ML14223A088: 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)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Title:   Post Petition Review Board Meeting with Pilgrim Watch  
==Title:==
Post Petition Review Board Meeting with Pilgrim Watch Docket Number:    05000293 Location:          (teleconference)
Date:              Thursday, June 12, 2014 Work Order No.:    NRC-864                          Pages 1-34 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                            POST PETITION 5                REVIEW BOARD CONFERENCE CALL WITH 6                            PILGRIM WATCH 7                                + + + + +
8                                THURSDAY 9                            JUNE 12, 2014 10                                + + + + +
11            The conference call was held at 11:00 a.m.,
12 Eastern Daylight Time, Allen Howe, Chairman of the 13 Petition Review Board, presiding.
14 15 PETITIONER: MARY LAMPERT, Pilgrim Watch, Director 16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
18            ALLEN HOWE, Petition Review Board Chairman 19            JOE ANDERSON, Chief of Operating Reactor 20                  Licensing, NSIR 21            LEE BANIC, 2.206 Coordinator, NRR 22            RICHARD BARKLEY, NRC Facilitator 23            RAY HOFFMAN, Emergency Preparedness 24                  Specialist, NSIR 25            ERIC MICHEL, Attorney, Office of General NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  (202) 234-4433
 
2 1                  Counsel 2            NADIAYAH MORGAN, Petition Manager, NRR 3                                                      (Continued) 4 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
5            SERITA SANDERS, NRR, Generic 6                  Communications Branch 7            STEVE SHAFFER, Region I 8            ROBERT KAHLER, Branch Chief, NSIR, 9                  Inspection and Regulatory 10                  Improvements 11 12 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT:
13            REBECCA CHIN, Co-Chair, Duxbury Nuclear 14                  Advisory Committee 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
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                      P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2                                                          (11:01 a.m.)
3                  MR. BARKLEY:        Good morning.      I would like 4 to thank everybody for attending this meeting.                    Again, 5 my name is Richard Barkley.              I have met Mary and spoke 6 with her at length back in May at the annual assessment 7 meeting up at the Pilgrim, and I understand Rebecca Chin 8 is also on the phone.
9                  And so, my role as a facilitator is to help 10 make this meeting, you know, as effective and productive 11 as possible.
12                  The purpose of the meeting today is to allow 13 Mary at Pilgrim Watch to address the Petition Review 14 Board regarding her 2.206 petition.
15                  This was submitted back on August 30th of 16 2013, and at that time Mary requested the NRC take an 17 enforcement-related action against Pilgrim to ensure 18 that Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 19 operating      procedures      and    guidelines      are  based        on 20 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.
21                  This meeting is scheduled for an hour 22 today, from eleven to twelve.              It is being recorded by 23 the      NRC  Operations    Center      and      they  will    make        a 24 transcription of this recording, and then there will be 25 a supplement to the 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
 
5 1                And    the      transcript          will  be      made 2 publicly-available on ADAMS after the Petition Review 3 Board, after they have had a chance to review it for 4 allegations or any other sensitive information.
5                To get a good transcript and minimize 6 distractions, we ask you to turn off or mute any devices 7 that you have.      So, I am turning off my cell phone as 8 we speak.
9                And, for those of you who are dialing into 10 the meeting, if you don't have a mute button, if you can 11 press the keys "star 6," that will mute your phone and 12 if you high "star 6" again, that will unmute your phone.
13                I want to reemphasize that we need to speak 14 clearly and loudly to make sure the court reporter can 15 transcribe this meeting from a phone recording.                  That 16 will ensure that it is, again, accurate.
17                And I would ask that when you speak up, you 18 actually say your name first.
19                We look forward to ways to improve our 20 meetings, and therefore, we ask for feedback.                If you 21 have feedback on this meeting, we would ask that you send 22 your comments to the meeting contact, Dee Morgan and her 23 email address is nadiyah.morgan@nrc.gov.
24                I would like to now open the meeting to 25 introductions.      So, Dee, if you could go around the room 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 and say who is available in Headquarters.
2                      MS. MORGAN:        Okay.      Again, I am Nadiyah 3 Morgan, the Petition Manager in NRR, and the Office of 4 Reactor Licensing.
5                      MS. SANDERS:        Hi. I am Serita Sanders in 6 NRR and the Generic Communications Branch.                      I am the 7 back-up to Lee, who is the lead for petition in the 8 Generic Communications.
9                      MS. BANIC:          I am Lee Banic, petition 10 coordinator.
11                      MR. HOFFMAN:        Ray Hoffman, NSIR, Technical 12 Review.
13                      MR. ANDERSON:        Joe Anderson, NSIR, Chief, 14 Operating Reactor Operator Licensing.
15                      MR. HOWE:      Good morning.        This is Allen 16 Howe.          I am in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations 17 and I am the Petition Review Board Chair for this 18 Petition Review Board.
19                      MR. KAHLER:        Hi. This is Robert Kahler.
20 I am Branch Chief of the NSIR Inspection and Regulatory 21 Improvements Branch.
22                      MR. MICHEL:      Eric Michel from the office of 23 General Counsel.
24                      MS. MORGAN:        And that is all that we have 25 here, Rich.
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                MR. BARKLEY:          Do we have any other NRC 2 participants on the phone?
3                MR. SHAFFER:          Yes, Rich.        This is Steve 4 Shaffer, Region I.
5                MR. BARKLEY:          Okay.      And do we have any 6 representatives from Entergy on the line?
7                (No audible response.)
8                MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      Mary, would you like 9 to introduce yourself, and then Ms. Chin can introduce 10 herself afterwards.
11                MS. LAMPERT:          Hi.        Yes. I  am      Mary 12 Lampert.      I am director of Pilgrim Watch and the 13 Petitioner.
14                MS. CHIN:      Yes.      I am Rebecca Chin.                I 15 co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, and I 16 am a co-Petitioner.
17                MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      It is not necessary 18 for other members of the public to introduce themselves, 19 but if they would, they are welcome to acknowledge 20 themselves on the phone.
21                (No audible response.)
22                MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      With that, let's move 23 on.
24                Mary, I know you are very experienced with 25 the 2.206 Petition process, so I won't get into 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 providing a lot of background on it, but if you have more 2 in-depth questions on the guidance that that staff is 3 following, you can refer to the management directive 4 that is on our website.            It is Management Directive 5 8.11.
6                Again, the purpose of today's meeting is to 7 give you an opportunity to provide any additional 8 information or support for the position as a result of 9 the PRB's initial consideration and recommendation.
10                This meeting is not a hearing, nor an 11 opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 12 the PRB on the merits of the issues presented in the 13 petition request.
14                No decisions regarding the merits of this 15 petition will be made at this meeting.              It will be made 16 afterwards.
17                Following      this      meeting,    the  PRB      will 18 conduct its internal deliberation and the outcome of 19 this internal meeting will be discussed with you 20 afterwards.
21                Again, the Petition Review Board consists 22 of a Chairman, Mr. Howe, who is a member of the senior 23 executive service as the petition manager and a petition 24 coordinator.
25                And  other      members        of  the  Board        are 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 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the 2 information in the petition.                And we are obtaining 3 advice also from our Office of General Counsel.
4                As we described in our process, the NRC will 5 be asking clarifying questions in order to better 6 understand your presentation and to reach a reasoned 7 decision as to whether to accept or reject your request 8 for review under the 2.206 petition process.
9                Again, the licensee was invited but chose 10 not to participate in today's meeting to ensure they 11 understood    the  concerns        about      their facility        or 12 associated activities.
13                And again, while if the licensee does log 14 onto this call later, they have the ability to ask 15 clarifying questions, but they are not part of our 16 decision-making process.
17                At this time, I would like to turn it over 18 to Allen Howe, the Petition Review Board Chairman so he 19 can discuss the petition under consideration.
20                MR. HOWE:      Yes. Thank you, Rich.
21                And, good morning, Ms. Lampert, and Ms.
22 Chin.
23                I -- this is Allen Howe, and this -- the 24 purpose of this meeting is, as Rich has laid out, is to 25 listen to any additional comments that you would offer 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 as a part of our considerations as we review this 2 petition.
3                What I want to do is just take a couple of 4 minutes to summarize the -- our understanding of the 5 scope of the petition, and also to provide you with an 6 overview of NRC activities to date.
7                So, starting there, if that is okay with 8 you, I will start going through that process.
9                MS. LAMPERT:        Yes.      Appreciate.
10                MR. HOWE:      Okay.      All right. Thank you.
11                Last August, August 30th of 2013, Ms.
12 Lampert submitted a petition to the NRC under 10 CFR 13 2.206 regarding Pilgrim's emergency plan.
14                In the petition request, you requested that 15 the NRC institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or 16 take any other action that may be proper to -- to the 17 operating license of Pilgrim, in order to ensure 18 Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 19 operating      procedures      and    guidelines      are  based        on 20 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.
21                We use the term ETE's as a shorthand for 22 that.
23                You stated that the primary basis for this 24 request is in response to two documents prepared by KLD 25 Engineering, a contractor for Entergy.
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                These documents are the Pilgrim's December 2 12th, 2012 ETE final report and the July 25th, 2013 Cape 3 Cod telephone survey results.
4                The petitioner asserts that the ETE's for 5 Pilgrim are based on inaccurate assumption and are not 6 credible.      The petitioner further stated that the ETE's 7 fundamental assumptions and data were flawed, which 8 explained ETE's conclusion that, even in the worst case 9 scenario, everyone in the emergency planning zone will 10 be evacuated in about six hours.
11                The petitioner also discussed the results 12 of the Cape survey and maintains that it was not 13 properly-used to determine Pilgrim's ETE.
14                That is the -- that is the summary of our 15 understanding of the concerns related to the petition.
16 So, let me talk through now the NRC activities to date.
17                MS. LAMPERT:          And    let me provide          a 18 clarification --
19                MR. HOWE:      Okay.
20                MS. LAMPERT:        -- or I misunderstood what 21 you just said.      The Cape telephone survey demonstrated 22 two things.      One, it demonstrated that the assumption 23 of a 20 percent shadow evacuation in 10 to 15 miles is 24 inaccurate because it is based upon a telephone survey 25 done by Sandia and also by Entergy here, but never 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 mentioned that there would be -- that this was regarding 2 a nuclear accident.            Number one.
3                    Number two, it demonstrated that the staged 4 evacuation within the EPZ is also incorrect.                        Number 5 three, it demonstrated that more would be leaving Cape 6 Cod and the way the evacuations are off the Cape, it 7 feeds into one of the most congested areas within the 8 EPZ, so it would therefore slow the EPZ evacuation.
9                    That is what was brought forward.                      And 10 also, I expect you will also discuss the supplement that 11 was provided to you on November 22nd, 2013.                  And, excuse 12 my voice, but I cannot help the pollen.
13                    MR. HOWE:      Okay.      All right.      Thank you.
14 Yes.        I will -- I will go through just real quickly the 15 overview of the activities that have taken place to 16 date.
17                    And, you are correct.              I did not mention 18 the supplement that you provided in November.                              So, 19 thank you for that clarification.
20                    So, let me just real quickly run through 21 this.          This is going back to November of last year, 22 November 19th, 2013.
23                    You and others addressed the Petition 24 Review Board.          We did transcribe that meeting also 25 where you provided information to the Petition Review 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 Board, and that transcript is publicly-available in our 2 agency document management system, also referred to as 3 ADAM.
4                And the reference number, the exception 5 number four of that document is ML14141A087.
6                The Petition Review Board met internally on 7 February 20th of this year, and after our internal 8 meeting, we decided to recommend that the petition would 9 be rejected for review.
10                And our determination was based on two 11 elements.      First of all, the petitioner raised concerns 12 that are addressed within NRC's guidance, and this is 13 an NRC guidance document.            It is NUREG/CR-7002.            And 14 the title of that document is "Criteria for Development 15 of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies."
16                Okay. Or, the issues that you raised --
17 so, they were either evaluated in that document, or they 18 were evaluated based on a generic basis document in 19 Supplement      3,    "Guidance        for      Protective    Action 20 Strategies."
21                And      this        is        a    supplement          to 22 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1.              So,      those    are  the      two 23 documents that we looked at.
24                The title of that document is "Criteria for 25 Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 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 Response Plan and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear 2 Power Plans."
3                And that was a joint document prepared by 4 both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and also 5 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
6                So, in sum with that -- I know that is a lot 7 of detail in there, but in sum, the issues that were 8 raised in your petition were reviewed as a part of those 9 two documents that I just referenced.
10                In addition to that, we also, subsequent to 11 the submission of your petition, the technical staff at 12 NRC conducted a review of the 2012 Pilgrim evacuation 13 time estimates, and we concluded and found that it was 14 consistent      with      the      guidance        contained            in 15 NUREG/CR-7002.
16                And this April, April 9th, the petition 17 manager Nadiyah Morgan, informed Ms. Lampert that the 18 recommendation -- of the recommendation, that is to 19 reject this petition, and offered a second opportunity 20 to address the PRB.      And that is the purpose of today's 21 meeting.
22                Just to follow on with what Rich had 23 indicated      earlier,      in    terms        of  any    meeting 24 participants, just please identify yourself if you are 25 going to make any remarks because this will help us in 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: 05000293
15 1 the preparation of the transcript that we will be making 2 publicly-available.
3                  And, since this is the public meeting, I 4 would like to remind the PRB members, the licensee and 5 any        other meeting    participants          to  refrain      from 6 discussing        any    NRC-sensitive              or  proprietary 7 information during today's meeting.
8                  And, with that, Ms. Lampert, I will turn it 9 over to you to provide any information that you believe 10 that the PRB should consider as a part of this petition.
11                  MS. LAMPERT:       Yes.      This is Mary Lampert, 12 director of Pilgrim Watch, Petitioner.
13                  The PRB's initial decision boils down to 14 Pilgrim's KLD followed NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, and the 15 guidance in Supplement 3.
16                  In other words, that they followed the 17 procedure or recipe for doing ETE's, but the issue is 18 not whether the procedure was followed, but whether the 19 assumptions upon which the procedures are based are 20 valid and the correct input data was used.                    That is 21 whether they got an honest answer, which we have shown 22 they did not.
23                  An  analogy        would        demonstrate        the 24 irrelevance of PRB's arguments.                  For example, let's 25 make it real simple.        If I baked a cake that even a dog 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)
16 1 wouldn't touch, despite the fact that I followed a 2 standard recipe to a T, but the ingredients I put in were 3 of poor quality, and the recipe, itself, turned out to 4 be deficient, both in, for example, the time to bake the 5 cake and the oven temperatures were off, so that it 6 turned out to be as dry as a bone.
Date:  Thursday, June 12, 2014
7                    But, despite all of this, the cake could not 8 be considered acceptable because the directions were 9 followed.        But, following the PRB's reasoning in its 10 initial decision, the answer is, yes, it is fine.
11                    Of course, that is absurd and patently 12 wrong.          The  cake,    like    Pilgrim's      ALG  should        be 13 discarded.        It is time to try again.
14                    Further, if you look at the executive 15 summary in NUREG/CR-7002, it also undercuts the PRB's 16 initial decision.          First, it is replete in explaining 17 that        the  NUREG  is    simply      guidance.      It   is      not 18 regulation.
19                    It says in the executive summary that 20 method and solutions that differ from those described 21 in this document may be deemed acceptable if they 22 provide an alternative that is in compliance with 23 appropriate NRC regulations.
24                    It says further, the voluntary means that 25 the licensee is seeking the action on its own accord and 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-864 Pages 1-34
17 1 without support of a legally-binding requirement.
2                    Further it goes on, the staff may not 3 represent to the licensee that the licensee's failure 4 to comply with the guidance constitutes a violation.
5 The NRC staff does not expect any existing licensee to 6 use or commit to using the guidance in this document.
7                    It  goes    on    to    say      that  ETE's      that 8 overestimate or underestimate evacuation times are not 9 helpful in making the best protective action decisions 10 and the petition clearly shows how Pilgrim's ETE 11 underestimated          evacuation          times,      underestimated 12 demand,        the  total    number      of      people  in  vehicles 13 evacuating, underestimated road capacity and drift 14 generation times and its estimate of six hours to 15 evacuate Pilgrim's EPZ is laughable.
16                    That was the response of the local press and 17 the      public.      The    executive        summary    at  8,      most 18 importantly says Appendix E to 10 CFR, part 50 requires 19 ETE updates when the conditions of an EPZ are changed 20 significantly due to, dot-dot, "other reasons."
21                    We have provided the other reason that the 22 ETE's assumptions and input are incorrect.                        We gave 23 numerous examples of how the demand was underestimated.
24 We      show    the    inaccurate        assumptions        on    shadow 25 evacuations outside the EPZ that assume only 20 percent 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.
18 1 would self-evacuate and only those in the 10 to 15 miles 2 would self-evacuate.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
3                  This was shown, not through opinion, but 4 through facts.        Entergy, itself, paid for a telephone 5 survey on Cape Cod, an area not simply 10 to 15 miles, 6 but the respondents were out to a little better than 25 7 miles.
8                  Unlike    the    Sandia      survey,  unlike        the 9 telephone survey done by Entergy before the ETE was 10 completed, the Cape survey told respondents we are 11 talking about evacuation because of an emergency at the 12 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.
13                  So, 70 percent of the respondents, when 14 told the real purpose of the survey said they would 15 evacuate.      Not 20 percent, but 70 percent.
16                  Also, when they were asked in the question 17 if you were told not to evacuate when there was an 18 accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, what would 19 you do?        Fifty percent said they would evacuate, 20 anyway.
21                  And so, what does this show?            It shows that 22 a telephone survey that is honest and explains what the 23 purpose is will end up with three times more saying they 24 will evacuate than NRC or ETE -- in the ETE assumed.
25                  So there can be no doubt that in          both cases 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 250 percent to 300 percent increase in the number 2 of evacuees from the EPZ will have a dramatic increase 3 in traffic density and speed and will increase the time 4 necessary to evacuate.
5                And the telephone survey also speaks to the 6 staged evacuation with assumptions within the EPZ.
7 That assumes that people are going to obey the theory 8 that, in a disaster people from miles around will be told 9 to evacuate and then those in a pie-shaped wedge 10 determined by wind direction from two to five miles will 11 be told to evacuate and the rest of the population will 12 sit.
13                Well, the Cape telephone survey indicated 14 when people were told that they should not evacuate and 15 then what would they do, fifty percent said they would 16 evacuate.
17                Further, I will add as a matter of fact, the 18 Town of Duxbury unanimously voted at annual town meeting 19 in 2006 on an article that opposed the NRC and licensee 20 then new emergency planning policy that describes this 21 two-mile around and only those within a certain segment 22 would evacuate because they recognize that is baloney, 23 particularly with today's communication capability, 24 the word is going to get out.
25                In fact, the plan itself, the standard 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 operating procedures at the alert stage close the 2 beaches, close the parks and the harbormaster gets the 3 people off the water.            And when that word gets out, 4 anyone who thinks the rest of the population is going 5 to continue swimming in their pools or sitting on their 6 beach is crazy.
7                  Then, we also show that the total number of 8 people        in  vehicles        evacuating          was    further 9 underestimated by -- and I can just give an example.
10 Estimating transients within the EPZ at 20,000 when the 11 previous KLG estimated twice that number, 42,000.
12                  Now, you just look at that and you say this 13 doesn't make any sense at all, particularly because the 14 overall        population      in    eastern        and  southeastern 15 Massachusetts and the Boston Metropolitan Area have 16 increased substantially.
17                  And so, to even presume that that number has 18 any meaning is ridiculous.            And you can go on and on and 19 on and as we did, to indicate it makes no sense.
20                  Improper      input,      improper      assumptions.
21 There were inaccurate assumptions on estimating the 22 road capacity.          The -- there were fly-over's to 23 determine how many cars were on the main evacuation 24 route, but when did they take those numbers, for 25 example, to determine if an accident occurred during 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
 
21 1 snowstorm, they must add traffic speed on the major 2 evacuation routes when there was snow midweek, midday.
3 Weekend, midday.
4                  Now, the proper time to look, obviously, is 5 when the roads are crowded with commuter traffic coming 6 and going in -- into the city or what have you.
7                  To do it midday simply is evidence that they 8 -- what they were looking for was to substantiate a 9 predetermined        answer.          There        were inaccurate 10 assumptions regarding the trip generation time.
11                  The assumption is that everybody would get 12 ready at the starting gate, they would be in the starting 13 gate within 15 minutes after the sirens went off the 14 evacuation would begin.
15                  Again, we did a telephone survey, in the 16 Town of Duxbury after the siren checks in November which 17 our supplement describes and it indicated that the 18 public, 72 percent did not understand the siren's 19 message.      40.3 percent didn't even hear the siren.
20                  The sirens, as everybody knows, are outdoor 21 warning systems and everybody knows that we don't sleep 22 outside, that we have air conditioning, that in this 23 particular EPZ, the houses tend to be more on one-acre 24 lots and with a lot of shrubbery.
25                  So, as we pointed out, the people will not 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 -- you cannot assume, as the ETE did that, as soon as 2 those sirens sound the people are going to be out of 3 here.
4                    Also, conversely, on the other side of the 5 coin, because, as I just pointed out in the standard 6 operating procedures, at the alert stage, the word is 7 will be out, although the sirens do not sound until the 8 general emergency.
9                    So, what you will have is people leaving 10 early, people leaving later, not just when the sirens 11 sound.        In other words, what you will have will be an 12 uncontrolled evacuation which will only mean a slow and 13 poorly-organized one.
14                    In  conclusion,          again,      there        were 15 example-after-example, 20 of false assumptions and 16 inaccurate facts.            The petition and its supplement 17 clearly shows that the ETE underestimates evacuation 18 times.
19                    And what would the Petition Review Board's 20 denial of this petition confirm?                  It will confirm that 21 the process is a farce.              It becomes a classic case in 22 support of Judge Rosenthal's conclusion that there 23 should be no room for a belief on the requester's side 24 that the pursuit of such a course -- and I will add 2.206 25 petition, is either being encouraged by the Commission 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 officialdom, or has a fair chance of success.
2                    And another procedure I was involved in, 3 Judge Rosenthal requested the NRG staff to review what 4 happens to 2.206 petitions over the previous 37 years.
5 In that time, they found that only one -- one had found 6 meaningful -- a meaningful decision.
7                    Further,    it    adds    fodder    to the      OIG's 8 current investigation into this process on a couple of 9 -- on at least one other petition I am involved with 10 other folks across the nation.
11                    The OIG is now getting into this.            It also 12 adds fodder to the Senate concern, or some of the 13 Senators on the committee.                It also builds the record 14 for a Federal Court challenge that you guys simply are 15 not doing what you are required statutorily to do.
16                    And I don't think any of that is a good 17 thing.        When you lose the public which the NRC, let's 18 face it, is doing with grand success, when there is no 19 faith in the regulator, A, it doesn't help with a nuclear 20 future        of  public    acceptance          of  that  and       more 21 importantly, it leaves the public's health, safety, 22 property, the economy at risk.
23                    And then, it has shown very blatantly 24 lately        that  the  NRC    is    not      doing  what    it        is 25 statutorily-required by the AEC.
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                    And so, the decision is in your hands.                You 2 are either going to provide more evidence that we should 3 have no faith or you will look at the facts presented 4 before you that showed that the assumptions used in the 5 KLG, some of the input in the KLG are baloney.
6                    Therefore, it is time to go back and have 7 an honest assessment.            And I shall add, I could not get 8 an affidavit, two retirees from Pilgrim's emergency 9 management division at the site who are now retired 10 said, "Hey, we know it is a joke.                We know the plans are 11 a joke, and they will never work, but are we to say that?
12 Of course not, because then we would shut down because 13 we have shown that we are not operating safely.                        But, 14 you are right.        It is a joke."
15                    So, essentially, that is what I have to say.
16                    MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.        Thank you, Mary. I 17 understand that Rebecca had a statement to make?
18                    MS. CHIN:      Yes. I would just like to add 19 to Mrs. Lampert's comments, and this is Rebecca Chin 20 again.        I co-chair the Nuclear Advisory Committee for 21 the Town of Duxbury, that we were in receipt in January 22 of 2013 of a memo that John Giarrusso sent out to Pilgrim 23 about the KLD study, as an ETE, and he is the nuclear 24 section        chief  of    planning        and      preparedness        for 25 Massachusetts        Emergency        Management,        which    covers 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 Pilgrim territory.
2                And he, in his statement, and he has at 3 least six areas of deficiencies of the ETE and he has 4 asked them to be addressed.        They have not been, because 5 the study was already completed by the time he sent it 6 out.
7                And he has -- he is showing deficiencies in 8 the tables, in the input of data and how -- and data that 9 has been omitted in the report, and he is showing -- his 10 comments are that they need to be resolved and that real 11 calculations and real evacuation time estimates need to 12 be inserted.
13                And, following up on that report, I have 14 been in contact with Aaron Wallace who was the emergency 15 management director for the Town of Plymouth and have 16 asked him to verify some data that were in the tables, 17 specifically Table E-5, recreation areas within the EPZ 18 with comments that -- data that has been published 19 previously and asked for you to either confirm or add 20 to it, and he is saying that the KLD numbers that have 21 been identified are under the baseline that they 22 expected from their regional planning commission, which 23 they talked to the Federal Transportation -- U.S.
24 Department of Transportation.
25                They have raised their concern and they 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 have not been resolved and they have found transient 2 populations are lower than actually seen peak holiday 3 event times are lower in the report, and they are still 4 struggling with it.
5                    And that is not okay, to leave us hanging 6 with a deficient report.                And I really hope that you 7 will step up and do your jobs.
8                    MS. LAMPERT:        Mary Lampert also would like 9 to read an email from Chief Kevin Nord, who is fire chief 10 and emergency management director from the Town of 11 Duxbury, written July 30, 2012, 11:56 a.m. to Ed 12 Hartman, who was emergency planning at Pilgrim.                    And he 13 cc'd the state, Aaron Wallace, et cetera.                  The subject, 14 KLG study.
15                    "Ed, here is what I have so far of what needs 16 to go."        He talks about the transient population is way 17 underestimated and went up from 204, not down.                          Has 18 section 3.15, has zero for Duxbury employees, not true.
19                    Section      5.4.3,      inaccurate,    does        not 20 account for sail and small boats, considerably longer 21 based on lack of motors, tide and wind.                7.5 talks about 22 staged evacuation not having any positive impact.
23                    I totally disagree with it, that people are 24 not going to sit idle.            Their dogs might.        Section 8.4 25 presumes that no one will pick up their kids at schools.
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 Wrong.        And I will add, as part of our standing 2 operating procedure, the parents will pick up children 3 in schools.
4                  Therefore, there will be many more cars on 5 the road.      Add the assumption that just all the children 6 are going to be going.            Section 8.8, only ten minutes.
7 I have to consider private roads as part of the 8 contractors not cooperating.
9                  On and on and on.            Section K-58, out of 10 point bridge estimates, that the bridge connects the 11 beach to the mainland is unrealistic.
12                  I disagree with any data for the telephone 13 survey as they did not identify it as a radiological 14 emergency, especially in light of Fukushima.                    I would 15 expect residents to respond differently.
16                  In fact, one assumption was that a family 17 will wait for their significant others to commute home 18 from Boston and then they will leave together.                          Who 19 would believe that.          And then he explains that he will 20 send more information.
21                  So, you have emergency planners locally, 22 town emergency planners finding problems.                You have the 23 state, John Giarrusso from MEMA.                      Hey, there is 24 something wrong with this.
25                  You have former employees in emergency 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 management      which    unfortunately            I  couldn't  get        an 2 affidavit because they still want all their pension and 3 stuff taken care of, saying to myself and four other 4 people this is baloney.
5                  And then we -- we provided the facts.                  And 6 so, for you to then turn around and say they followed 7 the recipe, therefore it is fine, is patently absurd.
8 It is an insult to emergency management personnel and 9 the public here who know otherwise.
10                  You can tell, it has made me furious.                    It 11 is sort of -- you know, the frosting on the case.                            I 12 started out with an analogy of cake, but this is the 13 frosting      on  the  cake    of    my    feelings    of  growing 14 disrespect, which is unfortunate.
15                  I know there are some good people working 16 within the agency and it gets sort of dwindled down as 17 decisions move higher up the food chain.                  But, it is not 18 acceptable.
19                  MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      Thank you, Mary.
20                  At this time, I guess I would ask whether 21 the staff has any questions from Mrs. Lampert or Ms.
22 Chin.
23                  MR. HOWE:      Yes.      Thanks, Rich.      This is 24 Allen Howe.
25                  Ms. Lampert, Ms. Chin, you referenced some 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 statements being made by some Entergy retirees.                    You 2 also mentioned an email and a memorandum that had been 3 -- one was prepared by a person at the -- at the 4 Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, and there 5 was also another email from another individual.
6                As our -- as our process allows, if there 7 are additional documents -- and I am going to open it 8 up wider than just the ones you cited that are an 9 information that you would like the Petition Review 10 Board to consider, I would invite you to provide that 11 information to us so that we can review that additional 12 information in addition to the -- the comments that you 13 have provided today.
14                MS. LAMPERT:        We certainly will, and we 15 will send it in to Nadiyah Morgan.
16                MR. HOWE:      Yes.
17                MS. LAMPERT:        Or directly to you?
18                MR. HOWE:    You can send it in to Nadiyah.
19                MS. LAMPERT:        Okay.      Okay. That will be 20 great.
21                MR. BARKLEY:        Any other questions?
22                MR. HOWE:    Okay.      I am looking around the 23 room and I don't -- I don't see anybody here indicating 24 they have any questions.
25                There was an NRC person on the -- on 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
 
30 1 telephone line other than Rich?              Any comments from you?
2 Any questions?
3                  MR. BARKLEY:        It was Steve Shaffer.          I --
4 he may have dropped off the line.
5                  MR. HOWE:      Okay.
6                  MR. BARKLEY:      Mary or Rebecca, do you have 7 any other last remarks before I turn it back over to 8 Allen to wrap up?
9                  MR. HOWE:      Sorry, Rich.          I was on mute.
10 No.        I do not have any additional questions.
11 12                  MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.
13                  MS. LAMPERT:      This is Mary Lampert.          No, I 14 do not have any additional comments.
15                  MS. CHIN:      Nor do I, Rebecca Chin.
16                  MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      Thanks very much.
17                  MS. LAMPERT:        Okay.      We look forward to 18 the next chapter, and we hope it will be a positive one, 19 both for the agency and for the citizens here, because 20 we take it very seriously.
21                  I have been reviewing the Town of Duxbury 22 emergency plans to assist the Town since 1988.                And this 23 is a review that is done, reading every plan for every 24 town department every year.
25                  Rebecca has been doing the same thing.
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                  How long have you been doing this, Becky?
2                  MS. CHIN:      The same, 25 years ago, because 3 I chaired the Duxbury School Committee and I saw the 4 first SOP's that came through.                        They were called 5 something besides SOP's in those days, but I have 6 chaired several town committees in the 27 years that I 7 have been doing town support, and I have had the 8 opportunity for the last eleven years to work with Mrs.
9 Lampert on the Nuclear Advisory Committee and we 10 diligently review every report and every document that 11 comes through.
12                  MS. LAMPERT:        Yes.      And so, we are not --
13 we are not nay-sayers.          We actually want plans that are 14 the best they can be to reduce risk, and the KLD is very 15 key to providing public health and safety because it 16 triggers just how many state responders, you know, there 17 will        be, where    the    traffic        control    will        be, 18 establishment of routing, et cetera, et cetera, et 19 cetera.
20                  So, we want good plans.                We want to work 21 constructively with NRC and FEMA.                    And not have these 22 roadblocks that, hey, everything is fine, because we 23 have come up with this foolishness.                  That isn't helping 24 our citizens, and that is what we want to do.
25                  MR. BARKLEY:        Okay.      Thank you, Mary.
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                  Allen, do you want to have closing remarks?
2                  MR. HOWE:      Yes.      I think, Rich, I do, and 3 Ms. Lampert and Ms. Chin, thank you also for your remarks 4 and your input today, and for taking the time to provide 5 us with some clarify information on the petition that 6 you have submitted.
7                  You have indicated that you are going to 8 provide        us some  supplemental          information    for      our 9 consideration.        You can work out with Nadiyah Morgan on 10 the provision of that additional information.
11                  I would ask you to provide that as soon as 12 it is reasonably possible to do that.
13                  As has been indicated, this meeting was 14 transcribed.        We will also take a look at the transcript 15 as a part of this meeting.
16                  What we -- what the next steps are going to 17 be -- let me just lay those out.                      You are going to 18 provide some additional information.                    We are going to 19 have the transcript from this meeting.                  We are going to 20 meet        again  and  review      our,    the    results    of      our 21 preliminary decision and this additional information 22 and make a final recommendation for a decision.
23                  And, following that meeting, we will -- the 24 petition manager, Nadiyah Morgan, will inform you of our 25 decision on whether we are accepting or rejecting this 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 2.206 petition for review.
2                And then, of course, that is all being done 3 under the governance of our management directive 8.11, 4 which provides our position -- or, rather, petition 5 management process.
6                But, let me go on.        We have a court reporter 7 on the phone.
8                Do you need any additional information at 9 this point in time for preparation of the transcript?
10                COURT REPORTER:        I do not.
11                MR. HOWE:      Okay.      Thank you.
12                Okay. With that, I want to thank everyone 13 for their participation in this meeting and with that, 14 we will conclude the meeting and terminate the phone 15 connection. Thank you.
16                (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 11:50 a.m.)
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


1  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
34 1
3 POST PETITION 4 REVIEW BOARD CONFERENCE CALL WITH 5  PILGRIM WATCH 6  + + + + +
2 3
7  THURSDAY 8  JUNE 12, 2014 9  + + + + +
4 5
10 The conference call was held at 11:00 a.m., 11 Eastern Daylight Time, Allen Howe, Chairman of the 12 Petition Review Board, presiding.
6 7
13  14 PETITIONER: MARY LAMPERT, Pilgrim Watch, Director 15  16 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
8 9
17 ALLEN HOWE, Petition Review Board Chairman 18 JOE ANDERSON, Chief of Operating Reactor 19 Licensing, NSIR 20 LEE BANIC, 2.206 Coordinator, NRR 21 RICHARD BARKLEY, NRC Facilitator 22 RAY HOFFMAN, Emergency Preparedness 23 Specialist, NSIR 24 ERIC MICHEL, Attorney, Office of General 25 2  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com Counsel 1 NADIAYAH MORGAN, Petition Manager, NRR 2  (Continued) 3 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
10 11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
4 SERITA SANDERS, NRR, Generic 5 Communications Branch 6 STEVE SHAFFER, Region I 7 ROBERT KAHLER, Branch Chief, NSIR, 8 Inspection and Regulatory 9 Improvements 10  11 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT:
(202) 234-4433   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com}}
12 REBECCA CHIN, Co-Chair, Duxbury Nuclear 13 Advisory Committee 14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25 3  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
4  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1  (11:01 a.m.)
2 MR. BARKLEY:  Good morning. I would like 3 to thank everybody for attending this meeting. Again, 4 my name is Richard Barkley. I have met Mary and spoke 5 with her at length back in May at the annual assessment 6 meeting up at the Pilgrim, and I understand Rebecca Chin 7 is also on the phone.
8 And so, my role as a facilitator is to help 9 make this meeting, you know, as effective and productive 10 as possible.
11 The purpose of the meeting today is to allow 12 Mary at Pilgrim Watch to address the Petition Review 13 Board regarding her 2.206 petition.
14 This was submitted back on August 30th of 15 2013, and at that time Mary requested the NRC take an 16 enforcement-related action against Pilgrim to ensure 17 that Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 18 operating procedures and guidelines are based on 19 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.
20 This meeting is scheduled for an hour 21 today, from eleven to twelve. It is being recorded by 22 the NRC Operations Center and they will make a 23 transcription of this recording, and then there will be 24 a supplement to the petition.
25 5  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com And the transcript will be made 1 publicly-available on ADAMS after the Petition Review 2 Board, after they have had a chance to review it for 3 allegations or any other sensitive information.
4 To get a good transcript and minimize 5 distractions, we ask you to turn off or mute any devices 6 that you have. So, I am turning off my cell phone as 7 we speak.
8 And, for those of you who are dialing into 9 the meeting, if you don't have a mute button, if you can 10 press the keys "star 6," that will mute your phone and 11 if you high "star 6" again, that will unmute your phone.
12 I want to reemphasize that we need to speak 13 clearly and loudly to make sure the court reporter can 14 transcribe this meeting from a phone recording. That 15 will ensure that it is, again, accurate.
16 And I would ask that when you speak up, you 17 actually say your name first.
18 We look forward to ways to improve our 19 meetings, and therefore, we ask for feedback. If you 20 have feedback on this meeting, we would ask that you send 21 your comments to the meeting contact, Dee Morgan and her 22 email address is nadiyah.morgan@nrc.gov. 23 I would like to now open the meeting to 24 introductions. So, Dee, if you could go around the room 25 6  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com and say who is available in Headquarters.
1 MS. MORGAN:  Okay. Again, I am Nadiyah 2 Morgan, the Petition Manager in NRR, and the Office of 3 Reactor Licensing.
4 MS. SANDERS:  Hi. I am Serita Sanders in 5 NRR and the Generic Communications Branch. I am the 6 back-up to Lee, who is the lead for petition in the 7 Generic Communications.
8 MS. BANIC:  I am Lee Banic, petition 9 coordinator.
10 MR. HOFFMAN:  Ray Hoffman, NSIR, Technical 11 Review. 12 MR. ANDERSON:  Joe Anderson, NSIR, Chief, 13 Operating Reactor Operator Licensing.
14 MR. HOWE:  Good morning. This is Allen 15 Howe. I am in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations 16 and I am the Petition Review Board Chair for this 17 Petition Review Board.
18 MR. KAHLER:  Hi. This is Robert Kahler.
19 I am Branch Chief of the NSIR Inspection and Regulatory 20 Improvements Branch.
21 MR. MICHEL:  Eric Michel from the office of 22 General Counsel.
23 MS. MORGAN:  And that is all that we have 24 here, Rich.
25 7  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com MR. BARKLEY:  Do we have any other NRC 1 participants on the phone?
2 MR. SHAFFER:  Yes, Rich. This is Steve 3 Shaffer, Region I.
4 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. And do we have any 5 representatives from Entergy on the line?
6 (No audible response.)
7 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. Mary, would you like 8 to introduce yourself, and then Ms. Chin can introduce 9 herself afterwards.
10 MS. LAMPERT:  Hi. Yes. I am Mary 11 Lampert. I am director of Pilgrim Watch and the 12 Petitioner.
13 MS. CHIN:  Yes. I am Rebecca Chin. I 14 co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, and I 15 am a co-Petitioner.
16 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. It is not necessary 17 for other members of the public to introduce themselves, 18 but if they would, they are welcome to acknowledge 19 themselves on the phone.
20 (No audible response.)
21 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. With that, let's move 22 on. 23 Mary, I know you are very experienced with 24 the 2.206 Petition process, so I won't get into 25 8  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com providing a lot of background on it, but if you have more 1 in-depth questions on the guidance that that staff is 2 following, you can refer to the management directive 3 that is on our website. It is Management Directive 4 8.11. 5 Again, the purpose of today's meeting is to 6 give you an opportunity to provide any additional 7 information or support for the position as a result of 8 the PRB's initial consideration and recommendation.
9 This meeting is not a hearing, nor an 10 opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 11 the PRB on the merits of the issues presented in the 12 petition request.
13 No decisions regarding the merits of this 14 petition will be made at this meeting. It will be made 15 afterwards.
16 Following this meeting, the PRB will 17 conduct its internal deliberation and the outcome of 18 this internal meeting will be discussed with you 19 afterwards.
20 Again, the Petition Review Board consists 21 of a Chairman, Mr. Howe, who is a member of the senior 22 executive service as the petition manager and a petition 23 coordinator.
24 And other members of the Board are 25 9  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the 1 information in the petition. And we are obtaining 2 advice also from our Office of General Counsel.
3 As we described in our process, the NRC will 4 be asking clarifying questions in order to better 5 understand your presentation and to reach a reasoned 6 decision as to whether to accept or reject your request 7 for review under the 2.206 petition process.
8 Again, the licensee was invited but chose 9 not to participate in today's meeting to ensure they 10 understood the concerns about their facility or 11 associated activities.
12 And again, while if the licensee does log 13 onto this call later, they have the ability to ask 14 clarifying questions, but they are not part of our 15 decision-making process.
16 At this time, I would like to turn it over 17 to Allen Howe, the Petition Review Board Chairman so he 18 can discuss the petition under consideration.
19 MR. HOWE:  Yes. Thank you, Rich.
20 And, good morning, Ms. Lampert, and Ms.
21 Chin. 22 I -- this is Allen Howe, and this -- the 23 purpose of this meeting is, as Rich has laid out, is to 24 listen to any additional comments that you would offer 25 10  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com as a part of our considerations as we review this 1 petition.
2 What I want to do is just take a couple of 3 minutes to summarize the -- our understanding of the 4 scope of the petition, and also to provide you with an 5 overview of NRC activities to date.
6 So, starting there, if that is okay with 7 you, I will start going through that process.
8 MS. LAMPERT:  Yes. Appreciate.
9 MR. HOWE:  Okay. All right. Thank you.
10 Last August, August 30th of 2013, Ms.
11 Lampert submitted a petition to the NRC under 10 CFR 12 2.206 regarding Pilgrim's emergency plan.
13 In the petition request, you requested that 14 the NRC institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or 15 take any other action that may be proper to -- to the 16 operating license of Pilgrim, in order to ensure 17 Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 18 operating procedures and guidelines are based on 19 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.
20 We use the term ETE's as a shorthand for 21 that. 22 You stated that the primary basis for this 23 request is in response to two documents prepared by KLD 24 Engineering, a contractor for Entergy.
25 11  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com These documents are the Pilgrim's December 1 12th, 2012 ETE final report and the July 25th, 2013 Cape 2 Cod telephone survey results.
3 The petitioner asserts that the ETE's for 4 Pilgrim are based on inaccurate assumption and are not 5 credible. The petitioner further stated that the ETE's 6 fundamental assumptions and data were flawed, which 7 explained ETE's conclusion that, even in the worst case 8 scenario, everyone in the emergency planning zone will 9 be evacuated in about six hours.
10 The petitioner also discussed the results 11 of the Cape survey and maintains that it was not 12 properly-used to determine Pilgrim's ETE.
13 That is the -- that is the summary of our 14 understanding of the concerns related to the petition.
15 So, let me talk through now the NRC activities to date.
16 MS. LAMPERT:  And let me provide a 17 clarification --
18 MR. HOWE:  Okay.
19 MS. LAMPERT:  -- or I misunderstood what 20 you just said. The Cape telephone survey demonstrated 21 two things. One, it demonstrated that the assumption 22 of a 20 percent shadow evacuation in 10 to 15 miles is 23 inaccurate because it is based upon a telephone survey 24 done by Sandia and also by Entergy here, but never 25 12  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com mentioned that there would be -- that this was regarding 1 a nuclear accident. Number one.
2 Number two, it demonstrated that the staged 3 evacuation within the EPZ is also incorrect. Number 4 three, it demonstrated that more would be leaving Cape 5 Cod and the way the evacuations are off the Cape, it 6 feeds into one of the most congested areas within the 7 EPZ, so it would therefore slow the EPZ evacuation.
8 That is what was brought forward. And 9 also, I expect you will also discuss the supplement that 10 was provided to you on November 22nd, 2013. And, excuse 11 my voice, but I cannot help the pollen.
12 MR. HOWE:  Okay. All right. Thank you.
13 Yes. I will -- I will go through just real quickly the 14 overview of the activities that have taken place to 15 date. 16 And, you are correct. I did not mention 17 the supplement that you provided in November. So, 18 thank you for that clarification.
19 So, let me just real quickly run through 20 this. This is going back to November of last year, 21 November 19th, 2013.
22 You and others addressed the Petition 23 Review Board. We did transcribe that meeting also 24 where you provided information to the Petition Review 25 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 Board, and that transcript is publicly-available in our 1 agency document management system, also referred to as 2 ADAM. 3 And the reference number, the exception 4 number four of that document is ML14141A087.
5 The Petition Review Board met internally on 6 February 20th of this year, and after our internal 7 meeting, we decided to recommend that the petition would 8 be rejected for review.
9 And our determination was based on two 10 elements. First of all, the petitioner raised concerns 11 that are addressed within NRC's guidance, and this is 12 an NRC guidance document. It is NUREG/CR-7002. And 13 the title of that document is "Criteria for Development 14 of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies." 15 Okay. Or, the issues that you raised --
16 so, they were either evaluated in that document, or they 17 were evaluated based on a generic basis document in 18 Supplement 3, "Guidance for Protective Action 19 Strategies." 20 And this is a supplement to 21 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. So, those are the two 22 documents that we looked at.
23 The title of that document is "Criteria for 24 Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 25 14  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com Response Plan and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear 1 Power Plans." 2 And that was a joint document prepared by 3 both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and also 4 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
5 So, in sum with that -- I know that is a lot 6 of detail in there, but in sum, the issues that were 7 raised in your petition were reviewed as a part of those 8 two documents that I just referenced.
9 In addition to that, we also, subsequent to 10 the submission of your petition, the technical staff at 11 NRC conducted a review of the 2012 Pilgrim evacuation 12 time estimates, and we concluded and found that it was 13 consistent with the guidance contained in 14 NUREG/CR-7002.
15 And this April, April 9th, the petition 16 manager Nadiyah Morgan, informed Ms. Lampert that the 17 recommendation -- of the recommendation, that is to 18 reject this petition, and offered a second opportunity 19 to address the PRB. And that is the purpose of today's 20 meeting. 21 Just to follow on with what Rich had 22 indicated earlier, in terms of any meeting 23 participants, just please identify yourself if you are 24 going to make any remarks because this will help us in 25 15  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com the preparation of the transcript that we will be making 1 publicly-available.
2 And, since this is the public meeting, I 3 would like to remind the PRB members, the licensee and 4 any other meeting participants to refrain from 5 discussing any NRC-sensitive or proprietary 6 information during today's meeting.
7 And, with that, Ms. Lampert, I will turn it 8 over to you to provide any information that you believe 9 that the PRB should consider as a part of this petition.
10 MS. LAMPERT:  Yes. This is Mary Lampert, 11 director of Pilgrim Watch, Petitioner.
12 The PRB's initial decision boils down to 13 Pilgrim's KLD followed NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, and the 14 guidance in Supplement 3.
15 In other words, that they followed the 16 procedure or recipe for doing ETE's, but the issue is 17 not whether the procedure was followed, but whether the 18 assumptions upon which the procedures are based are 19 valid and the correct input data was used. That is 20 whether they got an honest answer, which we have shown 21 they did not.
22 An analogy would demonstrate the 23 irrelevance of PRB's arguments. For example, let's 24 make it real simple. If I baked a cake that even a dog 25 16  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com wouldn't touch, despite the fact that I followed a 1 standard recipe to a T, but the ingredients I put in were 2 of poor quality, and the recipe, itself, turned out to 3 be deficient, both in, for example, the time to bake the 4 cake and the oven temperatures were off, so that it 5 turned out to be as dry as a bone.
6 But, despite all of this, the cake could not 7 be considered acceptable because the directions were 8 followed. But, following the PRB's reasoning in its 9 initial decision, the answer is, yes, it is fine.
10 Of course, that is absurd and patently 11 wrong. The cake, like Pilgrim's ALG should be 12 discarded. It is time to try again.
13 Further, if you look at the executive 14 summary in NUREG/CR-7002, it also undercuts the PRB's 15 initial decision. First, it is replete in explaining 16 that the NUREG is simply guidance. It is not 17 regulation.
18 It says in the executive summary that 19 method and solutions that differ from those described 20 in this document may be deemed acceptable if they 21 provide an alternative that is in compliance with 22 appropriate NRC regulations.
23 It says further, the voluntary means that 24 the licensee is seeking the action on its own accord and 25 17  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com without support of a legally-binding requirement.
1 Further it goes on, the staff may not 2 represent to the licensee that the licensee's failure 3 to comply with the guidance constitutes a violation.
4 The NRC staff does not expect any existing licensee to 5 use or commit to using the guidance in this document.
6 It goes on to say that ETE's that 7 overestimate or underestimate evacuation times are not 8 helpful in making the best protective action decisions 9 and the petition clearly shows how Pilgrim's ETE 10 underestimated evacuation times, underestimated 11 demand, the total number of people in vehicles 12 evacuating, underestimated road capacity and drift 13 generation times and its estimate of six hours to 14 evacuate Pilgrim's EPZ is laughable.
15 That was the response of the local press and 16 the public. The executive summary at 8, most 17 importantly says Appendix E to 10 CFR, part 50 requires 18 ETE updates when the conditions of an EPZ are changed 19 significantly due to, dot-dot, "other reasons." 20 We have provided the other reason that the 21 ETE's assumptions and input are incorrect. We gave 22 numerous examples of how the demand was underestimated.
23 We show the inaccurate assumptions on shadow 24 evacuations outside the EPZ that assume only 20 percent 25 18  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com would self-evacuate and only those in the 10 to 15 miles 1 would self-evacuate.
2 This was shown, not through opinion, but 3 through facts. Entergy, itself, paid for a telephone 4 survey on Cape Cod, an area not simply 10 to 15 miles, 5 but the respondents were out to a little better than 25 6 miles. 7 Unlike the Sandia survey, unlike the 8 telephone survey done by Entergy before the ETE was 9 completed, the Cape survey told respondents we are 10 talking about evacuation because of an emergency at the 11 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.
12 So, 70 percent of the respondents, when 13 told the real purpose of the survey said they would 14 evacuate. Not 20 percent, but 70 percent.
15 Also, when they were asked in the question 16 if you were told not to evacuate when there was an 17 accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, what would 18 you do?  Fifty percent said they would evacuate, 19 anyway.
20 And so, what does this show?  It shows that 21 a telephone survey that is honest and explains what the 22 purpose is will end up with three times more saying they 23 will evacuate than NRC or ETE -- in the ETE assumed.
24 So there can be no doubt that in  both cases 25 19  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com the 250 percent to 300 percent increase in the number 1 of evacuees from the EPZ will have a dramatic increase 2 in traffic density and speed and will increase the time 3 necessary to evacuate.
4 And the telephone survey also speaks to the 5 staged evacuation with assumptions within the EPZ.
6 That assumes that people are going to obey the theory 7 that, in a disaster people from miles around will be told 8 to evacuate and then those in a pie-shaped wedge 9 determined by wind direction from two to five miles will 10 be told to evacuate and the rest of the population will 11 sit. 12 Well, the Cape telephone survey indicated 13 when people were told that they should not evacuate and 14 then what would they do, fifty percent said they would 15 evacuate.
16 Further, I will add as a matter of fact, the 17 Town of Duxbury unanimously voted at annual town meeting 18 in 2006 on an article that opposed the NRC and licensee 19 then new emergency planning policy that describes this 20 two-mile around and only those within a certain segment 21 would evacuate because they recognize that is baloney, 22 particularly with today's communication capability, 23 the word is going to get out.
24 In fact, the plan itself, the standard 25 20  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com operating procedures at the alert stage close the 1 beaches, close the parks and the harbormaster gets the 2 people off the water. And when that word gets out, 3 anyone who thinks the rest of the population is going 4 to continue swimming in their pools or sitting on their 5 beach is crazy.
6 Then, we also show that the total number of 7 people in vehicles evacuating was further 8 underestimated by -- and I can just give an example.
9 Estimating transients within the EPZ at 20,000 when the 10 previous KLG estimated twice that number, 42,000.
11 Now, you just look at that and you say this 12 doesn't make any sense at all, particularly because the 13 overall population in eastern and southeastern 14 Massachusetts and the Boston Metropolitan Area have 15 increased substantially.
16 And so, to even presume that that number has 17 any meaning is ridiculous. And you can go on and on and 18 on and as we did, to indicate it makes no sense.
19 Improper input, improper assumptions.
20 There were inaccurate assumptions on estimating the 21 road capacity. The -- there were fly-over's to 22 determine how many cars were on the main evacuation 23 route, but when did they take those numbers, for 24 example, to determine if an accident occurred during a 25 21  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com snowstorm, they must add traffic speed on the major 1 evacuation routes when there was snow midweek, midday.
2 Weekend, midday.
3 Now, the proper time to look, obviously, is 4 when the roads are crowded with commuter traffic coming 5 and going in -- into the city or what have you.
6 To do it midday simply is evidence that they 7 -- what they were looking for was to substantiate a 8 predetermined answer. There were inaccurate 9 assumptions regarding the trip generation time.
10 The assumption is that everybody would get 11 ready at the starting gate, they would be in the starting 12 gate within 15 minutes after the sirens went off the 13 evacuation would begin.
14 Again, we did a telephone survey, in the 15 Town of Duxbury after the siren checks in November which 16 our supplement describes and it indicated that the 17 public, 72 percent did not understand the siren's 18 message. 40.3 percent didn't even hear the siren.
19 The sirens, as everybody knows, are outdoor 20 warning systems and everybody knows that we don't sleep 21 outside, that we have air conditioning, that in this 22 particular EPZ, the houses tend to be more on one-acre 23 lots and with a lot of shrubbery.
24 So, as we pointed out, the people will not 25 22  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
-- you cannot assume, as the ETE did that, as soon as 1 those sirens sound the people are going to be out of 2 here. 3 Also, conversely, on the other side of the 4 coin, because, as I just pointed out in the standard 5 operating procedures, at the alert stage, the word is 6 will be out, although the sirens do not sound until the 7 general emergency.
8 So, what you will have is people leaving 9 early, people leaving later, not just when the sirens 10 sound. In other words, what you will have will be an 11 uncontrolled evacuation which will only mean a slow and 12 poorly-organized one.
13 In conclusion, again, there were 14 example-after-example, 20 of false assumptions and 15 inaccurate facts. The petition and its supplement 16 clearly shows that the ETE underestimates evacuation 17 times. 18 And what would the Petition Review Board's 19 denial of this petition confirm?  It will confirm that 20 the process is a farce. It becomes a classic case in 21 support of Judge Rosenthal's conclusion that there 22 should be no room for a belief on the requester's side 23 that the pursuit of such a course -- and I will add 2.206 24 petition, is either being encouraged by the Commission 25 23  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com officialdom, or has a fair chance of success.
1 And another procedure I was involved in, 2 Judge Rosenthal requested the NRG staff to review what 3 happens to 2.206 petitions over the previous 37 years.
4 In that time, they found that only one -- one had found 5 meaningful -- a meaningful decision.
6 Further, it adds fodder to the OIG's 7 current investigation into this process on a couple of 8 -- on at least one other petition I am involved with 9 other folks across the nation.
10 The OIG is now getting into this. It also 11 adds fodder to the Senate concern, or some of the 12 Senators on the committee. It also builds the record 13 for a Federal Court challenge that you guys simply are 14 not doing what you are required statutorily to do.
15 And I don't think any of that is a good 16 thing. When you lose the public which the NRC, let's 17 face it, is doing with grand success, when there is no 18 faith in the regulator, A, it doesn't help with a nuclear 19 future of public acceptance of that and more 20 importantly, it leaves the public's health, safety, 21 property, the economy at risk.
22 And then, it has shown very blatantly 23 lately that the NRC is not doing what it is 24 statutorily-required by the AEC.
25 24  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com And so, the decision is in your hands. You 1 are either going to provide more evidence that we should 2 have no faith or you will look at the facts presented 3 before you that showed that the assumptions used in the 4 KLG, some of the input in the KLG are baloney.
5 Therefore, it is time to go back and have 6 an honest assessment. And I shall add, I could not get 7 an affidavit, two retirees from Pilgrim's emergency 8 management division at the site who are now retired 9 said, "Hey, we know it is a joke. We know the plans are 10 a joke, and they will never work, but are we to say that?
11 Of course not, because then we would shut down because 12 we have shown that we are not operating safely. But, 13 you are right. It is a joke." 14 So, essentially, that is what I have to say. 15 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. Thank you, Mary. I 16 understand that Rebecca had a statement to make?
17 MS. CHIN:  Yes. I would just like to add 18 to Mrs. Lampert's comments, and this is Rebecca Chin 19 again. I co-chair the Nuclear Advisory Committee for 20 the Town of Duxbury, that we were in receipt in January 21 of 2013 of a memo that John Giarrusso sent out to Pilgrim 22 about the KLD study, as an ETE, and he is the nuclear 23 section chief of planning and preparedness for 24 Massachusetts Emergency Management, which covers 25 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 Pilgrim territory.
1 And he, in his statement, and he has at 2 least six areas of deficiencies of the ETE and he has 3 asked them to be addressed. They have not been, because 4 the study was already completed by the time he sent it 5 out. 6 And he has -- he is showing deficiencies in 7 the tables, in the input of data and how -- and data that 8 has been omitted in the report, and he is showing -- his 9 comments are that they need to be resolved and that real 10 calculations and real evacuation time estimates need to 11 be inserted.
12 And, following up on that report, I have 13 been in contact with Aaron Wallace who was the emergency 14 management director for the Town of Plymouth and have 15 asked him to verify some data that were in the tables, 16 specifically Table E-5, recreation areas within the EPZ 17 with comments that -- data that has been published 18 previously and asked for you to either confirm or add 19 to it, and he is saying that the KLD numbers that have 20 been identified are under the baseline that they 21 expected from their regional planning commission, which 22 they talked to the Federal Transportation -- U.S.
23 Department of Transportation.
24 They have raised their concern and they 25 26  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com have not been resolved and they have found transient 1 populations are lower than actually seen peak holiday 2 event times are lower in the report, and they are still 3 struggling with it.
4 And that is not okay, to leave us hanging 5 with a deficient report. And I really hope that you 6 will step up and do your jobs.
7 MS. LAMPERT:  Mary Lampert also would like 8 to read an email from Chief Kevin Nord, who is fire chief 9 and emergency management director from the Town of 10 Duxbury, written July 30, 2012, 11:56 a.m. to Ed 11 Hartman, who was emergency planning at Pilgrim. And he 12 cc'd the state, Aaron Wallace, et cetera. The subject, 13 KLG study.
14 "Ed, here is what I have so far of what needs 15 to go."  He talks about the transient population is way 16 underestimated and went up from 204, not down. Has 17 section 3.15, has zero for Duxbury employees, not true.
18 Section 5.4.3, inaccurate, does not 19 account for sail and small boats, considerably longer 20 based on lack of motors, tide and wind. 7.5 talks about 21 staged evacuation not having any positive impact.
22 I totally disagree with it, that people are 23 not going to sit idle. Their dogs might. Section 8.4 24 presumes that no one will pick up their kids at schools.
25 27  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com Wrong. And I will add, as part of our standing 1 operating procedure, the parents will pick up children 2 in schools.
3 Therefore, there will be many more cars on 4 the road. Add the assumption that just all the children 5 are going to be going. Section 8.8, only ten minutes.
6 I have to consider private roads as part of the 7 contractors not cooperating.
8 On and on and on. Section K-58, out of 9 point bridge estimates, that the bridge connects the 10 beach to the mainland is unrealistic.
11 I disagree with any data for the telephone 12 survey as they did not identify it as a radiological 13 emergency, especially in light of Fukushima. I would 14 expect residents to respond differently.
15 In fact, one assumption was that a family 16 will wait for their significant others to commute home 17 from Boston and then they will leave together. Who 18 would believe that. And then he explains that he will 19 send more information.
20 So, you have emergency planners locally, 21 town emergency planners finding problems. You have the 22 state, John Giarrusso from MEMA. Hey, there is 23 something wrong with this.
24 You have former employees in emergency 25 28  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com management which unfortunately I couldn't get an 1 affidavit because they still want all their pension and 2 stuff taken care of, saying to myself and four other 3 people this is baloney.
4 And then we -- we provided the facts. And 5 so, for you to then turn around and say they followed 6 the recipe, therefore it is fine, is patently absurd.
7 It is an insult to emergency management personnel and 8 the public here who know otherwise.
9 You can tell, it has made me furious. It 10 is sort of -- you know, the frosting on the case. I 11 started out with an analogy of cake, but this is the 12 frosting on the cake of my feelings of growing 13 disrespect, which is unfortunate.
14 I know there are some good people working 15 within the agency and it gets sort of dwindled down as 16 decisions move higher up the food chain. But, it is not 17 acceptable.
18 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. Thank you, Mary.
19 At this time, I guess I would ask whether 20 the staff has any questions from Mrs. Lampert or Ms.
21 Chin. 22 MR. HOWE:  Yes. Thanks, Rich. This is 23 Allen Howe.
24 Ms. Lampert, Ms. Chin, you referenced some 25 29  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com statements being made by some Entergy retirees. You 1 also mentioned an email and a memorandum that had been 2 -- one was prepared by a person at the -- at the 3 Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, and there 4 was also another email from another individual.
5 As our -- as our process allows, if there 6 are additional documents -- and I am going to open it 7 up wider than just the ones you cited that are an 8 information that you would like the Petition Review 9 Board to consider, I would invite you to provide that 10 information to us so that we can review that additional 11 information in addition to the -- the comments that you 12 have provided today.
13 MS. LAMPERT:  We certainly will, and we 14 will send it in to Nadiyah Morgan.
15 MR. HOWE:  Yes.
16 MS. LAMPERT:  Or directly to you?
17 MR. HOWE:  You can send it in to Nadiyah.
18 MS. LAMPERT:  Okay. Okay. That will be 19 great. 20 MR. BARKLEY:  Any other questions?
21    MR. HOWE:  Okay. I am looking around the 22 room and I don't -- I don't see anybody here indicating 23 they have any questions.
24 There was an NRC person on the -- on the 25 30  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com telephone line other than Rich?  Any comments from you?  1 Any questions?
2 MR. BARKLEY:  It was Steve Shaffer. I --
3 he may have dropped off the line.
4 MR. HOWE:  Okay.
5 MR. BARKLEY:  Mary or Rebecca, do you have 6 any other last remarks before I turn it back over to 7 Allen to wrap up?
8 MR. HOWE:  Sorry, Rich. I was on mute.
9 No. I do not have any additional questions.
10  11 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay.
12 MS. LAMPERT:  This is Mary Lampert. No, I 13 do not have any additional comments.
14 MS. CHIN:   Nor do I, Rebecca Chin.
15 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. Thanks very much.
16 MS. LAMPERT:  Okay. We look forward to 17 the next chapter, and we hope it will be a positive one, 18 both for the agency and for the citizens here, because 19 we take it very seriously.
20 I have been reviewing the Town of Duxbury 21 emergency plans to assist the Town since 1988. And this 22 is a review that is done, reading every plan for every 23 town department every year.
24 Rebecca has been doing the same thing.
25 31  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com How long have you been doing this, Becky?
1 MS. CHIN:  The same, 25 years ago, because 2 I chaired the Duxbury School Committee and I saw the 3 first SOP's that came through. They were called 4 something besides SOP's in those days, but I have 5 chaired several town committees in the 27 years that I 6 have been doing town support, and I have had the 7 opportunity for the last eleven years to work with Mrs.
8 Lampert on the Nuclear Advisory Committee and we 9 diligently review every report and every document that 10 comes through.
11 MS. LAMPERT:  Yes. And so, we are not --
12 we are not nay-sayers. We actually want plans that are 13 the best they can be to reduce risk, and the KLD is very 14 key to providing public health and safety because it 15 triggers just how many state responders, you know, there 16 will be, where the traffic control will be, 17 establishment of routing, et cetera, et cetera, et 18 cetera. 19 So, we want good plans. We want to work 20 constructively with NRC and FEMA. And not have these 21 roadblocks that, hey, everything is fine, because we 22 have come up with this foolishness. That isn't helping 23 our citizens, and that is what we want to do.
24 MR. BARKLEY:  Okay. Thank you, Mary.
25 32  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com Allen, do you want to have closing remarks? 1 MR. HOWE:  Yes. I think, Rich, I do, and 2 Ms. Lampert and Ms. Chin, thank you also for your remarks 3 and your input today, and for taking the time to provide 4 us with some clarify information on the petition that 5 you have submitted.
6 You have indicated that you are going to 7 provide us some supplemental information for our 8 consideration. You can work out with Nadiyah Morgan on 9 the provision of that additional information.
10 I would ask you to provide that as soon as 11 it is reasonably possible to do that.
12 As has been indicated, this meeting was 13 transcribed. We will also take a look at the transcript 14 as a part of this meeting.
15 What we -- what the next steps are going to 16 be -- let me just lay those out. You are going to 17 provide some additional information. We are going to 18 have the transcript from this meeting. We are going to 19 meet again and review our, the results of our 20 preliminary decision and this additional information 21 and make a final recommendation for a decision.
22 And, following that meeting, we will -- the 23 petition manager, Nadiyah Morgan, will inform you of our 24 decision on whether we are accepting or rejecting this 25 33  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2.206 petition for review.
1 And then, of course, that is all being done 2 under the governance of our management directive 8.11, 3 which provides our position -- or, rather, petition 4 management process.
5 But, let me go on. We have a court reporter 6 on the phone.
7 Do you need any additional information at 8 this point in time for preparation of the transcript?
9 COURT REPORTER:  I do not.
10 MR. HOWE:  Okay. Thank you.
11 Okay. With that, I want to thank everyone 12 for their participation in this meeting and with that, 13 we will conclude the meeting and terminate the phone 14 connection. Thank you.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 11:50 a.m.)
17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25 34  NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11}}

Latest revision as of 04:53, 5 December 2019

Transcript of Post Petition Review Board Meeting with Pilgrim Watch, June 12, 2014, Pages 1-34
ML14223A088
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 06/12/2014
From: Nadiyah Morgan
Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:
Morgan N
References
NRC-864
Download: ML14223A088 (35)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Post Petition Review Board Meeting with Pilgrim Watch Docket Number: 05000293 Location: (teleconference)

Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 Work Order No.: NRC-864 Pages 1-34 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 POST PETITION 5 REVIEW BOARD CONFERENCE CALL WITH 6 PILGRIM WATCH 7 + + + + +

8 THURSDAY 9 JUNE 12, 2014 10 + + + + +

11 The conference call was held at 11:00 a.m.,

12 Eastern Daylight Time, Allen Howe, Chairman of the 13 Petition Review Board, presiding.

14 15 PETITIONER: MARY LAMPERT, Pilgrim Watch, Director 16 17 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

18 ALLEN HOWE, Petition Review Board Chairman 19 JOE ANDERSON, Chief of Operating Reactor 20 Licensing, NSIR 21 LEE BANIC, 2.206 Coordinator, NRR 22 RICHARD BARKLEY, NRC Facilitator 23 RAY HOFFMAN, Emergency Preparedness 24 Specialist, NSIR 25 ERIC MICHEL, Attorney, Office of General NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2 1 Counsel 2 NADIAYAH MORGAN, Petition Manager, NRR 3 (Continued) 4 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

5 SERITA SANDERS, NRR, Generic 6 Communications Branch 7 STEVE SHAFFER, Region I 8 ROBERT KAHLER, Branch Chief, NSIR, 9 Inspection and Regulatory 10 Improvements 11 12 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT:

13 REBECCA CHIN, Co-Chair, Duxbury Nuclear 14 Advisory Committee 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

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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (11:01 a.m.)

3 MR. BARKLEY: Good morning. I would like 4 to thank everybody for attending this meeting. Again, 5 my name is Richard Barkley. I have met Mary and spoke 6 with her at length back in May at the annual assessment 7 meeting up at the Pilgrim, and I understand Rebecca Chin 8 is also on the phone.

9 And so, my role as a facilitator is to help 10 make this meeting, you know, as effective and productive 11 as possible.

12 The purpose of the meeting today is to allow 13 Mary at Pilgrim Watch to address the Petition Review 14 Board regarding her 2.206 petition.

15 This was submitted back on August 30th of 16 2013, and at that time Mary requested the NRC take an 17 enforcement-related action against Pilgrim to ensure 18 that Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 19 operating procedures and guidelines are based on 20 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.

21 This meeting is scheduled for an hour 22 today, from eleven to twelve. It is being recorded by 23 the NRC Operations Center and they will make a 24 transcription of this recording, and then there will be 25 a supplement to the 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

5 1 And the transcript will be made 2 publicly-available on ADAMS after the Petition Review 3 Board, after they have had a chance to review it for 4 allegations or any other sensitive information.

5 To get a good transcript and minimize 6 distractions, we ask you to turn off or mute any devices 7 that you have. So, I am turning off my cell phone as 8 we speak.

9 And, for those of you who are dialing into 10 the meeting, if you don't have a mute button, if you can 11 press the keys "star 6," that will mute your phone and 12 if you high "star 6" again, that will unmute your phone.

13 I want to reemphasize that we need to speak 14 clearly and loudly to make sure the court reporter can 15 transcribe this meeting from a phone recording. That 16 will ensure that it is, again, accurate.

17 And I would ask that when you speak up, you 18 actually say your name first.

19 We look forward to ways to improve our 20 meetings, and therefore, we ask for feedback. If you 21 have feedback on this meeting, we would ask that you send 22 your comments to the meeting contact, Dee Morgan and her 23 email address is nadiyah.morgan@nrc.gov.

24 I would like to now open the meeting to 25 introductions. So, Dee, if you could go around the room 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 and say who is available in Headquarters.

2 MS. MORGAN: Okay. Again, I am Nadiyah 3 Morgan, the Petition Manager in NRR, and the Office of 4 Reactor Licensing.

5 MS. SANDERS: Hi. I am Serita Sanders in 6 NRR and the Generic Communications Branch. I am the 7 back-up to Lee, who is the lead for petition in the 8 Generic Communications.

9 MS. BANIC: I am Lee Banic, petition 10 coordinator.

11 MR. HOFFMAN: Ray Hoffman, NSIR, Technical 12 Review.

13 MR. ANDERSON: Joe Anderson, NSIR, Chief, 14 Operating Reactor Operator Licensing.

15 MR. HOWE: Good morning. This is Allen 16 Howe. I am in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations 17 and I am the Petition Review Board Chair for this 18 Petition Review Board.

19 MR. KAHLER: Hi. This is Robert Kahler.

20 I am Branch Chief of the NSIR Inspection and Regulatory 21 Improvements Branch.

22 MR. MICHEL: Eric Michel from the office of 23 General Counsel.

24 MS. MORGAN: And that is all that we have 25 here, Rich.

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 MR. BARKLEY: Do we have any other NRC 2 participants on the phone?

3 MR. SHAFFER: Yes, Rich. This is Steve 4 Shaffer, Region I.

5 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. And do we have any 6 representatives from Entergy on the line?

7 (No audible response.)

8 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Mary, would you like 9 to introduce yourself, and then Ms. Chin can introduce 10 herself afterwards.

11 MS. LAMPERT: Hi. Yes. I am Mary 12 Lampert. I am director of Pilgrim Watch and the 13 Petitioner.

14 MS. CHIN: Yes. I am Rebecca Chin. I 15 co-chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, and I 16 am a co-Petitioner.

17 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. It is not necessary 18 for other members of the public to introduce themselves, 19 but if they would, they are welcome to acknowledge 20 themselves on the phone.

21 (No audible response.)

22 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. With that, let's move 23 on.

24 Mary, I know you are very experienced with 25 the 2.206 Petition process, so I won't get into 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 providing a lot of background on it, but if you have more 2 in-depth questions on the guidance that that staff is 3 following, you can refer to the management directive 4 that is on our website. It is Management Directive 5 8.11.

6 Again, the purpose of today's meeting is to 7 give you an opportunity to provide any additional 8 information or support for the position as a result of 9 the PRB's initial consideration and recommendation.

10 This meeting is not a hearing, nor an 11 opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 12 the PRB on the merits of the issues presented in the 13 petition request.

14 No decisions regarding the merits of this 15 petition will be made at this meeting. It will be made 16 afterwards.

17 Following this meeting, the PRB will 18 conduct its internal deliberation and the outcome of 19 this internal meeting will be discussed with you 20 afterwards.

21 Again, the Petition Review Board consists 22 of a Chairman, Mr. Howe, who is a member of the senior 23 executive service as the petition manager and a petition 24 coordinator.

25 And other members of the Board are 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 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the 2 information in the petition. And we are obtaining 3 advice also from our Office of General Counsel.

4 As we described in our process, the NRC will 5 be asking clarifying questions in order to better 6 understand your presentation and to reach a reasoned 7 decision as to whether to accept or reject your request 8 for review under the 2.206 petition process.

9 Again, the licensee was invited but chose 10 not to participate in today's meeting to ensure they 11 understood the concerns about their facility or 12 associated activities.

13 And again, while if the licensee does log 14 onto this call later, they have the ability to ask 15 clarifying questions, but they are not part of our 16 decision-making process.

17 At this time, I would like to turn it over 18 to Allen Howe, the Petition Review Board Chairman so he 19 can discuss the petition under consideration.

20 MR. HOWE: Yes. Thank you, Rich.

21 And, good morning, Ms. Lampert, and Ms.

22 Chin.

23 I -- this is Allen Howe, and this -- the 24 purpose of this meeting is, as Rich has laid out, is to 25 listen to any additional comments that you would offer 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 as a part of our considerations as we review this 2 petition.

3 What I want to do is just take a couple of 4 minutes to summarize the -- our understanding of the 5 scope of the petition, and also to provide you with an 6 overview of NRC activities to date.

7 So, starting there, if that is okay with 8 you, I will start going through that process.

9 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Appreciate.

10 MR. HOWE: Okay. All right. Thank you.

11 Last August, August 30th of 2013, Ms.

12 Lampert submitted a petition to the NRC under 10 CFR 13 2.206 regarding Pilgrim's emergency plan.

14 In the petition request, you requested that 15 the NRC institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or 16 take any other action that may be proper to -- to the 17 operating license of Pilgrim, in order to ensure 18 Pilgrim's radiological emergency plan and standard 19 operating procedures and guidelines are based on 20 accurate and credible evacuation time estimates.

21 We use the term ETE's as a shorthand for 22 that.

23 You stated that the primary basis for this 24 request is in response to two documents prepared by KLD 25 Engineering, a contractor for Entergy.

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 These documents are the Pilgrim's December 2 12th, 2012 ETE final report and the July 25th, 2013 Cape 3 Cod telephone survey results.

4 The petitioner asserts that the ETE's for 5 Pilgrim are based on inaccurate assumption and are not 6 credible. The petitioner further stated that the ETE's 7 fundamental assumptions and data were flawed, which 8 explained ETE's conclusion that, even in the worst case 9 scenario, everyone in the emergency planning zone will 10 be evacuated in about six hours.

11 The petitioner also discussed the results 12 of the Cape survey and maintains that it was not 13 properly-used to determine Pilgrim's ETE.

14 That is the -- that is the summary of our 15 understanding of the concerns related to the petition.

16 So, let me talk through now the NRC activities to date.

17 MS. LAMPERT: And let me provide a 18 clarification --

19 MR. HOWE: Okay.

20 MS. LAMPERT: -- or I misunderstood what 21 you just said. The Cape telephone survey demonstrated 22 two things. One, it demonstrated that the assumption 23 of a 20 percent shadow evacuation in 10 to 15 miles is 24 inaccurate because it is based upon a telephone survey 25 done by Sandia and also by Entergy here, but never 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 mentioned that there would be -- that this was regarding 2 a nuclear accident. Number one.

3 Number two, it demonstrated that the staged 4 evacuation within the EPZ is also incorrect. Number 5 three, it demonstrated that more would be leaving Cape 6 Cod and the way the evacuations are off the Cape, it 7 feeds into one of the most congested areas within the 8 EPZ, so it would therefore slow the EPZ evacuation.

9 That is what was brought forward. And 10 also, I expect you will also discuss the supplement that 11 was provided to you on November 22nd, 2013. And, excuse 12 my voice, but I cannot help the pollen.

13 MR. HOWE: Okay. All right. Thank you.

14 Yes. I will -- I will go through just real quickly the 15 overview of the activities that have taken place to 16 date.

17 And, you are correct. I did not mention 18 the supplement that you provided in November. So, 19 thank you for that clarification.

20 So, let me just real quickly run through 21 this. This is going back to November of last year, 22 November 19th, 2013.

23 You and others addressed the Petition 24 Review Board. We did transcribe that meeting also 25 where you provided information to the Petition Review 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 Board, and that transcript is publicly-available in our 2 agency document management system, also referred to as 3 ADAM.

4 And the reference number, the exception 5 number four of that document is ML14141A087.

6 The Petition Review Board met internally on 7 February 20th of this year, and after our internal 8 meeting, we decided to recommend that the petition would 9 be rejected for review.

10 And our determination was based on two 11 elements. First of all, the petitioner raised concerns 12 that are addressed within NRC's guidance, and this is 13 an NRC guidance document. It is NUREG/CR-7002. And 14 the title of that document is "Criteria for Development 15 of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies."

16 Okay. Or, the issues that you raised --

17 so, they were either evaluated in that document, or they 18 were evaluated based on a generic basis document in 19 Supplement 3, "Guidance for Protective Action 20 Strategies."

21 And this is a supplement to 22 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. So, those are the two 23 documents that we looked at.

24 The title of that document is "Criteria for 25 Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 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 Response Plan and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear 2 Power Plans."

3 And that was a joint document prepared by 4 both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and also 5 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

6 So, in sum with that -- I know that is a lot 7 of detail in there, but in sum, the issues that were 8 raised in your petition were reviewed as a part of those 9 two documents that I just referenced.

10 In addition to that, we also, subsequent to 11 the submission of your petition, the technical staff at 12 NRC conducted a review of the 2012 Pilgrim evacuation 13 time estimates, and we concluded and found that it was 14 consistent with the guidance contained in 15 NUREG/CR-7002.

16 And this April, April 9th, the petition 17 manager Nadiyah Morgan, informed Ms. Lampert that the 18 recommendation -- of the recommendation, that is to 19 reject this petition, and offered a second opportunity 20 to address the PRB. And that is the purpose of today's 21 meeting.

22 Just to follow on with what Rich had 23 indicated earlier, in terms of any meeting 24 participants, just please identify yourself if you are 25 going to make any remarks because this will help us in 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 the preparation of the transcript that we will be making 2 publicly-available.

3 And, since this is the public meeting, I 4 would like to remind the PRB members, the licensee and 5 any other meeting participants to refrain from 6 discussing any NRC-sensitive or proprietary 7 information during today's meeting.

8 And, with that, Ms. Lampert, I will turn it 9 over to you to provide any information that you believe 10 that the PRB should consider as a part of this petition.

11 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. This is Mary Lampert, 12 director of Pilgrim Watch, Petitioner.

13 The PRB's initial decision boils down to 14 Pilgrim's KLD followed NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, and the 15 guidance in Supplement 3.

16 In other words, that they followed the 17 procedure or recipe for doing ETE's, but the issue is 18 not whether the procedure was followed, but whether the 19 assumptions upon which the procedures are based are 20 valid and the correct input data was used. That is 21 whether they got an honest answer, which we have shown 22 they did not.

23 An analogy would demonstrate the 24 irrelevance of PRB's arguments. For example, let's 25 make it real simple. If I baked a cake that even a dog 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 wouldn't touch, despite the fact that I followed a 2 standard recipe to a T, but the ingredients I put in were 3 of poor quality, and the recipe, itself, turned out to 4 be deficient, both in, for example, the time to bake the 5 cake and the oven temperatures were off, so that it 6 turned out to be as dry as a bone.

7 But, despite all of this, the cake could not 8 be considered acceptable because the directions were 9 followed. But, following the PRB's reasoning in its 10 initial decision, the answer is, yes, it is fine.

11 Of course, that is absurd and patently 12 wrong. The cake, like Pilgrim's ALG should be 13 discarded. It is time to try again.

14 Further, if you look at the executive 15 summary in NUREG/CR-7002, it also undercuts the PRB's 16 initial decision. First, it is replete in explaining 17 that the NUREG is simply guidance. It is not 18 regulation.

19 It says in the executive summary that 20 method and solutions that differ from those described 21 in this document may be deemed acceptable if they 22 provide an alternative that is in compliance with 23 appropriate NRC regulations.

24 It says further, the voluntary means that 25 the licensee is seeking the action on its own accord and 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 without support of a legally-binding requirement.

2 Further it goes on, the staff may not 3 represent to the licensee that the licensee's failure 4 to comply with the guidance constitutes a violation.

5 The NRC staff does not expect any existing licensee to 6 use or commit to using the guidance in this document.

7 It goes on to say that ETE's that 8 overestimate or underestimate evacuation times are not 9 helpful in making the best protective action decisions 10 and the petition clearly shows how Pilgrim's ETE 11 underestimated evacuation times, underestimated 12 demand, the total number of people in vehicles 13 evacuating, underestimated road capacity and drift 14 generation times and its estimate of six hours to 15 evacuate Pilgrim's EPZ is laughable.

16 That was the response of the local press and 17 the public. The executive summary at 8, most 18 importantly says Appendix E to 10 CFR, part 50 requires 19 ETE updates when the conditions of an EPZ are changed 20 significantly due to, dot-dot, "other reasons."

21 We have provided the other reason that the 22 ETE's assumptions and input are incorrect. We gave 23 numerous examples of how the demand was underestimated.

24 We show the inaccurate assumptions on shadow 25 evacuations outside the EPZ that assume only 20 percent 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 would self-evacuate and only those in the 10 to 15 miles 2 would self-evacuate.

3 This was shown, not through opinion, but 4 through facts. Entergy, itself, paid for a telephone 5 survey on Cape Cod, an area not simply 10 to 15 miles, 6 but the respondents were out to a little better than 25 7 miles.

8 Unlike the Sandia survey, unlike the 9 telephone survey done by Entergy before the ETE was 10 completed, the Cape survey told respondents we are 11 talking about evacuation because of an emergency at the 12 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.

13 So, 70 percent of the respondents, when 14 told the real purpose of the survey said they would 15 evacuate. Not 20 percent, but 70 percent.

16 Also, when they were asked in the question 17 if you were told not to evacuate when there was an 18 accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, what would 19 you do? Fifty percent said they would evacuate, 20 anyway.

21 And so, what does this show? It shows that 22 a telephone survey that is honest and explains what the 23 purpose is will end up with three times more saying they 24 will evacuate than NRC or ETE -- in the ETE assumed.

25 So there can be no doubt that in both cases 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 250 percent to 300 percent increase in the number 2 of evacuees from the EPZ will have a dramatic increase 3 in traffic density and speed and will increase the time 4 necessary to evacuate.

5 And the telephone survey also speaks to the 6 staged evacuation with assumptions within the EPZ.

7 That assumes that people are going to obey the theory 8 that, in a disaster people from miles around will be told 9 to evacuate and then those in a pie-shaped wedge 10 determined by wind direction from two to five miles will 11 be told to evacuate and the rest of the population will 12 sit.

13 Well, the Cape telephone survey indicated 14 when people were told that they should not evacuate and 15 then what would they do, fifty percent said they would 16 evacuate.

17 Further, I will add as a matter of fact, the 18 Town of Duxbury unanimously voted at annual town meeting 19 in 2006 on an article that opposed the NRC and licensee 20 then new emergency planning policy that describes this 21 two-mile around and only those within a certain segment 22 would evacuate because they recognize that is baloney, 23 particularly with today's communication capability, 24 the word is going to get out.

25 In fact, the plan itself, the standard 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 operating procedures at the alert stage close the 2 beaches, close the parks and the harbormaster gets the 3 people off the water. And when that word gets out, 4 anyone who thinks the rest of the population is going 5 to continue swimming in their pools or sitting on their 6 beach is crazy.

7 Then, we also show that the total number of 8 people in vehicles evacuating was further 9 underestimated by -- and I can just give an example.

10 Estimating transients within the EPZ at 20,000 when the 11 previous KLG estimated twice that number, 42,000.

12 Now, you just look at that and you say this 13 doesn't make any sense at all, particularly because the 14 overall population in eastern and southeastern 15 Massachusetts and the Boston Metropolitan Area have 16 increased substantially.

17 And so, to even presume that that number has 18 any meaning is ridiculous. And you can go on and on and 19 on and as we did, to indicate it makes no sense.

20 Improper input, improper assumptions.

21 There were inaccurate assumptions on estimating the 22 road capacity. The -- there were fly-over's to 23 determine how many cars were on the main evacuation 24 route, but when did they take those numbers, for 25 example, to determine if an accident occurred during 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

21 1 snowstorm, they must add traffic speed on the major 2 evacuation routes when there was snow midweek, midday.

3 Weekend, midday.

4 Now, the proper time to look, obviously, is 5 when the roads are crowded with commuter traffic coming 6 and going in -- into the city or what have you.

7 To do it midday simply is evidence that they 8 -- what they were looking for was to substantiate a 9 predetermined answer. There were inaccurate 10 assumptions regarding the trip generation time.

11 The assumption is that everybody would get 12 ready at the starting gate, they would be in the starting 13 gate within 15 minutes after the sirens went off the 14 evacuation would begin.

15 Again, we did a telephone survey, in the 16 Town of Duxbury after the siren checks in November which 17 our supplement describes and it indicated that the 18 public, 72 percent did not understand the siren's 19 message. 40.3 percent didn't even hear the siren.

20 The sirens, as everybody knows, are outdoor 21 warning systems and everybody knows that we don't sleep 22 outside, that we have air conditioning, that in this 23 particular EPZ, the houses tend to be more on one-acre 24 lots and with a lot of shrubbery.

25 So, as we pointed out, the people will not 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 -- you cannot assume, as the ETE did that, as soon as 2 those sirens sound the people are going to be out of 3 here.

4 Also, conversely, on the other side of the 5 coin, because, as I just pointed out in the standard 6 operating procedures, at the alert stage, the word is 7 will be out, although the sirens do not sound until the 8 general emergency.

9 So, what you will have is people leaving 10 early, people leaving later, not just when the sirens 11 sound. In other words, what you will have will be an 12 uncontrolled evacuation which will only mean a slow and 13 poorly-organized one.

14 In conclusion, again, there were 15 example-after-example, 20 of false assumptions and 16 inaccurate facts. The petition and its supplement 17 clearly shows that the ETE underestimates evacuation 18 times.

19 And what would the Petition Review Board's 20 denial of this petition confirm? It will confirm that 21 the process is a farce. It becomes a classic case in 22 support of Judge Rosenthal's conclusion that there 23 should be no room for a belief on the requester's side 24 that the pursuit of such a course -- and I will add 2.206 25 petition, is either being encouraged by the Commission 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 officialdom, or has a fair chance of success.

2 And another procedure I was involved in, 3 Judge Rosenthal requested the NRG staff to review what 4 happens to 2.206 petitions over the previous 37 years.

5 In that time, they found that only one -- one had found 6 meaningful -- a meaningful decision.

7 Further, it adds fodder to the OIG's 8 current investigation into this process on a couple of 9 -- on at least one other petition I am involved with 10 other folks across the nation.

11 The OIG is now getting into this. It also 12 adds fodder to the Senate concern, or some of the 13 Senators on the committee. It also builds the record 14 for a Federal Court challenge that you guys simply are 15 not doing what you are required statutorily to do.

16 And I don't think any of that is a good 17 thing. When you lose the public which the NRC, let's 18 face it, is doing with grand success, when there is no 19 faith in the regulator, A, it doesn't help with a nuclear 20 future of public acceptance of that and more 21 importantly, it leaves the public's health, safety, 22 property, the economy at risk.

23 And then, it has shown very blatantly 24 lately that the NRC is not doing what it is 25 statutorily-required by the AEC.

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 And so, the decision is in your hands. You 2 are either going to provide more evidence that we should 3 have no faith or you will look at the facts presented 4 before you that showed that the assumptions used in the 5 KLG, some of the input in the KLG are baloney.

6 Therefore, it is time to go back and have 7 an honest assessment. And I shall add, I could not get 8 an affidavit, two retirees from Pilgrim's emergency 9 management division at the site who are now retired 10 said, "Hey, we know it is a joke. We know the plans are 11 a joke, and they will never work, but are we to say that?

12 Of course not, because then we would shut down because 13 we have shown that we are not operating safely. But, 14 you are right. It is a joke."

15 So, essentially, that is what I have to say.

16 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mary. I 17 understand that Rebecca had a statement to make?

18 MS. CHIN: Yes. I would just like to add 19 to Mrs. Lampert's comments, and this is Rebecca Chin 20 again. I co-chair the Nuclear Advisory Committee for 21 the Town of Duxbury, that we were in receipt in January 22 of 2013 of a memo that John Giarrusso sent out to Pilgrim 23 about the KLD study, as an ETE, and he is the nuclear 24 section chief of planning and preparedness for 25 Massachusetts Emergency Management, which covers 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 Pilgrim territory.

2 And he, in his statement, and he has at 3 least six areas of deficiencies of the ETE and he has 4 asked them to be addressed. They have not been, because 5 the study was already completed by the time he sent it 6 out.

7 And he has -- he is showing deficiencies in 8 the tables, in the input of data and how -- and data that 9 has been omitted in the report, and he is showing -- his 10 comments are that they need to be resolved and that real 11 calculations and real evacuation time estimates need to 12 be inserted.

13 And, following up on that report, I have 14 been in contact with Aaron Wallace who was the emergency 15 management director for the Town of Plymouth and have 16 asked him to verify some data that were in the tables, 17 specifically Table E-5, recreation areas within the EPZ 18 with comments that -- data that has been published 19 previously and asked for you to either confirm or add 20 to it, and he is saying that the KLD numbers that have 21 been identified are under the baseline that they 22 expected from their regional planning commission, which 23 they talked to the Federal Transportation -- U.S.

24 Department of Transportation.

25 They have raised their concern and they 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 have not been resolved and they have found transient 2 populations are lower than actually seen peak holiday 3 event times are lower in the report, and they are still 4 struggling with it.

5 And that is not okay, to leave us hanging 6 with a deficient report. And I really hope that you 7 will step up and do your jobs.

8 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert also would like 9 to read an email from Chief Kevin Nord, who is fire chief 10 and emergency management director from the Town of 11 Duxbury, written July 30, 2012, 11:56 a.m. to Ed 12 Hartman, who was emergency planning at Pilgrim. And he 13 cc'd the state, Aaron Wallace, et cetera. The subject, 14 KLG study.

15 "Ed, here is what I have so far of what needs 16 to go." He talks about the transient population is way 17 underestimated and went up from 204, not down. Has 18 section 3.15, has zero for Duxbury employees, not true.

19 Section 5.4.3, inaccurate, does not 20 account for sail and small boats, considerably longer 21 based on lack of motors, tide and wind. 7.5 talks about 22 staged evacuation not having any positive impact.

23 I totally disagree with it, that people are 24 not going to sit idle. Their dogs might. Section 8.4 25 presumes that no one will pick up their kids at schools.

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 Wrong. And I will add, as part of our standing 2 operating procedure, the parents will pick up children 3 in schools.

4 Therefore, there will be many more cars on 5 the road. Add the assumption that just all the children 6 are going to be going. Section 8.8, only ten minutes.

7 I have to consider private roads as part of the 8 contractors not cooperating.

9 On and on and on. Section K-58, out of 10 point bridge estimates, that the bridge connects the 11 beach to the mainland is unrealistic.

12 I disagree with any data for the telephone 13 survey as they did not identify it as a radiological 14 emergency, especially in light of Fukushima. I would 15 expect residents to respond differently.

16 In fact, one assumption was that a family 17 will wait for their significant others to commute home 18 from Boston and then they will leave together. Who 19 would believe that. And then he explains that he will 20 send more information.

21 So, you have emergency planners locally, 22 town emergency planners finding problems. You have the 23 state, John Giarrusso from MEMA. Hey, there is 24 something wrong with this.

25 You have former employees in emergency 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 management which unfortunately I couldn't get an 2 affidavit because they still want all their pension and 3 stuff taken care of, saying to myself and four other 4 people this is baloney.

5 And then we -- we provided the facts. And 6 so, for you to then turn around and say they followed 7 the recipe, therefore it is fine, is patently absurd.

8 It is an insult to emergency management personnel and 9 the public here who know otherwise.

10 You can tell, it has made me furious. It 11 is sort of -- you know, the frosting on the case. I 12 started out with an analogy of cake, but this is the 13 frosting on the cake of my feelings of growing 14 disrespect, which is unfortunate.

15 I know there are some good people working 16 within the agency and it gets sort of dwindled down as 17 decisions move higher up the food chain. But, it is not 18 acceptable.

19 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mary.

20 At this time, I guess I would ask whether 21 the staff has any questions from Mrs. Lampert or Ms.

22 Chin.

23 MR. HOWE: Yes. Thanks, Rich. This is 24 Allen Howe.

25 Ms. Lampert, Ms. Chin, you referenced some 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 statements being made by some Entergy retirees. You 2 also mentioned an email and a memorandum that had been 3 -- one was prepared by a person at the -- at the 4 Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, and there 5 was also another email from another individual.

6 As our -- as our process allows, if there 7 are additional documents -- and I am going to open it 8 up wider than just the ones you cited that are an 9 information that you would like the Petition Review 10 Board to consider, I would invite you to provide that 11 information to us so that we can review that additional 12 information in addition to the -- the comments that you 13 have provided today.

14 MS. LAMPERT: We certainly will, and we 15 will send it in to Nadiyah Morgan.

16 MR. HOWE: Yes.

17 MS. LAMPERT: Or directly to you?

18 MR. HOWE: You can send it in to Nadiyah.

19 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Okay. That will be 20 great.

21 MR. BARKLEY: Any other questions?

22 MR. HOWE: Okay. I am looking around the 23 room and I don't -- I don't see anybody here indicating 24 they have any questions.

25 There was an NRC person on the -- on 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

30 1 telephone line other than Rich? Any comments from you?

2 Any questions?

3 MR. BARKLEY: It was Steve Shaffer. I --

4 he may have dropped off the line.

5 MR. HOWE: Okay.

6 MR. BARKLEY: Mary or Rebecca, do you have 7 any other last remarks before I turn it back over to 8 Allen to wrap up?

9 MR. HOWE: Sorry, Rich. I was on mute.

10 No. I do not have any additional questions.

11 12 MR. BARKLEY: Okay.

13 MS. LAMPERT: This is Mary Lampert. No, I 14 do not have any additional comments.

15 MS. CHIN: Nor do I, Rebecca Chin.

16 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Thanks very much.

17 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. We look forward to 18 the next chapter, and we hope it will be a positive one, 19 both for the agency and for the citizens here, because 20 we take it very seriously.

21 I have been reviewing the Town of Duxbury 22 emergency plans to assist the Town since 1988. And this 23 is a review that is done, reading every plan for every 24 town department every year.

25 Rebecca has been doing the same thing.

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 How long have you been doing this, Becky?

2 MS. CHIN: The same, 25 years ago, because 3 I chaired the Duxbury School Committee and I saw the 4 first SOP's that came through. They were called 5 something besides SOP's in those days, but I have 6 chaired several town committees in the 27 years that I 7 have been doing town support, and I have had the 8 opportunity for the last eleven years to work with Mrs.

9 Lampert on the Nuclear Advisory Committee and we 10 diligently review every report and every document that 11 comes through.

12 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. And so, we are not --

13 we are not nay-sayers. We actually want plans that are 14 the best they can be to reduce risk, and the KLD is very 15 key to providing public health and safety because it 16 triggers just how many state responders, you know, there 17 will be, where the traffic control will be, 18 establishment of routing, et cetera, et cetera, et 19 cetera.

20 So, we want good plans. We want to work 21 constructively with NRC and FEMA. And not have these 22 roadblocks that, hey, everything is fine, because we 23 have come up with this foolishness. That isn't helping 24 our citizens, and that is what we want to do.

25 MR. BARKLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mary.

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 Allen, do you want to have closing remarks?

2 MR. HOWE: Yes. I think, Rich, I do, and 3 Ms. Lampert and Ms. Chin, thank you also for your remarks 4 and your input today, and for taking the time to provide 5 us with some clarify information on the petition that 6 you have submitted.

7 You have indicated that you are going to 8 provide us some supplemental information for our 9 consideration. You can work out with Nadiyah Morgan on 10 the provision of that additional information.

11 I would ask you to provide that as soon as 12 it is reasonably possible to do that.

13 As has been indicated, this meeting was 14 transcribed. We will also take a look at the transcript 15 as a part of this meeting.

16 What we -- what the next steps are going to 17 be -- let me just lay those out. You are going to 18 provide some additional information. We are going to 19 have the transcript from this meeting. We are going to 20 meet again and review our, the results of our 21 preliminary decision and this additional information 22 and make a final recommendation for a decision.

23 And, following that meeting, we will -- the 24 petition manager, Nadiyah Morgan, will inform you of our 25 decision on whether we are accepting or rejecting this 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 2.206 petition for review.

2 And then, of course, that is all being done 3 under the governance of our management directive 8.11, 4 which provides our position -- or, rather, petition 5 management process.

6 But, let me go on. We have a court reporter 7 on the phone.

8 Do you need any additional information at 9 this point in time for preparation of the transcript?

10 COURT REPORTER: I do not.

11 MR. HOWE: Okay. Thank you.

12 Okay. With that, I want to thank everyone 13 for their participation in this meeting and with that, 14 we will conclude the meeting and terminate the phone 15 connection. Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 11:50 a.m.)

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

34 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 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=ML14223A088&oldid=2234332"