORGE: I'll answer that question.

Thanks, Brett. Gerond George again, chief inspection oversight branch.

So first of all I'd just like to say, no, we have not asked any of the sites to change to a different design. At this time we don't see it as an immediate safety concern or a concern that we may need to issue an order or anything like that with our licensees or our certificate holder. So that's first off.

We have done our inspections, our inspections have identified multiple sites that do have this design. I don't want to get into specifics into which ones because there are a few. Or several.

But in the configuration that those sites are in we've, again, not, have determined that there is no immediate safety concern at this point. And they've taken the corrective action associated with the issue.

MR. KLUKAN: Thank you. And then the

110 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 other question was regarding how does, or how is site, or excuse me, crack propagation analyzed or detected, and then if detected how would it be remediated?

MS. HELTON: Yes, this is Shana Helton, NRC. And I'd just like to go back to say that we're looking at a hypothetical. A hypothetical scenario where water could collect. It would not be collecting inside the canister it would be in the vents, in the overpack.

And as I mentioned to Kaleigh, that the canister is a sealed, welded. The fuel is maintained in an inert environment. So with regard to the crack propagation, that's really well outside of the scope of today's meeting.

And as Brett mentioned earlier, I think we're seeking to really be responsive to any questions about this particular reinforcement conference and the issues that we're dealing with here. We're not concerned about crack propagation in relationship to this issue.

MR. KLUKAN: Okay. All right, we'll thank you. All right, so at this time I don't see any --

MS. GILMORE: Can you at least, in your

111 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 meeting summary, could you at least include the list of sites that are currently using this design in your meeting summary?

MR. GEORGE: Yes, we can look into that.

MS. GILMORE: Thank you.

MR. KLUKAN: Thank you again, Donna, we appreciate it. So at this time I don't see any hands raised, so if you would like to enter the queue please use the raised hand function within Teams. Again, it looks like a little hand. Or if you're participating via phone today, it's star-5. Again, star-5 to raise your hand within the system if you're participating by phone. And I'll give people a minute to enter into the queue.

Okay. It looks like Ms. Walker, you have an additional question you'd like to ask, so I've allowed your microphone. Feel free to unmute yourself, again, by pressing star-6 whenever you are ready.

MS. WALKER: Am I on?

MR. KLUKAN: Yes.

MS. WALKER: Okay. The, I mean obviously the water is not getting into the canister, hopefully, but the canisters do not contain neutrons

112 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 or gamma. So, I mean, I would think that would be common knowledge for the spent fuel committee there.

The water would be transmitted into tritium, right? I don't think that's a non-issue.

All right, thank you.

MR. KLUKAN: No, we appreciate that comment that, from your perspective, so thank you again for participating today. Again, this will be captured as part of the transcript from the meeting, so thank you.

MS. WALKER: Well correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, do the canisters contain neutrons?

I don't think so. Neutrons convert water into tritium.

MR. KLUKAN: So I guess what you're asking, and maybe if I can rephrase it to help us here is, are you asking, with respect to this particular accident scenario, you're asking, you know, would neutrons escaping the canister have an impact on potentially accumulated water?

MS. WALKER: I'm saying, you suggested in this meeting that water would accumulate, could accumulate, and the canisters heat could evaporate that water. I mean, this is a technical like, you

113 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 know, factual analysis question. And I think that the neutrons that are not contained within the stainless steel are then in that cavity, and they will then convert that water steam into tritium, which will, it will be part of the streaming radiating concoction that continually streams out of the air vents of every canister. Always. 24/7. Forever.

Because they are not containing neutrons and gamma.

MR. KLUKAN: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

MS. WALKER: I'd like to, I'd like the technical response to that to whether I'm correct or not with my analysis.

MR. KLUKAN: Okay, thank you. I will turn it over to the Staff now.

MS. HELTON: Okay, thank you, Brett.

This is Shana Helton, NRC. And yes, Kaleigh, I think I understand, you know, your concern about if the neutrons can irradiate the water and create tritium.

And I would just like to emphasize that the hypothetical scenario we're looking at is of a very short duration. And the focus of our enforcement conference today is to get information from Holtec that gives the Staff assurance that if

114 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 water were in the annulus that would indeed be of a short duration. So I'd just like to recognize, you know, there is heavy shielding around the MPC and the storage casks. And then that there is to protect the public.

And the focus of today's enforcement conference, really what we're looking at is a potential safety concern is whether blockage of the vent could lead to an increase in temperature and pressure inside the welded fuel canister. And that's where we're been focusing our questions to get additional detail on that point because that is the main potential safety concern.

And as the Staff stated, we don't have any, any concern for any sites that are loaded because they've taken actions to ensure that, for instance, the drain plug gets pulled after a rain or a flooding event, so, and surveillances are done to ensure that there is no blockage in the vent. So we've got good confidence in the safety of the sites that have already loaded this design. Thank you.

MR. KLUKAN: And thank you, again, very much, Kaleigh for participating today and for raising your questions. So, Donna, you have your hand up.

115 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 And again, if you have not yet spoken in the queue please feel --

MS. GILMORE: Yes. Okay --

MR. KLUKAN: -- free to use the --

MS. GILMORE: Okay. Yes, I have --

MR. KLUKAN: -- raised hand function.

Whenever you're ready --

MS. GILMORE: Okay, thanks.

MR. KLUKAN: -- Donna, go ahead.

MS. GILMORE: Okay, thank you. Two things. On the drain vents, I thought those were like welded shut or something? So that would be one question. If there has been a change to that.

And the other one is regarding the tritium. I mean, there is a lot of fog, and that will go with the wind. So those are still going to get in the inlet, outlet air vents. So you're continuously converting rain, fog into radioactive fog. And I think the public has a right to know that whether you consider it relevant to this or not. But that's a continual streaming effort, so. And when there is snow, but anyway, those are the two items I had.

MR. GEORGE: So, Ms. Gilmore, oh go

116 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 ahead. So Gerond George here again.

So on the first question you talk about the drain plugs being welded. We don't have any indication that they're welded. So that's number one.

Number two, the second question I believe is just out of scope on the meeting so far and I think we're starting to getting into pontification on what could or couldn't happen. So I don't want to, you know, lead the discussion down the route that we're creating some other issue. Again, we're particularly talking about heat loads and cooling of the MPC.

MR. KLUKAN: Okay, thank you very much, both Donna and Kaleigh for your questions. Again, I'm going to offer other individuals an opportunity at this time in the minutes remaining to ask a question regarding anything that's been discussed today regarding the apparent violations.

I would just point out to those of you who have joined us today, while I'm waiting for people to enter the queue, again, use the raise hand function or hit star-5, that the enforcement action, as well as the slides for this meeting, have been posted to the NRC's public website. So you can go there to

117 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 retrieve that information if you have not done so already.

But again, I'm not seeing any hands up at this time, so with that I'm going to close the public comment portion of the meeting. Thank you all very much. You may disconnect from this time. And the NRC Staff can end the recording. However, if the court reporter has any questions, we will hang on for a minute to see if you need any spellings or anything like that for the court reporter.

MR. GEORGE: Thanks, Brett. So I'll go ahead and close. I don't think we'll have any further comments or questions moving forward. I do like to thank our representatives from Holtec for attending this meeting to provide us the additional clarification we need to make a final determination.

We'll be looking forward, Kim, to discuss with you, when you will be able to provide us that information.

And that will be it. Thank you guys very much.

MR. KLUKAN: All right, thank you again everyone. Sorry for jumping the gun there. But again, you can find the feedback form on the public meeting website as well. So thank you very much for joining us this morning, and have a great rest of

118 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 your day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 11:47 a.m.)

119 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 C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the foregoing transcript was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under my direction; further, that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings; and that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action in which this matter was taken; and further that I am not a relative nor an employee of any of the parties nor counsel employed by the parties, and I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

Court Reporter

120 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