ML13203A347: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings  
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title:            10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Entergy Nuclear Operations Docket Number: (n/a)
Location:              (teleconference)
Date:            Monday, July 15, 2013 Edited by Richard V. Guzman, NRC Petition Manager Work Order No.:        NRC-073                          Pages 1-33 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                                  + + + + +
4              10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5                              CONFERENCE CALL 6                                        RE 7                  ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
8                                  + + + + +
9                                    MONDAY 10                              JULY 15, 2013 11                                  + + + + +
12                    The conference call was held, Michael C.
13 Cheok,        Chairperson    of    the    Petition  Review    Board, 14 presiding.
15 16 PETITIONERS: MARY LAMPERT 17                      REBECCA CHIN 18                      ARLENE WILLIAMSON 19                      PAUL GUNTER 20 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 21            MICHAEL C. CHEOK, Deputy Director 22                    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 23                    (NRR), Division of Engineering 24            RICHARD GUZMAN, Petition Manager for 2.206 25                    petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
 
2 1 NRC STAFF 2 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Coordinator, NRR, 3            Division of Policy and Rulemaking 4 MARCIA J. SIMON, Attorney, Office of 5            General Counsel 6 RAJENDER AULUCK, Japan Lessons Learned Project 7            Directorate 8 FRED L. BOWER, Acting Branch Chief, Region I 9 ELIZABETH M. KEIGHLEY, Project Engineer, Region I 10 NEIL A. SHEEHAN, Public Affairs, Region I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
3 1                        P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                            (1:03 p.m.)
3                  MR. GUZMAN:          Good afternoon.        This is 4 Rich Guzman.        I'll go ahead and get started with our 5 Petition Review Board teleconference with Petitioner 6 Mary Lampert, Pilgrim Watch.
7                  Again, my name is Rich Guzman.              I am the 8 project manager for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in 9 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.                    I'd like 10 to thank everyone for attending this meeting.                            The 11 purpose of today's teleconference is to allow the 12 Petitioner,        Mary    Lampert,      and      her associates,        to 13 address the Petition Review Board or PRB regarding a 14 2.206 petition, dated June 14, 2013, concerning the 15 NRC orders on reliable hardened containment vent, 16 namely        EA-12-050          and      EA-13-109,      and          the 17 implementation of its provision by Entergy Nuclear 18 Operations, Inc. for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station or 19 Pilgrim.
20                  The teleconference is being recorded by 21 the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by 22 a    court    reporter.        The    transcript    will  become        a 23 supplement to the petition and will also be made 24 publicly available.
25                  Before I briefly go over today's agenda, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com
 
4 1 I'd        like    to    open      the      teleconference          with 2 introductions.          As we go around the room and bridge 3 line, please be sure to clearly state your name, your 4 position, and your office or organization for the 5 record.
6                    I'll start off.        Again, it's Rich Guzman.
7  I'm a project manager in NRR.
8                    MS. SIMON:      Marcia Simon, attorney in the 9 NRC Office of General Counsel.
10                    MR. AULUCK:        Rajender      Auluck,    project 11 manager        in  the  Division      of    Japan    Lessons    Learned 12 Project Directorate.
13                    CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            I'm Mike Cheok.          I'm 14 the deputy director in Division of Engineering in 15 NRR.
16                    MS. MENSAH:        I'm Tanya Mensah.          I'm the 17 Petition Coordinator in the Division of Policy and 18 Rulemaking in NRR.
19                    MR. GUZMAN:            That      would    complete 20 introductions at NRC headquarters.                    At this time are 21 there        any  NRC  headquarters        participants      who      have 22 dialed in on the phone?              Okay, hearing none, will the 23 NRC participants from the regional office introduce 24 themselves?
25                    MS. KEIGHLEY:          This is Beth Keighley, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
5 1 project engineer from Region I.
2                MR. BOWER:      Fred Bower.          I'm the acting 3 branch chief in Region I.
4                MR. SHEEHAN:            Neil      Sheehan,    Public 5 Affairs, Region I.
6                MR. GUZMAN:        Okay, at this time will the 7 representatives for Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim 8 introduce themselves?
9                Hearing      none,    Ms.      Lampert,  will        you 10 please introduce yourself and your associates for the 11 record?
12                PETITIONER LAMPERT:              Yes, this is Mary 13 Lampert, director of Pilgrim Watch and others on the 14 phone can introduce themselves.
15                PETITIONER CHIN:          This is Rebecca Chin.
16 I co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee.
17                PETITIONER          WILLIAMSON:                Arlene 18 Williamson, Pilgrim Coalition.
19                PETITIONER GUNTER:            Beyond Nuclear.
20                MR. GUZMAN:        Can you state your name for 21 Beyond Nuclear?
22                PETITIONER LAMPERT:              I believe it's Paul 23 Gunter.
24                MR. GUZMAN:      Okay.
25                PETITIONER GUNTER:            Paul Gunter is on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
6 1                  MR. GUZMAN:            Thanks, Paul.          It's not 2 required        for  members      of    the    public    to    introduce 3 themselves        for  this    call,      but      if  there    are      any 4 members of the public on the phone that wish to do so 5 at this time, please state your name for the record?
6 7                  (No response.)
8                  With that, for our court reporter, can 9 you also please state your name?
10                  COURT REPORTER:          This is Toby Walter from 11 Neal Gross.        I'm the court reporter.
12                  MR. GUZMAN:        Okay, as a brief overview of 13 the agenda, this teleconference is scheduled from 1 14 o'clock to 2 o'clock p.m. Eastern Time.                      Following my 15 introduction, I will turn it over to the PRB Chairman 16 who        will  provide      opening      remarks      and    briefly 17 summarize        the    scope        of    the      petition        under 18 consideration.          Ms.      Lampert      will    then  give        her 19 presentation        and    finally,      the      PRB  Chairman        will 20 conclude the conference call with closing remarks.
21                  I'd like to emphasize that we each need 22 to speak up clearly to ensure that the court reporter 23 can accurately transcribe the teleconference.                          Also, 24 if you have something you would like to say, please 25 state your name first for the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
7 1                  For        those          dialing        into          the 2 teleconference, please remember to mute your phones 3 to minimize any background noise or distractions.                            If 4 you don't have a mute button this can be done by 5 pressing the key *6 and then to unmute press the *6 6 keys again.        Thank you.
7                  At this time, I'll turn it over to the 8 PRB Chairman Mike Cheok.
9                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:              Thanks, Rich.        Good 10 afternoon, again.          I would like to thank everyone and 11 I'd like to welcome you to this meeting regarding the 12 2.206 petition submitted by Mary Lampert.
13                  First, let me share some background in 14 our process.        Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 15 of      Federal    Regulations          describes        the    petition 16 process.        This    is    the    primary      mechanism  for      the 17 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in 18 our public process.              The process permits anyone to 19 petition      the  NRC    to  take      enforcement-type        action 20 related to the NRC licensees or licensee activities.
21  Depending upon the results of the evaluation, the 22 NRC      can  modify,    suspend,      or    revoke    an  NRC-issued 23 license or take any other appropriate enforcement 24 action to resolve a problem.
25                  The    NRC      staff's          guidance    for        the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
8 1 disposition        of    a    2.206      petition        is  found        in 2 Management        Directive        8.11      which      is    publicly 3 available.
4                  The purpose of today's teleconference is 5 to give the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 6 additional        explanation        of    the      support    for      the 7 petition before the PRB's initial consideration and 8 recommendation.
9                  This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 10 an opportunity for Petitioner to question or examine 11 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 12 petition request.          No decisions regarding the merits 13 of this petition will be made at this teleconference.
14                  Following      this    teleconference,          the      PRB 15 will conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome 16 of this internal meeting will be discussed with the 17 Petitioner.            The    PRB    typically        consists      of      a 18 chairman, usually a manager at the Senior Executive 19 Service level at the NRC.                It has a petition manager 20 and a PRB coordinator.                Other members of the Board 21 are determined by the NRC staff based on the content 22 of the information in the petition request.
23                  At this time, I would like to introduce 24 the      Board. I    am    Mike    Cheok,      the  PRB  chairman.
25 Richard        Guzman  is    the    petition        manager  for      the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
9 1 petition under discussion today.                  Tanya Mensah is the 2 PRB      coordinator.      Our    technical        staff  includes:
3 Rajender Auluck from the NRC's Japan Lessons Learned 4 Project Directorate; Fred Bower and Steve Schaffer 5 from the NRC Region I, Division of Reactor Projects.
6  We also obtain advice from the Office of General 7 Counsel represented today by Marcia Simon, and from 8 the Office of Enforcement which will be represented 9 by Bob Fretz.
10                  As  described        in    our      process,  the      NRC 11 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better 12 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 13 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject a 14 Petitioner's      request      for    review        under  the      2.206 15 process.
16                  Additionally,          the      licensee    may        ask 17 questions to clarify issues raised by the Petitioner.
18  I understand that the licensee is not on the phone 19 today.
20                  Next, I would like to summarize the scope 21 of the petition under consideration and the NRC's 22 activities to date.            On June 14, 2013, Ms. Lampert 23 submitted      to  the      NRC    a    petition        under      2.206 24 concerning NRC orders EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 related 25 to hardened containment vents for Pilgrim Nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 1 Power Station.
2                    In  her    petition,      Ms. Lampert  requests 3 that NRC immediately suspend the operating license of 4 Entergy Nuclear operations at Pilgrim Nuclear Power 5 Station until the provisions of the NRC orders are 6 fully implemented and until the containment vents at 7 Pilgrim are augmented with filters and rupture discs.
8                    The Petitioner requests this enforcement 9 action        on  the  basis      that    the      existing  design        of 10 Pilgrim and other MARK 1 and 2 reactors that they are 11 not      sufficient    to    protect      the      public  health        and 12 safety.          The Petitioner also states that the NRC is 13 not meeting its statutory obligations by allowing 14 Pilgrim        and  other    reactors      with      like  design        to 15 operate without fully implementing the requirements 16 of NRC orders.
17                    In terms of NRC activities to date, the 18 PRB met on June 27, 2013 to review the Petitioner's 19 request for immediate action.                  The PRB concluded that 20 there is no immediate safety concern to Pilgrim or to 21 the health and safety of the public to warrant the 22 requested immediate action, that is, the immediate 23 suspension of the Pilgrim operating license.                                Ms.
24 Lampert was informed of this decision on June 28, 25 2013.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


Title:  10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board    RE Entergy Nuclear Operations
11 1                Next      is      a      reminder        for      phone 2 participants, please identify yourself if you make 3 any remarks as this will help us in the preparation 4 of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly 5 available.
6                Ms. Lampert, I will now turn it over to 7 you to allow you and your associates to provide any 8 information you believe the PRB should consider as 9 part of its petition.
10                PETITIONER LAMPERT:               Yes, this is Mary 11 Lampert and thank you for the opportunity.                    We agree 12 that the NRC is statutorily required to adequately 13 protect public health and safety.                      That is not a 14 question.
15                I assume you agree with that.                If you do 16 not agree with that, you would explain your reasons 17 why you don't agree and the decision.
18                This    would      seem    to      include  requiring 19 measures so that the reactor will not blow up, breach 20 its walls, as occurred at Pilgrim sister reactors at 21 Fukushima,    and    measures        to    prevent      and    monitor 22 radiation in excess of allowable limits related to 23 the site.
24                Our   petition        provided,        I  believe,        14 25 direct quotes from EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 where both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Docket Number: (n/a)  
12 1 orders themselves admit that the status quo does not 2 protect public health and safety.                      If again you do 3 not agree with the statements quoted as being fully 4 accurate, or if you do not agree that what the order 5 said in this regard is inaccurate, I request that you 6 make your reasons clear in your written decision.
7                    It's  important        to    note    what  was      said 8 contrary to the orders in an introductory letter by 9 Eric Leeds to licensee that accompanied the order.
10 It said "the NRC staff has determined that continued 11 operations does not pose an imminent risk to public 12 health        and    safety,        however,          the    additional 13 requirements outlined in EA-13-109 are necessary in 14 light of insights gained from the events at Fukushima 15 Daiichi" page 2 of the letter.                        The key words are 16 "imminent risk" and "necessary."
17                    Imminent as defined in the dictionary, 18 The Free Dictionary as "about to occur, impending as 19 an imminent danger."              Dictionary.com:             "likely to 20 occur at any moment."                  Webster:          "ready to take 21 place."        Oxford:    "About to happen."
22                    So    therefore,          the        only    sensible 23 interpretation          of    Eric      Leeds        use  of    the      word 24 "imminent"        could    only      mean    that      NRC  staff        has 25 determined that continued operation does not pose a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Location:   (teleconference)  
13 1 risk to public health and safety, that it's likely to 2 occur        at  any   moment,      any    time      soon  because        NRC 3 believes,        despite    Fukushima,        that      we  assume        the 4 Japanese believed there was no imminent risk until it 5 happened despite the fact that Pilgrim is the same 6 design as Fukushima's reactors, despite the fact that 7 Pilgrim has many, many times more spent fuel in its 8 pool than Unit 4 and despite the fact that Pilgrim 9 has had 13 event reports since January 1st of this 10 year,        the  most  recent,      the    malfunctioning        of      the 11 annunciators in the control room that is they were 12 flying blind.          Despite all that, none of this is 13 going to happen for six or so years.                      In other words, 14 NRC is crossing their fingers.                      What else could it 15 mean?
16                    To boot, the order says these events are 17 necessary.          To use Eric Leeds' words "to protect 18 public health and safety."                That means now, tomorrow, 19 next week, a year from now, two years from now that 20 there indeed can be a problem where the vent would be 21 required to operate and where hopefully if they did 22 operate, they would be filtered so that my house, six 23 miles across open water from Pilgrim, would not be 24 rendered worthless and the health of my community at 25 grave risk.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Date:   Monday, July 15, 2013
14 1                  The order also says in regard to venting 2 from the wetwell that in regard to filtering for Mark 3 I containment the preferred venting path is from the 4 wetwell portion of the containment because the water 5 in the suppression pool provides a degree, key word, 6 degree,        of  decontamination          before      release    to      the 7 environment.        EA-13-109 at 7.
8                  A degree of contamination from venting 9 the wetwell was explained in our petition at pages 6 10 through 7.          The wetwell vent can release anywhere 11 from zero to close to 99 percent via scrubbing.                              We 12 noted that throughout the world reactors, licensees 13 either have a filter or like the Japanese have chosen 14 to install a filter because they learned the lessons 15 from their accidents, despite the fact that they have 16 scrubbing, so it's in addition to which is what the 17 Petitioners are requesting.
18                  On the other hand, the proposed drywell 19 vent      obviously    has    no   scrubbing,         so  it  will      not 20 filter any releases.              Therefore, we believe that it 21 is accurate to say if venting occurs, public health 22 and worker health will be negatively impacted.                                If 23 you      don't  believe      this,      please      explain    in      your 24 written response.
25                  The order also discusses NRC's process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Edited by Richard V. Guzman, NRC Petition Manager
15 1 for further reviewer action on filtering.                       It says at 2 5: "issues relating to filtering will be addressed 3 through the rulemaking process."
4                    I have a couple of questions regarding 5 the rulemaking process based on NRC Atomic Safety and 6 Licensing        Board    Judge    Rosenthal's          conclusion        made 7 during        the  prehearing        in    Boston      that  I    brought 8 challenging          EA-12-050.          He    said      "that  with        one 9 possible exception, the NRC has not granted a Section 10 2.206 petition that substantive relief is sought for 11 at      least    37    years."            Key      word,    substantive.
12 Therefore,        we    would      like      to      know  and    have        it 13 explained        in  your    response      what      the  NRC's      track 14 record for granting the full substance sought in any 15 rulemaking petition.              And second, what is the range 16 of time it has taken to issue a full decision on a 17 rulemaking petition?              You could say this is important 18 to me.        I am 71 years old.            I cannot wait 10, 20 or 19 whatever the range in time it is for NRC to respond 20 to a rulemaking petition, number one.
21                    And also, it is important to know how 22 successful this is.                We find that we are offered 23 opportunities to file a 2.206 which I am doing, but 24 the      chances      of  success      there      are    close  to    zero.
25 Rulemaking petitions during the prehearing in Boston NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


Work Order No.: NRC-073 Pages 1-33
16 1 on      EA-12-050,      the    licensee's          lawyer    said    in      the 2 transcript        that    forget      rulemaking        petitions      being 3 appropriate avenue because they take too long and 4 everybody laughed.            These are important questions.
5                    We also asked in the petition that the 6 vent remain captive.               Attachment 2 of the order, that 7 is      13-109      says    in    this    regard      HCVS    functional 8 requirement at 1.1.1 "the HCVS shall be designed to 9 minimize the reliance on operator action."                          I would 10 ask whether you agree that a rupture disc would, in 11 fact, minimize the reliance on operator action to the 12 extent of eliminating operator actions making the 13 system passive.            What does minimize mean at 1.1.1?
14 Please        explain    in    your    decision.          How  is      that 15 sufficient when operator actions may not work out in 16 a    sufficiently        timely      manner        and    when  the    order 17 itself        say  sin  reference        to      Fukushima    at    2    "in 18 particular, the operators were unable to successfully 19 operate        the    containment        venting        system.        These 20 problems with venting the containment contributed to 21 the hydrogen explosion that destroyed the reactor 22 building.          The loss of various barriers led to the 23 release of radioactive material that further hampered 24 operator        efforts      to    arrest      the      accident."          Not 25 sufficient.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
17 1                In regard to implementation, the orders 2 require implementation of Phase 1 at the outset, 5 3 years; Phase 2, 6 years.          So this leaves us to wonder 4 the following and hopefully it will be explained in 5 your response.      When the orders are implemented, we 6 want to know whether the licensee, the reactor has to 7 be shut down and for how long?                    We also want an 8 understanding,    it    would      seem      that  they  would        be 9 required in our mind to send a plan to the NRC which 10 shouldn't take forever, and for approval, then order 11 the parts and install when the parts arrive.                    If the 12 NRC were to tell Pilgrim's owners to start fixing the 13 issue now and Pilgrim's owners cooperated, went to 14 work as quickly as possible, and continued to work 15 diligently on the fix until it was completed, how 16 long would it take?          In other words, what is the 17 justification for six years?
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
18                I have talked to some engineers such as 19 Dave Lochbaum who did work with you guys and asked 20 how long would it take?              He said there would be a 21 range, but about two years should be doable.                  If that 22 is not the case, can you explain and I think you have 23 an obligation to explain why the six years?                            Not 24 requiring full implementation until six years said to 25 me and I think it says to our community that the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
18 1 is simply crossing its fingers, saying a few prayers, 2 hoping        for  the  best,      and    that      is  no  assurance, 3 clearly,        that    you    are    fulfilling        your    statutory 4 obligations to protect public health and safety.
5                    We want to know specifically sometimes 6 the PRB's written response denying or denying in part 7 2.206 petition are less than substantive.                          There are 8 feel good, general words.
9                    I would hope that (a) you will reconsider 10 and not deny in full the petition; and whatever your 11 response be, that it's substantive, so you answer the 12 important          questions,        you      answer      the    important 13 questions        of  if  the    orders      themselves      say    public 14 health and safety is required by these orders, how 15 health and public safety is being protected now?                                It 16 makes no sense.            A reasonable person would say look, 17 it doesn't take six years to get this going.                                      A 18 reasonable person would say in regard to filtering a 19 rule change petition is something I will never live 20 long        enough    to    see.        It    does      not  provide        any 21 satisfaction or redress to petitioners as most 2.206 22 petitions          were      shown        by        Judge      Rosenthal's 23 investigation not to either.
24                    We hope that since Fukushima that we will 25 see a change which the recommendation of Option 3 to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
19 1 the      Commissioners    indicated.            If  you  have        any 2 questions, I'd be happy to answer or others on the 3 call might want to make a comment.                    And again, thank 4 you for the opportunity.
5                  CHAIRPERSON        CHEOK:          Thank  you,        Ms.
6 Lampert.      Let me start with the staff in the room at 7 headquarters if you have any questions?                  Does anybody 8 have any questions?
9                  (No response.)
10                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            We have no questions 11 in this room.      Does anybody participating by phone --
12 do we have any questions from the regions for Ms.
13 Lampert.
14                  MR. BOWER:      No question from Region I.
15                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            Thank you. Are there 16 any members of the public who would like to provide 17 comments regarding the petition and to ask questions 18 about the 2.206 process?
19                  PETITIONER GUNTER:              Yes, this is Paul 20 Gunter, Beyond Nuclear.
21                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            Go ahead, Paul.
22                  PETITIONER GUNTER:            The petition requests 23 that the NRC Petition Review Board respond in writing 24 to its questions.          I'd like to get a response from 25 you as to how you determine how thorough your answer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
20 1 in writing is determined?
2                  PETITIONER      LAMPERT:            May  I    make        a 3 question there?          I did not ask for a response in 4 writing,      specifically          to    my      questions.              I 5 specifically asked in the written response regarding 6 the petition from the PRB that they address every 7 question and issue I brought forward.
8                  PETITIONER GUNTER:              Okay, I'm happy to 9 reframe the question as Ms. Lampert has provided.
10 But again, how do you -- my question is the petition 11 is expecting a written response in answer to these 12 questions.        My  question        to    you    is  how    do      you 13 determine      by  what    criteria        do    you  determine      your 14 level and thoroughness of response?
15                  MS. MENSAH:      This is Tanya Mensah and I'm 16 not sure who asked the question, but I'm the 2.206 17 coordinator for the process.                    If you look in the 18 Management Directive, there are a couple of exhibits 19 that are contained in the back for either closure 20 letters or acknowledgement letters.                  Now the level of 21 detail that is provided depends on what phase of the 22 process you're in.          So generally, when we're at this 23 phase in the process, the PRB is looking at the 24 information      that    the    Petitioner          has  provided        to 25 determine if it meets the criteria for review.                      If it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
21 1 meets the criteria for review, normally that letter 2 will just say we are expecting it for review.                        I mean 3 in terms of questions there are some coordination 4 that we consider if the Petitioner had questions that 5 perhaps        have  already      been      addressed      through        our 6 Office of Public Affairs.                We try not to duplicate 7 work that other offices in our agency are currently 8 pursuing.        And so if we've already addressed certain 9 questions, you may be receiving feedback that because 10 we've addressed these through our Office of Public 11 Affairs,        here  are    the    specific        answers  to    those 12 questions.
13                    In some cases, it depends on information 14 that the Petitioner has provided.                      I mean it's really 15 hard for me to say from a generic point of view 16 because each petition is different.                        But the sense 17 that I'm getting from Ms. Lampert here is that she 18 has specific facts as documented in her petition, but 19 then        there  are  also    specific        questions    and      the 20 answers specifically depend upon what you see here in 21 the exhibits as far as what our criteria are where we 22 explain our bases.
23                    Now what we have done is Ms. Lampert or 24 any      Petitioner    per    our    process        will  receive        an 25 initial recommendation which is provided by petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
22 1 manager.        And then the PRB's goal is to explain what 2 the basis is addressing all aspects of the submittal.
3  Generally, what we have received in the past is that 4 if      the    Petitioner      believes      that    well,    I    don't 5 understand or this doesn't address the concerns I 6 had, then the PRB can expand at that point and then 7 typically we might even have a second call or a 8 meeting with the Petitioner to make sure that the PRB 9 is explaining itself and what its basis is for its 10 recommendation.
11                    PETITIONER GUNTER:            I'm Mary Lampert, let 12 me make clear that passing the buck to Public Affairs 13 would        be  totally    unacceptable          and  it  would      just 14 reinforce the perception that NRC is following the 15 same      path    as  identified        by    Judge    Rosenthal        which 16 would be a very sad comment and I would like to 17 believe otherwise.
18                    If there isn't a full disclosure of why 19 the Board has decided what it should do by providing 20 facts,        providing      references,          then    we    get        no 21 satisfaction.          I'm thinking back to the Vilotty, for 22 example, where it was suggested there that Vilotty, 23 instead of challenging the sufficiency of an order, 24 had other avenues, had the 2.206 petition.                        Well, we 25 want to see that that is, in fact, an avenue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
23 1                    The idea of a rulemaking petition for 2 filtering when it doesn't take a mental genius and 3 the NRC staff themselves appreciated the importance 4 of filtering to put any bets on how that's going to 5 turn out.        So if we're going to make progress, if the 6 NRC is going to start to regain any faith in itself 7 by the public, I think the request for full response 8 and opportunity is required.                    I'm sorry, Paul, for 9 interfering.
10                    PETITIONER GUNTER:            No, I think it's all 11 clarification.          It's our concern that as the NRC 12 addresses        the  2.206      review        process,    if    it      is 13 dismissing          the    petition        concerns      and      direct 14 questioning, we're expecting that you're going to 15 provide citations, not generic dismissals.                          And I 16 think this is particularly important in context that 17 this is all public health and safety related and a 18 part of your stated mission that you uphold that 19 first.        So we're expecting citations to the dismissal 20 of the petition's direct questions to you and the 21 technical issues that these questions represent.
22                    PETITIONER      LAMPERT:            Mary    Lampert.
23 Specifically, if the orders themselves said the order 24 is necessary to protect public health and safety, how 25 can it mean that between now and six years not to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
24 1 worry?        So therefore, we're standing naked just at 2 Pilgrim without the annunciators.                    We're flying blind 3 in the interim.        Now there has to be a step-by-step, 4 well thought out response to us if you disagree with 5 what the order says.          It defies common sense.
6                  PETITIONER WILLIAMSON:                This is Arlene 7 Williamson from Pilgrim Coalition.                    What I would like 8 to ask is how can you basically say the public is in 9 danger or not in danger, but would be safer if you 10 implemented EA-12-050 and EA-13-109, what are your 11 reasons for waiting six years to do something that 12 clearly will protect the public if an event occurred?
13                  In fact, Mary had mentioned there was an 14 occurrence that happened today, as a matter of fact, 15 and we hear about these things and being very close 16 to this reactor I'm concerned as to why you would 17 issue something and then clearly avoid putting any 18 implementation for six years when it's something as 19 serious as this.          And that's why we don't have faith 20 in the NRC is because your boards recommend doing 21 things and things just either are delayed or they're 22 not taken into consideration and I'd like to know why 23 you would give these GE Mark I boiling reactors all 24 over the country six years to do anything.                            Thank 25 you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
25 1                    PETITIONER LAMPERT:              Mary Lampert.          I'd 2 like to make a statement to qualify.                        This is not 3 about        making  them    safer.        Because      that    implies 4 they're safe now.
5                    PETITIONER WILLIAMSON:              Exactly.
6                    PETITIONER LAMPERT:              I haven't finished.
7  And the orders clearly do not say that.                          12-050, 8 reliable        hardened      venting      systems      in    the        BWR 9 facilities of Mark I and Mark II containment are 10 needed to ensure that adequate protection of public 11 health and safety is maintained.
12                    Further,    the    Commission      has  determined 13 that ensuring adequate protection of public health 14 and safety required.              Further, these measures are 15 necessary to ensure adequate protection of public 16 health and safety at 7.              Additional requirements must 17 be      imposed    at  4.      Then      you      go  to  EA-13-109, 18 implementation of the order were necessary to provide 19 reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public 20 health and safety.              And then there are one, two, 21 three, four, five, six further quotes.                        It's not a 22 matter of making them safer.                It's a matter that they 23 are not safe now.
24                    CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:              This is Mike Cheok.
25 Thanks for your comments.              I understand your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
26 1 that the reactors are not safe now and that you want 2 the staff to address why we think the reactor, the 3 plant should continue to operate.
4                    PETITIONER LAMPERT:                And also why six 5 years?          Things can be put on a fast forward and also 6 when they finally, if we have no satisfaction, if you 7 will, and you finally after six years it's going to 8 happen, how long is it going to take Pilgrim to 9 actually do it when they get off the dime, and if so 10 how long?          They're going to have to shut down when 11 they get near the six year drop dead point.                                  Why 12 can't they do that now?                Why can't they give you the 13 plan?          Why can't you be on their neck?                We want to 14 know what you're going to do.                  We're going to discuss 15 it, this is what we think.                  Order the parts and get 16 off the dime to provide what you're required to do 17 which is assurance of public health and safety which 18 the orders say do not exist now.
19                    MS. MENSAH:        Ms. Lampert, this is Tanya 20 Mensah again.          I just had a quick question for you 21 and I don't have the transcript in front of me, so 22 forgive me if I misquoted you, but I thought I heard 23 you      mention    earlier    that    you      spoke    with    or      you 24 coordinated with an engineer or somebody that you 25 knew regarding the orders?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
27 1                CHAIRPERSON        CHEOK:            That  was      Dave 2 Lochbaum.
3                MS. MENSAH:      Dave Lochbaum, okay, and you 4 said that they were recommending that at the most it 5 should take two years?
6                PETITIONER LAMPERT:              There was a range 7 and it certainly seemed possible to do it within a 8 couple of years.
9                MS. MENSAH:      Okay.
10                PETITIONER LAMPERT:              The only issue, let 11 me get it back from my screen would be if they had to 12 go back in the containment that would take longer to 13 check fittings, how things fit.              Not six years.
14                MS. MENSAH:      Okay, my line of questioning 15 was just intended to see if you had additional facts 16 provided through that source as to the basis for that 17 two-year time frame and any other details that could 18 be provided to the PRB?
19                PETITIONER LAMPERT:                I'll get back to 20 Dave and shoot it out to you.
21                PETITIONER GUNTER:              This is Paul Gunter 22 again.
23                CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            Go ahead, Paul.
24                PETITIONER GUNTER:              Just to add to the 25 response to Tanya's question about the timing and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
28 1 concern for what the public views as stonewalling.
2 The      direct    torus    vent      system      that    is  currently 3 installed        on  most    Mark    Is    with      the  exception        of 4 Fitzpatrick, the installation times were on the order 5 of two years beginning in 1987 or so with Pilgrim 6 installing a DTVS on the wet well and then by Generic 7 Letter 89-16, this was followed up in two-year repair 8 cycles or backfit cycles to install the direct torus 9 vent system.
10                    So by the NRC's own records we've seen 11 these        installation        times    to      be      a  much    shorter 12 duration and it's more particularly egregious that 13 the Mark I, Mark II plants in Japan have already 14 reached agreement with AREVA for the installation of 15 severe        accident    capable        filtered          vents  on    their 16 boiling water reactors.                    So the public is pretty 17 shocked        by  the    fact      that      the      NRC  intends        to 18 deliberate a minimum of six years.                        These time frames 19 often slip and you know while we see engineered high-20 capacity          filtered        systems        being        installed          by 21 contractual agreements to date between AREVA and the 22 Japanese        boiling    water      reactor        fleet.      So      it's 23 particularly of concern, as this petition notes, that 24 these        time    frames      do    not      represent      reasonable 25 assurance for protecting public health and safety on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
29 1 unreliable systems that are operating today.
2                    PETITIONER LAMPERT:              Yes, I would add to 3 that,        Mary  Lampert.          I'd    add      also  for      your 4 consideration if I were Entergy, I would draw this 5 process out, whine and moan and groan and come up 6 with my engineer's guesses, estimates on how long all 7 this is going to take.                And why?        Because Pilgrim, 8 like        Fitzpatrick,      like      Vermont        Yankee,    are      not 9 competing in this deregulated electric market here 10 where the price is being set by cheaper sources of 11 electricity.        So the rumor mill is that they're even 12 wondering whether they're going to be around very 13 long and I think the NRC has to be cognizant of this 14 and not kowtow to it.
15                    The  issue      is    not    let's    not  make      the 16 industry spend money and get moving ASAP which is 17 possible because you know, who knows?                      They might be 18 closing so all that money for naught.                          So again, 19 whose side are you on?                  We'd like to believe, we 20 hope, on the public side on satisfying your statutory 21 requirements.
22                    CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:              Okay, thanks.          This 23 is Mike Cheok again.            I understand your comment that 24 six years for implementation is too long and that you 25 would like to see the NRC act in a faster manner.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
30 1                  Are there other comments?
2                  PETITIONER CHIN:          Yes, this Rebecca Chin, 3 Town of Duxbury.            I spoke seven years ago on this 4 topic at an Atomic Energy Licensing Board hearing in 5 Plymouth      and  the    same    song    is    being    sung    today.
6 We're concerned with our public health, safety and 7 our      regional    economy.          And      we    understand        that 8 unfiltered      venting      has    been    judged      unsafe    by      all 9 regulatory agencies outside of the United States, 10 even back then.        And if we are the only ones that are 11 sitting on our hands and waiting, that's not okay.
12 And we do expect prompt attention to this requirement 13 for        Pilgrim    and      that      they        do    act    upon        it 14 expeditiously and we do want filters and automatic 15 passive vents.
16                  We're      aware      that        the    purpose          of 17 containment        is  to    provide      a    barrier      between        the 18 lethal radiation inside the reactor and the public.
19 And if something is going wrong inside that reactor 20 and      venting    is  called      for,    you're      going  to      blow 21 everything you can right up the stack, unfiltered and 22 unmonitored, and that is not okay.
23                  PETITIONER        LAMPERT:              Mary    Lampert.
24 Another thing that is not okay, when the most recent 25 order 13-109 explained that if it's necessary to add NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
31 1 water because you're now having melt, that in fact 2 the      vent    that  is    at    Pilgrim        right    now  would        be 3 inoperable.          And so therefore absent the capability 4 to vent that the order itself described, we're in 5 trouble, because if our reactors explode, it's not 6 good for the neighborhood.                  And you have identified 7 the problem that why venting is required and then say 8 okay, you have a vent in the wet well, but that might 9 not      work    in  certain      circumstances.            So  in    plain 10 English, you're screwed.                Not to mention the problem 11 of the lack of filter, lack of passivity that you 12 describe        in  the    order      is    and      was  a  problem        at 13 Fukushima.        So we don't understand why these issues 14 are hard.          And we expect a full explanation with 15 references, not generalities.
16                    I'm sorry if I sound perhaps a little 17 emotional or angry.            I've been doing this for over 25 18  years.      That could explain it.                It's not because I 19 dislike or even know who you are.                        It is just the 20 seriousness of the issue and total frustration with 21 NRC.        So I hope you understand it's nothing personal.
22                    PETITIONER GUNTER:              This is Paul Gunter.
23  One quick final question.                Again, with regard to the 24 specificity that the Petition Review Board should 25 respond to the Petitioners' concerns, Ms. Lampert has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
32 1 outlined        the  petition's        concern        for  the  level        of 2 adequacy of protection to public health and safety on 3 current        operations    with    a  drywell        vent,   as    she's 4 pointed out would be relied upon when the wet well 5 vent was precluded by flooding of the drywell as a 6 result of part of the operator actions.
7                    So the Petitioners are concerned about 8 the specifications on the drywell ductwork system 9 that would then be relied upon.                   And we're requesting 10 a level of specificity in response to these concerns 11 that        would  provide    the    pressure        ratings    on      the 12 drywell ductwork which is currently not a hardened 13 system that would be relied upon for public health 14 and safety response if and when that wet well vent 15 would be precluded from use by your own operations.
16                    I think you owe the public the level of 17 transparency        to    show      exactly          how  robust        your 18 oversight is of these technical specifications.
19                    CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:              Okay, this is Mike 20 Cheok.        Let me summarize again.              I think the comment 21 that was in dispositioning the petition, the request 22 is for the NRC to be specific in terms of -- and to 23 be open in terms of documenting what our reasons for 24 the dispositioning of the petition.
25                    PETITIONER GUNTER:            With specificity.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
33 1                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:            Thank you.
2                  PETITIONER LAMPERT:                That's one issue.
3 And let's not forget the basic issue which is the 4 request actually made in the petition.                          There are 5 three.        One    involves      passivity.            One    involves 6 filtration.      And the other involves the time.
7                  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:              Good thank you.            Any 8 additional comments?            Okay, thank you.            Ms. Lampert 9 and all the Petitioners on the call, thank you again 10 for taking your time out to provide us with your 11 comments and with clarifying information.
12                  Before we do close though ,does the court 13 reporter      need  any    additional          information      for      the 14 meeting transcript?
15                  COURT    REPORTER:            This    is  the      court 16 reporter.          No,    I    do    not    need      any  additional 17 information.
18                  CHAIRPERSON        CHEOK:            Okay,  well,      this 19 meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 20 connections.        Thanks, again.
21                  PETITIONER LAMPERT:              Thank you and thanks 22 to the court reporter.
23                  (Whereupon,            at        1:56      p.m.,          the 24 teleconference        in    the    above-entitled          matter        was 25 concluded.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
34 1
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
2 3
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2  + + + + +
4 5
3  10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4  CONFERENCE CALL 5  RE 6  ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
6 7
7  + + + + +
8 9
8  MONDAY 9  JULY 15, 2013 10  + + + + +
10 11 12 13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
11  The conference call was held, Michael C.
(202) 234-4433     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com}}
12 Cheok, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding.
14  15 PETITIONERS: MARY LAMPERT 16    REBECCA CHIN 17    ARLENE WILLIAMSON 18    PAUL GUNTER 19 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 20  MICHAEL C. CHEOK, Deputy Director 21  Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 22  (NRR), Division of Engineering 23  RICHARD GUZMAN, Petition Manager for 2.206 24  petition 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 NRC STAFF 1 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Coordinator, NRR, 2  Division of Policy and Rulemaking 3 MARCIA J. SIMON, Attorney, Office of 4  General Counsel 5 RAJENDER AULUCK, Japan Lessons Learned Project 6  Directorate 7 FRED L. BOWER, Acting Branch Chief, Region I 8 ELIZABETH M. KEIGHLEY, Project Engineer, Region I 9 NEIL A. SHEEHAN, Public Affairs, Region I 10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1  (1:03 p.m.)
2  MR. GUZMAN:  Good afternoon. This is 3 Rich Guzman. I'll go ahead and get started with our 4 Petition Review Board teleconference with Petitioner 5 Mary Lampert, Pilgrim Watch.
6  Again, my name is Rich Guzman. I am the 7 project manager for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in 8 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'd like 9 to thank everyone for attending this meeting. The 10 purpose of today's teleconference is to allow the 11 Petitioner, Mary Lampert, and her associates, to 12 address the Petition Review Board or PRB regarding a 13 2.206 petition, dated June 14, 2013, concerning the 14 NRC orders on reliable hardened containment vent, 15 namely EA-12-050 and EA-13-109, and the 16 implementation of its provision by Entergy Nuclear 17 Operations, Inc. for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station or 18 Pilgrim. 19  The teleconference is being recorded by 20 the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by 21 a court reporter. The transcript will become a 22 supplement to the petition and will also be made 23 publicly available.
24  Before I briefly go over today's agenda, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 I'd like to open the teleconference with 1 introductions. As we go around the room and bridge 2 line, please be sure to clearly state your name, your 3 position, and your office or organization for the 4 record. 5  I'll start off. Again, it's Rich Guzman.
6  I'm a project manager in NRR.
7  MS. SIMON:  Marcia Simon, attorney in the 8 NRC Office of General Counsel.
9  MR. AULUCK:  Rajender Auluck, project 10 manager in the Division of Japan Lessons Learned 11 Project Directorate.
12  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  I'm Mike Cheok. I'm 13 the deputy director in Division of Engineering in 14 NRR. 15  MS. MENSAH:  I'm Tanya Mensah. I'm the 16 Petition Coordinator in the Division of Policy and 17 Rulemaking in NRR.
18  MR. GUZMAN:  That would complete 19 introductions at NRC headquarters. At this time are 20 there any NRC headquarters participants who have 21 dialed in on the phone?  Okay, hearing none, will the 22 NRC participants from the regional office introduce 23 themselves?
24  MS. KEIGHLEY:  This is Beth Keighley, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 project engineer from Region I.
1  MR. BOWER:  Fred Bower. I'm the acting 2 branch chief in Region I.
3  MR. SHEEHAN:  Neil Sheehan, Public 4 Affairs, Region I.
5  MR. GUZMAN:  Okay, at this time will the 6 representatives for Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim 7 introduce themselves?
8  Hearing none, Ms. Lampert, will you 9 please introduce yourself and your associates for the 10 record? 11  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Yes, this is Mary 12 Lampert, director of Pilgrim Watch and others on the 13 phone can introduce themselves.
14  PETITIONER CHIN:  This is Rebecca Chin.
15 I co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee.
16  PETITIONER WILLIAMSON:  Arlene 17 Williamson, Pilgrim Coalition.
18  PETITIONER GUNTER:  Beyond Nuclear.
19  MR. GUZMAN:  Can you state your name for 20 Beyond Nuclear?
21  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  I believe it's Paul 22 Gunter. 23  MR. GUZMAN:  Okay.
24  PETITIONER GUNTER:  Paul Gunter is on.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6  MR. GUZMAN:  Thanks, Paul. It's not 1 required for members of the public to introduce 2 themselves for this call, but if there are any 3 members of the public on the phone that wish to do so 4 at this time, please state your name for the record?
5  6  (No response.)
7  With that, for our court reporter, can 8 you also please state your name?
9  COURT REPORTER:  This is Toby Walter from 10 Neal Gross. I'm the court reporter.
11  MR. GUZMAN:  Okay, as a brief overview of 12 the agenda, this teleconference is scheduled from 1 13 o'clock to 2 o'clock p.m. Eastern Time. Following my 14 introduction, I will turn it over to the PRB Chairman 15 who will provide opening remarks and briefly 16 summarize the scope of the petition under 17 consideration. Ms. Lampert will then give her 18 presentation and finally, the PRB Chairman will 19 conclude the conference call with closing remarks.
20  I'd like to emphasize that we each need 21 to speak up clearly to ensure that the court reporter 22 can accurately transcribe the teleconference. Also, 23 if you have something you would like to say, please 24 state your name first for the record.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7  For those dialing into the 1 teleconference, please remember to mute your phones 2 to minimize any background noise or distractions. If 3 you don't have a mute button this can be done by 4 pressing the key *6 and then to unmute press the *6 5 keys again. Thank you.
6  At this time, I'll turn it over to the 7 PRB Chairman Mike Cheok.
8  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Thanks, Rich. Good 9 afternoon, again. I would like to thank everyone and 10 I'd like to welcome you to this meeting regarding the 11 2.206 petition submitted by Mary Lampert.
12  First, let me share some background in 13 our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 14 of Federal Regulations describes the petition 15 process. This is the primary mechanism for the 16 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in 17 our public process. The process permits anyone to 18 petition the NRC to take enforcement-type action 19 related to the NRC licensees or licensee activities.
20  Depending upon the results of the evaluation, the 21 NRC can modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued 22 license or take any other appropriate enforcement 23 action to resolve a problem.
24  The NRC staff's guidance for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8disposition of a 2.206 petition is found in 1 Management Directive 8.11 which is publicly 2 available.
3  The purpose of today's teleconference is 4 to give the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 5 additional explanation of the support for the 6 petition before the PRB's initial consideration and 7 recommendation.
8  This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 9 an opportunity for Petitioner to question or examine 10 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 11 petition request. No decisions regarding the merits 12 of this petition will be made at this teleconference.
13  Following this teleconference, the PRB 14 will conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome 15 of this internal meeting will be discussed with the 16 Petitioner. The PRB typically consists of a 17 chairman, usually a manager at the Senior Executive 18 Service level at the NRC. It has a petition manager 19 and a PRB coordinator. Other members of the Board 20 are determined by the NRC staff based on the content 21 of the information in the petition request.
22  At this time, I would like to introduce 23 the Board. I am Mike Cheok, the PRB chairman.
24 Richard Guzman is the petition manager for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 1 PRB coordinator. Our technical staff includes:
2 Rajender Auluck from the NRC's Japan Lessons Learned 3 Project Directorate; Fred Bower and Steve Schaffer 4 from the NRC Region I, Division of Reactor Projects.
5  We also obtain advice from the Office of General 6 Counsel represented today by Marcia Simon, and from 7 the Office of Enforcement which will be represented 8 by Bob Fretz.
9  As described in our process, the NRC 10 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better 11 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 12 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject a 13 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 14 process.
15  Additionally, the licensee may ask 16 questions to clarify issues raised by the Petitioner.
17  I understand that the licensee is not on the phone 18 today. 19  Next, I would like to summarize the scope 20 of the petition under consideration and the NRC's 21 activities to date. On June 14, 2013, Ms. Lampert 22 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 23 concerning NRC orders EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 related 24 to hardened containment vents for Pilgrim Nuclear 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  10 Power Station.
1  In her petition, Ms. Lampert requests 2 that NRC immediately suspend the operating license of 3 Entergy Nuclear operations at Pilgrim Nuclear Power 4 Station until the provisions of the NRC orders are 5 fully implemented and until the containment vents at 6 Pilgrim are augmented with filters and rupture discs.
7  The Petitioner requests this enforcement 8 action on the basis that the existing design of 9 Pilgrim and other MARK 1 and 2 reactors that they are 10 not sufficient to protect the public health and 11 safety. The Petitioner also states that the NRC is 12 not meeting its statutory obligations by allowing 13 Pilgrim and other reactors with like design to 14 operate without fully implementing the requirements 15 of NRC orders.
16  In terms of NRC activities to date, the 17 PRB met on June 27, 2013 to review the Petitioner's 18 request for immediate action. The PRB concluded that 19 there is no immediate safety concern to Pilgrim or to 20 the health and safety of the public to warrant the 21 requested immediate action, that is, the immediate 22 suspension of the Pilgrim operating license. Ms.
23 Lampert was informed of this decision on June 28, 24 2013. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  11  Next is a reminder for phone 1 participants, please identify yourself if you make 2 any remarks as this will help us in the preparation 3 of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly 4 available.
5  Ms. Lampert, I will now turn it over to 6 you to allow you and your associates to provide any 7 information you believe the PRB should consider as 8 part of its petition.
9  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Yes, this is Mary 10 Lampert and thank you for the opportunity. We agree 11 that the NRC is statutorily required to adequately 12 protect public health and safety. That is not a 13 question.
14  I assume you agree with that. If you do 15 not agree with that, you would explain your reasons 16 why you don't agree and the decision.
17  This would seem to include requiring 18 measures so that the reactor will not blow up, breach 19 its walls, as occurred at Pilgrim sister reactors at 20 Fukushima, and measures to prevent and monitor 21 radiation in excess of allowable limits related to 22 the site.
23  Our petition provided, I believe, 14 24 direct quotes from EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 where both 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  12 orders themselves admit that the status quo does not 1 protect public health and safety. If again you do 2 not agree with the statements quoted as being fully 3 accurate, or if you do not agree that what the order 4 said in this regard is inaccurate, I request that you 5 make your reasons clear in your written decision.
6  It's important to note what was said 7 contrary to the orders in an introductory letter by 8 Eric Leeds to licensee that accompanied the order.
9 It said "the NRC staff has determined that continued 10 operations does not pose an imminent risk to public 11 health and safety, however, the additional 12 requirements outlined in EA-13-109 are necessary in 13 light of insights gained from the events at Fukushima 14 Daiichi" page 2 of the letter. The key words are 15 "imminent risk" and "necessary."
16  Imminent as defined in the dictionary, 17 The Free Dictionary as "about to occur, impending as 18 an imminent danger."  Dictionary.com:  "likely to 19 occur at any moment."  Webster:  "ready to take 20 place."  Oxford:  "About to happen." 21  So therefore, the only sensible 22 interpretation of Eric Leeds use of the word 23 "imminent" could only mean that NRC staff has 24 determined that continued operation does not pose a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  13risk to public health and safety, that it's likely to 1 occur at any moment, any time soon because NRC 2 believes, despite Fukushima, that we assume the 3 Japanese believed there was no imminent risk until it 4 happened despite the fact that Pilgrim is the same 5 design as Fukushima's reactors, despite the fact that 6 Pilgrim has many, many times more spent fuel in its 7 pool than Unit 4 and despite the fact that Pilgrim 8 has had 13 event reports since January 1st of this 9 year, the most recent, the malfunctioning of the 10 annunciators in the control room that is they were 11 flying blind. Despite all that, none of this is 12 going to happen for six or so years. In other words, 13 NRC is crossing their fingers. What else could it 14 mean? 15  To boot, the order says these events are 16 necessary. To use Eric Leeds' words "to protect 17 public health and safety."  That means now, tomorrow, 18 next week, a year from now, two years from now that 19 there indeed can be a problem where the vent would be 20 required to operate and where hopefully if they did 21 operate, they would be filtered so that my house, six 22 miles across open water from Pilgrim, would not be 23 rendered worthless and the health of my community at 24 grave risk.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  14  The order also says in regard to venting 1 from the wetwell that in regard to filtering for Mark 2 I containment the preferred venting path is from the 3 wetwell portion of the containment because the water 4 in the suppression pool provides a degree, key word, 5 degree, of decontamination before release to the 6 environment. EA-13-109 at 7.
7  A degree of contamination from venting 8 the wetwell was explained in our petition at pages 6 9 through 7. The wetwell vent can release anywhere 10 from zero to close to 99 percent via scrubbing. We 11 noted that throughout the world reactors, licensees 12 either have a filter or like the Japanese have chosen 13 to install a filter because they learned the lessons 14 from their accidents, despite the fact that they have 15 scrubbing, so it's in addition to which is what the 16 Petitioners are requesting.
17  On the other hand, the proposed drywell 18 vent obviously has no scrubbing, so it will not 19 filter any releases. Therefore, we believe that it 20 is accurate to say if venting occurs, public health 21 and worker health will be negatively impacted. If 22 you don't believe this, please explain in your 23 written response.
24  The order also discusses NRC's process 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  15for further reviewer action on filtering. It says at 1 5: "issues relating to filtering will be addressed 2 through the rulemaking process."
3  I have a couple of questions regarding 4 the rulemaking process based on NRC Atomic Safety and 5 Licensing Board Judge Rosenthal's conclusion made 6 during the prehearing in Boston that I brought 7 challenging EA-12-050. He said "that with one 8 possible exception, the NRC has not granted a Section 9 2.206 petition that substantive relief is sought for 10 at least 37 years."  Key word, substantive.
11 Therefore, we would like to know and have it 12 explained in your response what the NRC's track 13 record for granting the full substance sought in any 14 rulemaking petition. And second, what is the range 15 of time it has taken to issue a full decision on a 16 rulemaking petition?  You could say this is important 17 to me. I am 71 years old. I cannot wait 10, 20 or 18 whatever the range in time it is for NRC to respond 19 to a rulemaking petition, number one.
20  And also, it is important to know how 21 successful this is. We find that we are offered 22 opportunities to file a 2.206 which I am doing, but 23 the chances of success there are close to zero.
24 Rulemaking petitions during the prehearing in Boston 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  16 on EA-12-050, the licensee's lawyer said in the 1 transcript that forget rulemaking petitions being 2 appropriate avenue because they take too long and 3 everybody laughed. These are important questions.
4  We also asked in the petition that the 5 vent remain captive. Attachment 2 of the order, that 6 is 13-109 says in this regard HCVS functional 7 requirement at 1.1.1 "the HCVS shall be designed to 8 minimize the reliance on operator action."  I would 9 ask whether you agree that a rupture disc would, in 10 fact, minimize the reliance on operator action to the 11 extent of eliminating operator actions making the 12 system passive. What does minimize mean at 1.1.1?
13 Please explain in your decision. How is that 14 sufficient when operator actions may not work out in 15 a sufficiently timely manner and when the order 16 itself say sin reference to Fukushima at 2 "in 17 particular, the operators were unable to successfully 18 operate the containment venting system. These 19 problems with venting the containment contributed to 20 the hydrogen explosion that destroyed the reactor 21 building. The loss of various barriers led to the 22 release of radioactive material that further hampered 23 operator efforts to arrest the accident."  Not 24 sufficient.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  17  In regard to implementation, the orders 1 require implementation of Phase 1 at the outset, 5 2 years; Phase 2, 6 years. So this leaves us to wonder 3 the following and hopefully it will be explained in 4 your response. When the orders are implemented, we 5 want to know whether the licensee, the reactor has to 6 be shut down and for how long?  We also want an 7 understanding, it would seem that they would be 8 required in our mind to send a plan to the NRC which 9 shouldn't take forever, and for approval, then order 10 the parts and install when the parts arrive. If the 11 NRC were to tell Pilgrim's owners to start fixing the 12 issue now and Pilgrim's owners cooperated, went to 13 work as quickly as possible, and continued to work 14 diligently on the fix until it was completed, how 15 long would it take?  In other words, what is the 16 justification for six years?
17  I have talked to some engineers such as 18 Dave Lochbaum who did work with you guys and asked 19 how long would it take?  He said there would be a 20 range, but about two years should be doable. If that 21 is not the case, can you explain and I think you have 22 an obligation to explain why the six years?  Not 23 requiring full implementation until six years said to 24 me and I think it says to our community that the NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  18is simply crossing its fingers, saying a few prayers, 1 hoping for the best, and that is no assurance, 2 clearly, that you are fulfilling your statutory 3 obligations to protect public health and safety.
4  We want to know specifically sometimes 5 the PRB's written response denying or denying in part 6 2.206 petition are less than substantive. There are 7 feel good, general words.
8  I would hope that (a) you will reconsider 9 and not deny in full the petition; and whatever your 10 response be, that it's substantive, so you answer the 11 important questions, you answer the important 12 questions of if the orders themselves say public 13 health and safety is required by these orders, how 14 health and public safety is being protected now?  It 15 makes no sense. A reasonable person would say look, 16 it doesn't take six years to get this going. A 17 reasonable person would say in regard to filtering a 18 rule change petition is something I will never live 19 long enough to see. It does not provide any 20 satisfaction or redress to petitioners as most 2.206 21 petitions were shown by Judge Rosenthal's 22 investigation not to either.
23  We hope that since Fukushima that we will 24 see a change which the recommendation of Option 3 to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  19the Commissioners indicated. If you have any 1 questions, I'd be happy to answer or others on the 2 call might want to make a comment. And again, thank 3 you for the opportunity.
4  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Thank you, Ms.
5 Lampert. Let me start with the staff in the room at 6 headquarters if you have any questions?  Does anybody 7 have any questions?
8  (No response.)
9  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  We have no questions 10 in this room. Does anybody participating by phone --
11 do we have any questions from the regions for Ms.
12 Lampert. 13  MR. BOWER:  No question from Region I.
14  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Thank you. Are there 15 any members of the public who would like to provide 16 comments regarding the petition and to ask questions 17 about the 2.206 process?
18  PETITIONER GUNTER:  Yes, this is Paul 19 Gunter, Beyond Nuclear.
20  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Go ahead, Paul.
21  PETITIONER GUNTER:  The petition requests 22 that the NRC Petition Review Board respond in writing 23 to its questions. I'd like to get a response from 24 you as to how you determine how thorough your answer 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  20 in writing is determined?
1  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  May I make a 2 question there?  I did not ask for a response in 3 writing, specifically to my questions. I 4 specifically asked in the written response regarding 5 the petition from the PRB that they address every 6 question and issue I brought forward.
7  PETITIONER GUNTER:  Okay, I'm happy to 8 reframe the question as Ms. Lampert has provided.
9 But again, how do you -- my question is the petition 10 is expecting a written response in answer to these 11 questions. My question to you is how do you 12 determine by what criteria do you determine your 13 level and thoroughness of response?
14  MS. MENSAH:  This is Tanya Mensah and I'm 15 not sure who asked the question, but I'm the 2.206 16 coordinator for the process. If you look in the 17 Management Directive, there are a couple of exhibits 18 that are contained in the back for either closure 19 letters or acknowledgement letters. Now the level of 20 detail that is provided depends on what phase of the 21 process you're in. So generally, when we're at this 22 phase in the process, the PRB is looking at the 23 information that the Petitioner has provided to 24 determine if it meets the criteria for review. If it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  21 meets the criteria for review, normally that letter 1 will just say we are expecting it for review. I mean 2 in terms of questions there are some coordination 3 that we consider if the Petitioner had questions that 4 perhaps have already been addressed through our 5 Office of Public Affairs. We try not to duplicate 6 work that other offices in our agency are currently 7 pursuing. And so if we've already addressed certain 8 questions, you may be receiving feedback that because 9 we've addressed these through our Office of Public 10 Affairs, here are the specific answers to those 11 questions.
12  In some cases, it depends on information 13 that the Petitioner has provided. I mean it's really 14 hard for me to say from a generic point of view 15 because each petition is different. But the sense 16 that I'm getting from Ms. Lampert here is that she 17 has specific facts as documented in her petition, but 18 then there are also specific questions and the 19 answers specifically depend upon what you see here in 20 the exhibits as far as what our criteria are where we 21 explain our bases.
22  Now what we have done is Ms. Lampert or 23 any Petitioner per our process will receive an 24 initial recommendation which is provided by petition 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  22manager. And then the PRB's goal is to explain what 1 the basis is addressing all aspects of the submittal.
2  Generally, what we have received in the past is that 3 if the Petitioner believes that well, I don't 4 understand or this doesn't address the concerns I 5 had, then the PRB can expand at that point and then 6 typically we might even have a second call or a 7 meeting with the Petitioner to make sure that the PRB 8 is explaining itself and what its basis is for its 9 recommendation.
10  PETITIONER GUNTER:  I'm Mary Lampert, let 11 me make clear that passing the buck to Public Affairs 12 would be totally unacceptable and it would just 13 reinforce the perception that NRC is following the 14 same path as identified by Judge Rosenthal which 15 would be a very sad comment and I would like to 16 believe otherwise.
17  If there isn't a full disclosure of why 18 the Board has decided what it should do by providing 19 facts, providing references, then we get no 20 satisfaction. I'm thinking back to the Vilotty, for 21 example, where it was suggested there that Vilotty, 22 instead of challenging the sufficiency of an order, 23 had other avenues, had the 2.206 petition. Well, we 24 want to see that that is, in fact, an avenue.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  23  The idea of a rulemaking petition for 1 filtering when it doesn't take a mental genius and 2 the NRC staff themselves appreciated the importance 3 of filtering to put any bets on how that's going to 4 turn out. So if we're going to make progress, if the 5 NRC is going to start to regain any faith in itself 6 by the public, I think the request for full response 7 and opportunity is required. I'm sorry, Paul, for 8 interfering.
9  PETITIONER GUNTER:  No, I think it's all 10 clarification. It's our concern that as the NRC 11 addresses the 2.206 review process, if it is 12 dismissing the petition concerns and direct 13 questioning, we're expecting that you're going to 14 provide citations, not generic dismissals. And I 15 think this is particularly important in context that 16 this is all public health and safety related and a 17 part of your stated mission that you uphold that 18 first. So we're expecting citations to the dismissal 19 of the petition's direct questions to you and the 20 technical issues that these questions represent.
21  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Mary Lampert.
22 Specifically, if the orders themselves said the order 23 is necessary to protect public health and safety, how 24 can it mean that between now and six years not to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  24worry?  So therefore, we're standing naked just at 1 Pilgrim without the annunciators. We're flying blind 2 in the interim. Now there has to be a step-by-step, 3 well thought out response to us if you disagree with 4 what the order says. It defies common sense.
5  PETITIONER WILLIAMSON:  This is Arlene 6 Williamson from Pilgrim Coalition. What I would like 7 to ask is how can you basically say the public is in 8 danger or not in danger, but would be safer if you 9 implemented EA-12-050 and EA-13-109, what are your 10 reasons for waiting six years to do something that 11 clearly will protect the public if an event occurred?
12  In fact, Mary had mentioned there was an 13 occurrence that happened today, as a matter of fact, 14 and we hear about these things and being very close 15 to this reactor I'm concerned as to why you would 16 issue something and then clearly avoid putting any 17 implementation for six years when it's something as 18 serious as this. And that's why we don't have faith 19 in the NRC is because your boards recommend doing 20 things and things just either are delayed or they're 21 not taken into consideration and I'd like to know why 22 you would give these GE Mark I boiling reactors all 23 over the country six years to do anything. Thank 24 you. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  25  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Mary Lampert. I'd 1 like to make a statement to qualify. This is not 2 about making them safer. Because that implies 3 they're safe now.
4  PETITIONER WILLIAMSON:  Exactly.
5  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  I haven't finished.
6  And the orders clearly do not say that. 12-050, 7 reliable hardened venting systems in the BWR 8 facilities of Mark I and Mark II containment are 9 needed to ensure that adequate protection of public 10 health and safety is maintained.
11  Further, the Commission has determined 12 that ensuring adequate protection of public health 13 and safety required. Further, these measures are 14 necessary to ensure adequate protection of public 15 health and safety at 7. Additional requirements must 16 be imposed at 4. Then you go to EA-13-109, 17 implementation of the order were necessary to provide 18 reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public 19 health and safety. And then there are one, two, 20 three, four, five, six further quotes. It's not a 21 matter of making them safer. It's a matter that they 22 are not safe now.
23  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  This is Mike Cheok.
24 Thanks for your comments. I understand your comments 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  26 that the reactors are not safe now and that you want 1 the staff to address why we think the reactor, the 2 plant should continue to operate.
3  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  And also why six 4 years?  Things can be put on a fast forward and also 5 when they finally, if we have no satisfaction, if you 6 will, and you finally after six years it's going to 7 happen, how long is it going to take Pilgrim to 8 actually do it when they get off the dime, and if so 9 how long?  They're going to have to shut down when 10 they get near the six year drop dead point. Why 11 can't they do that now?  Why can't they give you the 12 plan?  Why can't you be on their neck?  We want to 13 know what you're going to do. We're going to discuss 14 it, this is what we think. Order the parts and get 15 off the dime to provide what you're required to do 16 which is assurance of public health and safety which 17 the orders say do not exist now.
18  MS. MENSAH:  Ms. Lampert, this is Tanya 19 Mensah again. I just had a quick question for you 20 and I don't have the transcript in front of me, so 21 forgive me if I misquoted you, but I thought I heard 22 you mention earlier that you spoke with or you 23 coordinated with an engineer or somebody that you 24 knew regarding the orders?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  27  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  That was Dave 1 Lochbaum.
2   MS. MENSAH:  Dave Lochbaum, okay, and you 3 said that they were recommending that at the most it 4 should take two years?
5  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  There was a range 6 and it certainly seemed possible to do it within a 7 couple of years.
8  MS. MENSAH:  Okay.
9  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  The only issue, let 10 me get it back from my screen would be if they had to 11 go back in the containment that would take longer to 12 check fittings, how things fit. Not six years.
13  MS. MENSAH:  Okay, my line of questioning 14 was just intended to see if you had additional facts 15 provided through that source as to the basis for that 16 two-year time frame and any other details that could 17 be provided to the PRB?
18  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  I'll get back to 19 Dave and shoot it out to you.
20  PETITIONER GUNTER:  This is Paul Gunter 21 again. 22  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Go ahead, Paul.
23  PETITIONER GUNTER:  Just to add to the 24 response to Tanya's question about the timing and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  28concern for what the public views as stonewalling.
1 The direct torus vent system that is currently 2 installed on most Mark Is with the exception of 3 Fitzpatrick, the installation times were on the order 4 of two years beginning in 1987 or so with Pilgrim 5 installing a DTVS on the wet well and then by Generic 6 Letter 89-16, this was followed up in two-year repair 7 cycles or backfit cycles to install the direct torus 8 vent system.
9  So by the NRC's own records we've seen 10 these installation times to be a much shorter 11 duration and it's more particularly egregious that 12 the Mark I, Mark II plants in Japan have already 13 reached agreement with AREVA for the installation of 14 severe accident capable filtered vents on their 15 boiling water reactors. So the public is pretty 16 shocked by the fact that the NRC intends to 17 deliberate a minimum of six years. These time frames 18 often slip and you know while we see engineered high-19 capacity filtered systems being installed by 20 contractual agreements to date between AREVA and the 21 Japanese boiling water reactor fleet. So it's 22 particularly of concern, as this petition notes, that 23 these time frames do not represent reasonable 24 assurance for protecting public health and safety on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  29 unreliable systems that are operating today.
1  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Yes, I would add to 2 that, Mary Lampert. I'd add also for your 3 consideration if I were Entergy, I would draw this 4 process out, whine and moan and groan and come up 5 with my engineer's guesses, estimates on how long all 6 this is going to take. And why?  Because Pilgrim, 7 like Fitzpatrick, like Vermont Yankee, are not 8 competing in this deregulated electric market here 9 where the price is being set by cheaper sources of 10 electricity. So the rumor mill is that they're even 11 wondering whether they're going to be around very 12 long and I think the NRC has to be cognizant of this 13 and not kowtow to it.
14  The issue is not let's not make the 15 industry spend money and get moving ASAP which is 16 possible because you know, who knows?  They might be 17 closing so all that money for naught. So again, 18 whose side are you on?  We'd like to believe, we 19 hope, on the public side on satisfying your statutory 20 requirements.
21  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Okay, thanks. This 22 is Mike Cheok again. I understand your comment that 23 six years for implementation is too long and that you 24 would like to see the NRC act in a faster manner.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  30  Are there other comments?
1  PETITIONER CHIN:  Yes, this Rebecca Chin, 2 Town of Duxbury. I spoke seven years ago on this 3 topic at an Atomic Energy Licensing Board hearing in 4 Plymouth and the same song is being sung today.
5 We're concerned with our public health, safety and 6 our regional economy. And we understand that 7 unfiltered venting has been judged unsafe by all 8 regulatory agencies outside of the United States, 9 even back then. And if we are the only ones that are 10 sitting on our hands and waiting, that's not okay.
11 And we do expect prompt attention to this requirement 12 for Pilgrim and that they do act upon it 13 expeditiously and we do want filters and automatic 14 passive vents.
15  We're aware that the purpose of 16 containment is to provide a barrier between the 17 lethal radiation inside the reactor and the public.
18 And if something is going wrong inside that reactor 19 and venting is called for, you're going to blow 20 everything you can right up the stack, unfiltered and 21 unmonitored, and that is not okay.
22  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Mary Lampert.
23 Another thing that is not okay, when the most recent 24 order 13-109 explained that if it's necessary to add 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  31 water because you're now having melt, that in fact 1 the vent that is at Pilgrim right now would be 2 inoperable. And so therefore absent the capability 3 to vent that the order itself described, we're in 4 trouble, because if our reactors explode, it's not 5 good for the neighborhood. And you have identified 6 the problem that why venting is required and then say 7 okay, you have a vent in the wet well, but that might 8 not work in certain circumstances. So in plain 9 English, you're screwed. Not to mention the problem 10 of the lack of filter, lack of passivity that you 11 describe in the order is and was a problem at 12 Fukushima. So we don't understand why these issues 13 are hard. And we expect a full explanation with 14 references, not generalities.
15  I'm sorry if I sound perhaps a little 16 emotional or angry. I've been doing this for over 25 17  years. That could explain it. It's not because I 18 dislike or even know who you are. It is just the 19 seriousness of the issue and total frustration with 20 NRC. So I hope you understand it's nothing personal.
21  PETITIONER GUNTER:  This is Paul Gunter.
22  One quick final question. Again, with regard to the 23 specificity that the Petition Review Board should 24 respond to the Petitioners' concerns, Ms. Lampert has 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  32 outlined the petition's concern for the level of 1 adequacy of protection to public health and safety on 2 current operations with a drywell vent, as she's 3 pointed out would be relied upon when the wet well 4 vent was precluded by flooding of the drywell as a 5 result of part of the operator actions.
6  So the Petitioners are concerned about 7 the specifications on the drywell ductwork system 8 that would then be relied upon. And we're requesting 9 a level of specificity in response to these concerns 10 that would provide the pressure ratings on the 11 drywell ductwork which is currently not a hardened 12 system that would be relied upon for public health 13 and safety response if and when that wet well vent 14 would be precluded from use by your own operations.
15  I think you owe the public the level of 16 transparency to show exactly how robust your 17 oversight is of these technical specifications.
18  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Okay, this is Mike 19 Cheok. Let me summarize again. I think the comment 20 that was in dispositioning the petition, the request 21 is for the NRC to be specific in terms of -- and to 22 be open in terms of documenting what our reasons for 23 the dispositioning of the petition.
24  PETITIONER GUNTER:  With specificity.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  33 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Thank you.
1  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  That's one issue.
2 And let's not forget the basic issue which is the 3 request actually made in the petition. There are 4 three. One involves passivity. One involves 5 filtration. And the other involves the time.
6  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Good thank you. Any 7 additional comments?  Okay, thank you. Ms. Lampert 8 and all the Petitioners on the call, thank you again 9 for taking your time out to provide us with your 10 comments and with clarifying information.
11  Before we do close though ,does the court 12 reporter need any additional information for the 13 meeting transcript?
14  COURT REPORTER:  This is the court 15 reporter. No, I do not need any additional 16 information.
17  CHAIRPERSON CHEOK:  Okay, well, this 18 meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 19 connections. Thanks, again.
20  PETITIONER LAMPERT:  Thank you and thanks 21 to the court reporter.
22  (Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the 23 teleconference in the above-entitled matter was 24 concluded.)
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13}}

Revision as of 16:45, 4 November 2019

G20130461 - Transcript of 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board Re Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Pilgrim Watch, Teleconference 07/15/2013, Pages 1-33, Orders Hardened Containment Vents
ML13203A347
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 07/15/2013
From: Richard Guzman
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:
Guzman R
References
2.206, G20130461, NRC-073
Download: ML13203A347 (36)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Entergy Nuclear Operations Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: (teleconference)

Date: Monday, July 15, 2013 Edited by Richard V. Guzman, NRC Petition Manager Work Order No.: NRC-073 Pages 1-33 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE 7 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

8 + + + + +

9 MONDAY 10 JULY 15, 2013 11 + + + + +

12 The conference call was held, Michael C.

13 Cheok, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.

15 16 PETITIONERS: MARY LAMPERT 17 REBECCA CHIN 18 ARLENE WILLIAMSON 19 PAUL GUNTER 20 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 21 MICHAEL C. CHEOK, Deputy Director 22 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 23 (NRR), Division of Engineering 24 RICHARD GUZMAN, Petition Manager for 2.206 25 petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 NRC STAFF 2 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Coordinator, NRR, 3 Division of Policy and Rulemaking 4 MARCIA J. SIMON, Attorney, Office of 5 General Counsel 6 RAJENDER AULUCK, Japan Lessons Learned Project 7 Directorate 8 FRED L. BOWER, Acting Branch Chief, Region I 9 ELIZABETH M. KEIGHLEY, Project Engineer, Region I 10 NEIL A. SHEEHAN, Public Affairs, Region I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (1:03 p.m.)

3 MR. GUZMAN: Good afternoon. This is 4 Rich Guzman. I'll go ahead and get started with our 5 Petition Review Board teleconference with Petitioner 6 Mary Lampert, Pilgrim Watch.

7 Again, my name is Rich Guzman. I am the 8 project manager for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in 9 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'd like 10 to thank everyone for attending this meeting. The 11 purpose of today's teleconference is to allow the 12 Petitioner, Mary Lampert, and her associates, to 13 address the Petition Review Board or PRB regarding a 14 2.206 petition, dated June 14, 2013, concerning the 15 NRC orders on reliable hardened containment vent, 16 namely EA-12-050 and EA-13-109, and the 17 implementation of its provision by Entergy Nuclear 18 Operations, Inc. for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station or 19 Pilgrim.

20 The teleconference is being recorded by 21 the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by 22 a court reporter. The transcript will become a 23 supplement to the petition and will also be made 24 publicly available.

25 Before I briefly go over today's agenda, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1 I'd like to open the teleconference with 2 introductions. As we go around the room and bridge 3 line, please be sure to clearly state your name, your 4 position, and your office or organization for the 5 record.

6 I'll start off. Again, it's Rich Guzman.

7 I'm a project manager in NRR.

8 MS. SIMON: Marcia Simon, attorney in the 9 NRC Office of General Counsel.

10 MR. AULUCK: Rajender Auluck, project 11 manager in the Division of Japan Lessons Learned 12 Project Directorate.

13 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: I'm Mike Cheok. I'm 14 the deputy director in Division of Engineering in 15 NRR.

16 MS. MENSAH: I'm Tanya Mensah. I'm the 17 Petition Coordinator in the Division of Policy and 18 Rulemaking in NRR.

19 MR. GUZMAN: That would complete 20 introductions at NRC headquarters. At this time are 21 there any NRC headquarters participants who have 22 dialed in on the phone? Okay, hearing none, will the 23 NRC participants from the regional office introduce 24 themselves?

25 MS. KEIGHLEY: This is Beth Keighley, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 project engineer from Region I.

2 MR. BOWER: Fred Bower. I'm the acting 3 branch chief in Region I.

4 MR. SHEEHAN: Neil Sheehan, Public 5 Affairs, Region I.

6 MR. GUZMAN: Okay, at this time will the 7 representatives for Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim 8 introduce themselves?

9 Hearing none, Ms. Lampert, will you 10 please introduce yourself and your associates for the 11 record?

12 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Yes, this is Mary 13 Lampert, director of Pilgrim Watch and others on the 14 phone can introduce themselves.

15 PETITIONER CHIN: This is Rebecca Chin.

16 I co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee.

17 PETITIONER WILLIAMSON: Arlene 18 Williamson, Pilgrim Coalition.

19 PETITIONER GUNTER: Beyond Nuclear.

20 MR. GUZMAN: Can you state your name for 21 Beyond Nuclear?

22 PETITIONER LAMPERT: I believe it's Paul 23 Gunter.

24 MR. GUZMAN: Okay.

25 PETITIONER GUNTER: Paul Gunter is on.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 MR. GUZMAN: Thanks, Paul. It's not 2 required for members of the public to introduce 3 themselves for this call, but if there are any 4 members of the public on the phone that wish to do so 5 at this time, please state your name for the record?

6 7 (No response.)

8 With that, for our court reporter, can 9 you also please state your name?

10 COURT REPORTER: This is Toby Walter from 11 Neal Gross. I'm the court reporter.

12 MR. GUZMAN: Okay, as a brief overview of 13 the agenda, this teleconference is scheduled from 1 14 o'clock to 2 o'clock p.m. Eastern Time. Following my 15 introduction, I will turn it over to the PRB Chairman 16 who will provide opening remarks and briefly 17 summarize the scope of the petition under 18 consideration. Ms. Lampert will then give her 19 presentation and finally, the PRB Chairman will 20 conclude the conference call with closing remarks.

21 I'd like to emphasize that we each need 22 to speak up clearly to ensure that the court reporter 23 can accurately transcribe the teleconference. Also, 24 if you have something you would like to say, please 25 state your name first for the record.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 For those dialing into the 2 teleconference, please remember to mute your phones 3 to minimize any background noise or distractions. If 4 you don't have a mute button this can be done by 5 pressing the key *6 and then to unmute press the *6 6 keys again. Thank you.

7 At this time, I'll turn it over to the 8 PRB Chairman Mike Cheok.

9 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Thanks, Rich. Good 10 afternoon, again. I would like to thank everyone and 11 I'd like to welcome you to this meeting regarding the 12 2.206 petition submitted by Mary Lampert.

13 First, let me share some background in 14 our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 15 of Federal Regulations describes the petition 16 process. This is the primary mechanism for the 17 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in 18 our public process. The process permits anyone to 19 petition the NRC to take enforcement-type action 20 related to the NRC licensees or licensee activities.

21 Depending upon the results of the evaluation, the 22 NRC can modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued 23 license or take any other appropriate enforcement 24 action to resolve a problem.

25 The NRC staff's guidance for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 disposition of a 2.206 petition is found in 2 Management Directive 8.11 which is publicly 3 available.

4 The purpose of today's teleconference is 5 to give the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 6 additional explanation of the support for the 7 petition before the PRB's initial consideration and 8 recommendation.

9 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 10 an opportunity for Petitioner to question or examine 11 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 12 petition request. No decisions regarding the merits 13 of this petition will be made at this teleconference.

14 Following this teleconference, the PRB 15 will conduct its internal deliberations. The outcome 16 of this internal meeting will be discussed with the 17 Petitioner. The PRB typically consists of a 18 chairman, usually a manager at the Senior Executive 19 Service level at the NRC. It has a petition manager 20 and a PRB coordinator. Other members of the Board 21 are determined by the NRC staff based on the content 22 of the information in the petition request.

23 At this time, I would like to introduce 24 the Board. I am Mike Cheok, the PRB chairman.

25 Richard Guzman is the petition manager for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 2 PRB coordinator. Our technical staff includes:

3 Rajender Auluck from the NRC's Japan Lessons Learned 4 Project Directorate; Fred Bower and Steve Schaffer 5 from the NRC Region I, Division of Reactor Projects.

6 We also obtain advice from the Office of General 7 Counsel represented today by Marcia Simon, and from 8 the Office of Enforcement which will be represented 9 by Bob Fretz.

10 As described in our process, the NRC 11 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better 12 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 13 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject a 14 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 15 process.

16 Additionally, the licensee may ask 17 questions to clarify issues raised by the Petitioner.

18 I understand that the licensee is not on the phone 19 today.

20 Next, I would like to summarize the scope 21 of the petition under consideration and the NRC's 22 activities to date. On June 14, 2013, Ms. Lampert 23 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 24 concerning NRC orders EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 related 25 to hardened containment vents for Pilgrim Nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 Power Station.

2 In her petition, Ms. Lampert requests 3 that NRC immediately suspend the operating license of 4 Entergy Nuclear operations at Pilgrim Nuclear Power 5 Station until the provisions of the NRC orders are 6 fully implemented and until the containment vents at 7 Pilgrim are augmented with filters and rupture discs.

8 The Petitioner requests this enforcement 9 action on the basis that the existing design of 10 Pilgrim and other MARK 1 and 2 reactors that they are 11 not sufficient to protect the public health and 12 safety. The Petitioner also states that the NRC is 13 not meeting its statutory obligations by allowing 14 Pilgrim and other reactors with like design to 15 operate without fully implementing the requirements 16 of NRC orders.

17 In terms of NRC activities to date, the 18 PRB met on June 27, 2013 to review the Petitioner's 19 request for immediate action. The PRB concluded that 20 there is no immediate safety concern to Pilgrim or to 21 the health and safety of the public to warrant the 22 requested immediate action, that is, the immediate 23 suspension of the Pilgrim operating license. Ms.

24 Lampert was informed of this decision on June 28, 25 2013.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 Next is a reminder for phone 2 participants, please identify yourself if you make 3 any remarks as this will help us in the preparation 4 of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly 5 available.

6 Ms. Lampert, I will now turn it over to 7 you to allow you and your associates to provide any 8 information you believe the PRB should consider as 9 part of its petition.

10 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Yes, this is Mary 11 Lampert and thank you for the opportunity. We agree 12 that the NRC is statutorily required to adequately 13 protect public health and safety. That is not a 14 question.

15 I assume you agree with that. If you do 16 not agree with that, you would explain your reasons 17 why you don't agree and the decision.

18 This would seem to include requiring 19 measures so that the reactor will not blow up, breach 20 its walls, as occurred at Pilgrim sister reactors at 21 Fukushima, and measures to prevent and monitor 22 radiation in excess of allowable limits related to 23 the site.

24 Our petition provided, I believe, 14 25 direct quotes from EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 where both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 orders themselves admit that the status quo does not 2 protect public health and safety. If again you do 3 not agree with the statements quoted as being fully 4 accurate, or if you do not agree that what the order 5 said in this regard is inaccurate, I request that you 6 make your reasons clear in your written decision.

7 It's important to note what was said 8 contrary to the orders in an introductory letter by 9 Eric Leeds to licensee that accompanied the order.

10 It said "the NRC staff has determined that continued 11 operations does not pose an imminent risk to public 12 health and safety, however, the additional 13 requirements outlined in EA-13-109 are necessary in 14 light of insights gained from the events at Fukushima 15 Daiichi" page 2 of the letter. The key words are 16 "imminent risk" and "necessary."

17 Imminent as defined in the dictionary, 18 The Free Dictionary as "about to occur, impending as 19 an imminent danger." Dictionary.com: "likely to 20 occur at any moment." Webster: "ready to take 21 place." Oxford: "About to happen."

22 So therefore, the only sensible 23 interpretation of Eric Leeds use of the word 24 "imminent" could only mean that NRC staff has 25 determined that continued operation does not pose a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 risk to public health and safety, that it's likely to 2 occur at any moment, any time soon because NRC 3 believes, despite Fukushima, that we assume the 4 Japanese believed there was no imminent risk until it 5 happened despite the fact that Pilgrim is the same 6 design as Fukushima's reactors, despite the fact that 7 Pilgrim has many, many times more spent fuel in its 8 pool than Unit 4 and despite the fact that Pilgrim 9 has had 13 event reports since January 1st of this 10 year, the most recent, the malfunctioning of the 11 annunciators in the control room that is they were 12 flying blind. Despite all that, none of this is 13 going to happen for six or so years. In other words, 14 NRC is crossing their fingers. What else could it 15 mean?

16 To boot, the order says these events are 17 necessary. To use Eric Leeds' words "to protect 18 public health and safety." That means now, tomorrow, 19 next week, a year from now, two years from now that 20 there indeed can be a problem where the vent would be 21 required to operate and where hopefully if they did 22 operate, they would be filtered so that my house, six 23 miles across open water from Pilgrim, would not be 24 rendered worthless and the health of my community at 25 grave risk.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 The order also says in regard to venting 2 from the wetwell that in regard to filtering for Mark 3 I containment the preferred venting path is from the 4 wetwell portion of the containment because the water 5 in the suppression pool provides a degree, key word, 6 degree, of decontamination before release to the 7 environment. EA-13-109 at 7.

8 A degree of contamination from venting 9 the wetwell was explained in our petition at pages 6 10 through 7. The wetwell vent can release anywhere 11 from zero to close to 99 percent via scrubbing. We 12 noted that throughout the world reactors, licensees 13 either have a filter or like the Japanese have chosen 14 to install a filter because they learned the lessons 15 from their accidents, despite the fact that they have 16 scrubbing, so it's in addition to which is what the 17 Petitioners are requesting.

18 On the other hand, the proposed drywell 19 vent obviously has no scrubbing, so it will not 20 filter any releases. Therefore, we believe that it 21 is accurate to say if venting occurs, public health 22 and worker health will be negatively impacted. If 23 you don't believe this, please explain in your 24 written response.

25 The order also discusses NRC's process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 for further reviewer action on filtering. It says at 2 5: "issues relating to filtering will be addressed 3 through the rulemaking process."

4 I have a couple of questions regarding 5 the rulemaking process based on NRC Atomic Safety and 6 Licensing Board Judge Rosenthal's conclusion made 7 during the prehearing in Boston that I brought 8 challenging EA-12-050. He said "that with one 9 possible exception, the NRC has not granted a Section 10 2.206 petition that substantive relief is sought for 11 at least 37 years." Key word, substantive.

12 Therefore, we would like to know and have it 13 explained in your response what the NRC's track 14 record for granting the full substance sought in any 15 rulemaking petition. And second, what is the range 16 of time it has taken to issue a full decision on a 17 rulemaking petition? You could say this is important 18 to me. I am 71 years old. I cannot wait 10, 20 or 19 whatever the range in time it is for NRC to respond 20 to a rulemaking petition, number one.

21 And also, it is important to know how 22 successful this is. We find that we are offered 23 opportunities to file a 2.206 which I am doing, but 24 the chances of success there are close to zero.

25 Rulemaking petitions during the prehearing in Boston NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 on EA-12-050, the licensee's lawyer said in the 2 transcript that forget rulemaking petitions being 3 appropriate avenue because they take too long and 4 everybody laughed. These are important questions.

5 We also asked in the petition that the 6 vent remain captive. Attachment 2 of the order, that 7 is13-109 says in this regard HCVS functional 8 requirement at 1.1.1 "the HCVS shall be designed to 9 minimize the reliance on operator action." I would 10 ask whether you agree that a rupture disc would, in 11 fact, minimize the reliance on operator action to the 12 extent of eliminating operator actions making the 13 system passive. What does minimize mean at 1.1.1?

14 Please explain in your decision. How is that 15 sufficient when operator actions may not work out in 16 a sufficiently timely manner and when the order 17 itself say sin reference to Fukushima at 2 "in 18 particular, the operators were unable to successfully 19 operate the containment venting system. These 20 problems with venting the containment contributed to 21 the hydrogen explosion that destroyed the reactor 22 building. The loss of various barriers led to the 23 release of radioactive material that further hampered 24 operator efforts to arrest the accident." Not 25 sufficient.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1 In regard to implementation, the orders 2 require implementation of Phase 1 at the outset, 5 3 years; Phase 2, 6 years. So this leaves us to wonder 4 the following and hopefully it will be explained in 5 your response. When the orders are implemented, we 6 want to know whether the licensee, the reactor has to 7 be shut down and for how long? We also want an 8 understanding, it would seem that they would be 9 required in our mind to send a plan to the NRC which 10 shouldn't take forever, and for approval, then order 11 the parts and install when the parts arrive. If the 12 NRC were to tell Pilgrim's owners to start fixing the 13 issue now and Pilgrim's owners cooperated, went to 14 work as quickly as possible, and continued to work 15 diligently on the fix until it was completed, how 16 long would it take? In other words, what is the 17 justification for six years?

18 I have talked to some engineers such as 19 Dave Lochbaum who did work with you guys and asked 20 how long would it take? He said there would be a 21 range, but about two years should be doable. If that 22 is not the case, can you explain and I think you have 23 an obligation to explain why the six years? Not 24 requiring full implementation until six years said to 25 me and I think it says to our community that the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 is simply crossing its fingers, saying a few prayers, 2 hoping for the best, and that is no assurance, 3 clearly, that you are fulfilling your statutory 4 obligations to protect public health and safety.

5 We want to know specifically sometimes 6 the PRB's written response denying or denying in part 7 2.206 petition are less than substantive. There are 8 feel good, general words.

9 I would hope that (a) you will reconsider 10 and not deny in full the petition; and whatever your 11 response be, that it's substantive, so you answer the 12 important questions, you answer the important 13 questions of if the orders themselves say public 14 health and safety is required by these orders, how 15 health and public safety is being protected now? It 16 makes no sense. A reasonable person would say look, 17 it doesn't take six years to get this going. A 18 reasonable person would say in regard to filtering a 19 rule change petition is something I will never live 20 long enough to see. It does not provide any 21 satisfaction or redress to petitioners as most 2.206 22 petitions were shown by Judge Rosenthal's 23 investigation not to either.

24 We hope that since Fukushima that we will 25 see a change which the recommendation of Option 3 to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 the Commissioners indicated. If you have any 2 questions, I'd be happy to answer or others on the 3 call might want to make a comment. And again, thank 4 you for the opportunity.

5 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Thank you, Ms.

6 Lampert. Let me start with the staff in the room at 7 headquarters if you have any questions? Does anybody 8 have any questions?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: We have no questions 11 in this room. Does anybody participating by phone --

12 do we have any questions from the regions for Ms.

13 Lampert.

14 MR. BOWER: No question from Region I.

15 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Thank you. Are there 16 any members of the public who would like to provide 17 comments regarding the petition and to ask questions 18 about the 2.206 process?

19 PETITIONER GUNTER: Yes, this is Paul 20 Gunter, Beyond Nuclear.

21 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Go ahead, Paul.

22 PETITIONER GUNTER: The petition requests 23 that the NRC Petition Review Board respond in writing 24 to its questions. I'd like to get a response from 25 you as to how you determine how thorough your answer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 in writing is determined?

2 PETITIONER LAMPERT: May I make a 3 question there? I did not ask for a response in 4 writing, specifically to my questions. I 5 specifically asked in the written response regarding 6 the petition from the PRB that they address every 7 question and issue I brought forward.

8 PETITIONER GUNTER: Okay, I'm happy to 9 reframe the question as Ms. Lampert has provided.

10 But again, how do you -- my question is the petition 11 is expecting a written response in answer to these 12 questions. My question to you is how do you 13 determine by what criteria do you determine your 14 level and thoroughness of response?

15 MS. MENSAH: This is Tanya Mensah and I'm 16 not sure who asked the question, but I'm the 2.206 17 coordinator for the process. If you look in the 18 Management Directive, there are a couple of exhibits 19 that are contained in the back for either closure 20 letters or acknowledgement letters. Now the level of 21 detail that is provided depends on what phase of the 22 process you're in. So generally, when we're at this 23 phase in the process, the PRB is looking at the 24 information that the Petitioner has provided to 25 determine if it meets the criteria for review. If it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 meets the criteria for review, normally that letter 2 will just say we are expecting it for review. I mean 3 in terms of questions there are some coordination 4 that we consider if the Petitioner had questions that 5 perhaps have already been addressed through our 6 Office of Public Affairs. We try not to duplicate 7 work that other offices in our agency are currently 8 pursuing. And so if we've already addressed certain 9 questions, you may be receiving feedback that because 10 we've addressed these through our Office of Public 11 Affairs, here are the specific answers to those 12 questions.

13 In some cases, it depends on information 14 that the Petitioner has provided. I mean it's really 15 hard for me to say from a generic point of view 16 because each petition is different. But the sense 17 that I'm getting from Ms. Lampert here is that she 18 has specific facts as documented in her petition, but 19 then there are also specific questions and the 20 answers specifically depend upon what you see here in 21 the exhibits as far as what our criteria are where we 22 explain our bases.

23 Now what we have done is Ms. Lampert or 24 any Petitioner per our process will receive an 25 initial recommendation which is provided by petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 manager. And then the PRB's goal is to explain what 2 the basis is addressing all aspects of the submittal.

3 Generally, what we have received in the past is that 4 if the Petitioner believes that well, I don't 5 understand or this doesn't address the concerns I 6 had, then the PRB can expand at that point and then 7 typically we might even have a second call or a 8 meeting with the Petitioner to make sure that the PRB 9 is explaining itself and what its basis is for its 10 recommendation.

11 PETITIONER GUNTER: I'm Mary Lampert, let 12 me make clear that passing the buck to Public Affairs 13 would be totally unacceptable and it would just 14 reinforce the perception that NRC is following the 15 same path as identified by Judge Rosenthal which 16 would be a very sad comment and I would like to 17 believe otherwise.

18 If there isn't a full disclosure of why 19 the Board has decided what it should do by providing 20 facts, providing references, then we get no 21 satisfaction. I'm thinking back to the Vilotty, for 22 example, where it was suggested there that Vilotty, 23 instead of challenging the sufficiency of an order, 24 had other avenues, had the 2.206 petition. Well, we 25 want to see that that is, in fact, an avenue.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1 The idea of a rulemaking petition for 2 filtering when it doesn't take a mental genius and 3 the NRC staff themselves appreciated the importance 4 of filtering to put any bets on how that's going to 5 turn out. So if we're going to make progress, if the 6 NRC is going to start to regain any faith in itself 7 by the public, I think the request for full response 8 and opportunity is required. I'm sorry, Paul, for 9 interfering.

10 PETITIONER GUNTER: No, I think it's all 11 clarification. It's our concern that as the NRC 12 addresses the 2.206 review process, if it is 13 dismissing the petition concerns and direct 14 questioning, we're expecting that you're going to 15 provide citations, not generic dismissals. And I 16 think this is particularly important in context that 17 this is all public health and safety related and a 18 part of your stated mission that you uphold that 19 first. So we're expecting citations to the dismissal 20 of the petition's direct questions to you and the 21 technical issues that these questions represent.

22 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Mary Lampert.

23 Specifically, if the orders themselves said the order 24 is necessary to protect public health and safety, how 25 can it mean that between now and six years not to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24 1 worry? So therefore, we're standing naked just at 2 Pilgrim without the annunciators. We're flying blind 3 in the interim. Now there has to be a step-by-step, 4 well thought out response to us if you disagree with 5 what the order says. It defies common sense.

6 PETITIONER WILLIAMSON: This is Arlene 7 Williamson from Pilgrim Coalition. What I would like 8 to ask is how can you basically say the public is in 9 danger or not in danger, but would be safer if you 10 implemented EA-12-050 and EA-13-109, what are your 11 reasons for waiting six years to do something that 12 clearly will protect the public if an event occurred?

13 In fact, Mary had mentioned there was an 14 occurrence that happened today, as a matter of fact, 15 and we hear about these things and being very close 16 to this reactor I'm concerned as to why you would 17 issue something and then clearly avoid putting any 18 implementation for six years when it's something as 19 serious as this. And that's why we don't have faith 20 in the NRC is because your boards recommend doing 21 things and things just either are delayed or they're 22 not taken into consideration and I'd like to know why 23 you would give these GE Mark I boiling reactors all 24 over the country six years to do anything. Thank 25 you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25 1 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Mary Lampert. I'd 2 like to make a statement to qualify. This is not 3 about making them safer. Because that implies 4 they're safe now.

5 PETITIONER WILLIAMSON: Exactly.

6 PETITIONER LAMPERT: I haven't finished.

7 And the orders clearly do not say that.12-050, 8 reliable hardened venting systems in the BWR 9 facilities of Mark I and Mark II containment are 10 needed to ensure that adequate protection of public 11 health and safety is maintained.

12 Further, the Commission has determined 13 that ensuring adequate protection of public health 14 and safety required. Further, these measures are 15 necessary to ensure adequate protection of public 16 health and safety at 7. Additional requirements must 17 be imposed at 4. Then you go to EA-13-109, 18 implementation of the order were necessary to provide 19 reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public 20 health and safety. And then there are one, two, 21 three, four, five, six further quotes. It's not a 22 matter of making them safer. It's a matter that they 23 are not safe now.

24 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: This is Mike Cheok.

25 Thanks for your comments. I understand your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26 1 that the reactors are not safe now and that you want 2 the staff to address why we think the reactor, the 3 plant should continue to operate.

4 PETITIONER LAMPERT: And also why six 5 years? Things can be put on a fast forward and also 6 when they finally, if we have no satisfaction, if you 7 will, and you finally after six years it's going to 8 happen, how long is it going to take Pilgrim to 9 actually do it when they get off the dime, and if so 10 how long? They're going to have to shut down when 11 they get near the six year drop dead point. Why 12 can't they do that now? Why can't they give you the 13 plan? Why can't you be on their neck? We want to 14 know what you're going to do. We're going to discuss 15 it, this is what we think. Order the parts and get 16 off the dime to provide what you're required to do 17 which is assurance of public health and safety which 18 the orders say do not exist now.

19 MS. MENSAH: Ms. Lampert, this is Tanya 20 Mensah again. I just had a quick question for you 21 and I don't have the transcript in front of me, so 22 forgive me if I misquoted you, but I thought I heard 23 you mention earlier that you spoke with or you 24 coordinated with an engineer or somebody that you 25 knew regarding the orders?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27 1 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: That was Dave 2 Lochbaum.

3 MS. MENSAH: Dave Lochbaum, okay, and you 4 said that they were recommending that at the most it 5 should take two years?

6 PETITIONER LAMPERT: There was a range 7 and it certainly seemed possible to do it within a 8 couple of years.

9 MS. MENSAH: Okay.

10 PETITIONER LAMPERT: The only issue, let 11 me get it back from my screen would be if they had to 12 go back in the containment that would take longer to 13 check fittings, how things fit. Not six years.

14 MS. MENSAH: Okay, my line of questioning 15 was just intended to see if you had additional facts 16 provided through that source as to the basis for that 17 two-year time frame and any other details that could 18 be provided to the PRB?

19 PETITIONER LAMPERT: I'll get back to 20 Dave and shoot it out to you.

21 PETITIONER GUNTER: This is Paul Gunter 22 again.

23 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Go ahead, Paul.

24 PETITIONER GUNTER: Just to add to the 25 response to Tanya's question about the timing and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28 1 concern for what the public views as stonewalling.

2 The direct torus vent system that is currently 3 installed on most Mark Is with the exception of 4 Fitzpatrick, the installation times were on the order 5 of two years beginning in 1987 or so with Pilgrim 6 installing a DTVS on the wet well and then by Generic 7 Letter 89-16, this was followed up in two-year repair 8 cycles or backfit cycles to install the direct torus 9 vent system.

10 So by the NRC's own records we've seen 11 these installation times to be a much shorter 12 duration and it's more particularly egregious that 13 the Mark I, Mark II plants in Japan have already 14 reached agreement with AREVA for the installation of 15 severe accident capable filtered vents on their 16 boiling water reactors. So the public is pretty 17 shocked by the fact that the NRC intends to 18 deliberate a minimum of six years. These time frames 19 often slip and you know while we see engineered high-20 capacity filtered systems being installed by 21 contractual agreements to date between AREVA and the 22 Japanese boiling water reactor fleet. So it's 23 particularly of concern, as this petition notes, that 24 these time frames do not represent reasonable 25 assurance for protecting public health and safety on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29 1 unreliable systems that are operating today.

2 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Yes, I would add to 3 that, Mary Lampert. I'd add also for your 4 consideration if I were Entergy, I would draw this 5 process out, whine and moan and groan and come up 6 with my engineer's guesses, estimates on how long all 7 this is going to take. And why? Because Pilgrim, 8 like Fitzpatrick, like Vermont Yankee, are not 9 competing in this deregulated electric market here 10 where the price is being set by cheaper sources of 11 electricity. So the rumor mill is that they're even 12 wondering whether they're going to be around very 13 long and I think the NRC has to be cognizant of this 14 and not kowtow to it.

15 The issue is not let's not make the 16 industry spend money and get moving ASAP which is 17 possible because you know, who knows? They might be 18 closing so all that money for naught. So again, 19 whose side are you on? We'd like to believe, we 20 hope, on the public side on satisfying your statutory 21 requirements.

22 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Okay, thanks. This 23 is Mike Cheok again. I understand your comment that 24 six years for implementation is too long and that you 25 would like to see the NRC act in a faster manner.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 1 Are there other comments?

2 PETITIONER CHIN: Yes, this Rebecca Chin, 3 Town of Duxbury. I spoke seven years ago on this 4 topic at an Atomic Energy Licensing Board hearing in 5 Plymouth and the same song is being sung today.

6 We're concerned with our public health, safety and 7 our regional economy. And we understand that 8 unfiltered venting has been judged unsafe by all 9 regulatory agencies outside of the United States, 10 even back then. And if we are the only ones that are 11 sitting on our hands and waiting, that's not okay.

12 And we do expect prompt attention to this requirement 13 for Pilgrim and that they do act upon it 14 expeditiously and we do want filters and automatic 15 passive vents.

16 We're aware that the purpose of 17 containment is to provide a barrier between the 18 lethal radiation inside the reactor and the public.

19 And if something is going wrong inside that reactor 20 and venting is called for, you're going to blow 21 everything you can right up the stack, unfiltered and 22 unmonitored, and that is not okay.

23 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Mary Lampert.

24 Another thing that is not okay, when the most recent 25 order 13-109 explained that if it's necessary to add NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31 1 water because you're now having melt, that in fact 2 the vent that is at Pilgrim right now would be 3 inoperable. And so therefore absent the capability 4 to vent that the order itself described, we're in 5 trouble, because if our reactors explode, it's not 6 good for the neighborhood. And you have identified 7 the problem that why venting is required and then say 8 okay, you have a vent in the wet well, but that might 9 not work in certain circumstances. So in plain 10 English, you're screwed. Not to mention the problem 11 of the lack of filter, lack of passivity that you 12 describe in the order is and was a problem at 13 Fukushima. So we don't understand why these issues 14 are hard. And we expect a full explanation with 15 references, not generalities.

16 I'm sorry if I sound perhaps a little 17 emotional or angry. I've been doing this for over 25 18 years. That could explain it. It's not because I 19 dislike or even know who you are. It is just the 20 seriousness of the issue and total frustration with 21 NRC. So I hope you understand it's nothing personal.

22 PETITIONER GUNTER: This is Paul Gunter.

23 One quick final question. Again, with regard to the 24 specificity that the Petition Review Board should 25 respond to the Petitioners' concerns, Ms. Lampert has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

32 1 outlined the petition's concern for the level of 2 adequacy of protection to public health and safety on 3 current operations with a drywell vent, as she's 4 pointed out would be relied upon when the wet well 5 vent was precluded by flooding of the drywell as a 6 result of part of the operator actions.

7 So the Petitioners are concerned about 8 the specifications on the drywell ductwork system 9 that would then be relied upon. And we're requesting 10 a level of specificity in response to these concerns 11 that would provide the pressure ratings on the 12 drywell ductwork which is currently not a hardened 13 system that would be relied upon for public health 14 and safety response if and when that wet well vent 15 would be precluded from use by your own operations.

16 I think you owe the public the level of 17 transparency to show exactly how robust your 18 oversight is of these technical specifications.

19 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Okay, this is Mike 20 Cheok. Let me summarize again. I think the comment 21 that was in dispositioning the petition, the request 22 is for the NRC to be specific in terms of -- and to 23 be open in terms of documenting what our reasons for 24 the dispositioning of the petition.

25 PETITIONER GUNTER: With specificity.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

33 1 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Thank you.

2 PETITIONER LAMPERT: That's one issue.

3 And let's not forget the basic issue which is the 4 request actually made in the petition. There are 5 three. One involves passivity. One involves 6 filtration. And the other involves the time.

7 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Good thank you. Any 8 additional comments? Okay, thank you. Ms. Lampert 9 and all the Petitioners on the call, thank you again 10 for taking your time out to provide us with your 11 comments and with clarifying information.

12 Before we do close though ,does the court 13 reporter need any additional information for the 14 meeting transcript?

15 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 16 reporter. No, I do not need any additional 17 information.

18 CHAIRPERSON CHEOK: Okay, well, this 19 meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 20 connections. Thanks, again.

21 PETITIONER LAMPERT: Thank you and thanks 22 to the court reporter.

23 (Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the 24 teleconference in the above-entitled matter was 25 concluded.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

34 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13203A347&oldid=2060656"