ML13258A002

G20130461 - Transcript of 9/10/13 Teleconference with Pilgrim Watch 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Orders Hardened Containment Vents

ML13258A002
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	09/10/2013
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Guzman R V
References
2.206, G20130461, NRC-232
Download: ML13258A002 (38)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Hardened Containment Vents

Docket Number: 05000293

Location: Teleconference

Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Edited by Richard V. Guzman, NRC Petition Manager

Work Order No.: NRC-232 Pages 1-37

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

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

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +

3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5 RE 6 HARDENED CONTAINMENT VENTS 7 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 8 + + + + +

9 TUESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 11 + + + + +

12 The conference call was held, Michael 13 Cheok, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.

15 16 PETITIONER: MARY LAMPERT 17 18 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 19 MICHAEL CHEOK, Deputy Director, Division of 20 Engineering 21 RICHARD GUZMAN, Petition Manager for 2.206 22 petition 23 JOSEPH GILMAN, Office of General Counsel 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 2 1 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 2 RAJENDER AULUCK, Technical Lead, Japan Lessons-Learned 3 Project Directorate, NRR 4 JEROME BETTLE, Technical Lead, Containment &

5 Ventilation Branch, NRR, DSS 6 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Coordinator, Division of Policy 7 and Rulemaking, NRR 8 BILL RECKLEY, Branch Chief, Japan Lessons-Learned 9 Project Directorate, NRR 10 11 NRC REGION I OFFICE 12 STEVE SHAFFER 13 14 ALSO PRESENT 15 JOE LYNCH, Entergy 16 REBECCA CHIN, Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee 17 BILL MAURER, Cape Downwinders 18 MARGARET SHEEHAN, Project for Energy Accountability 19 DIANE TURCO, Cape Downwinders 20 ARLENE WILLIAMSON, Pilgrim Coalition 21 22 23 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 3TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 Opening Remarks of PRB Chairman 3 By Michael Cheok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 5 Remarks of the Petitioner & Associates . . . . . .12 6 7 Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4P R O C E E D I N G S 1 10:02 a.m.

2 MR. GUZMAN: Good morning. I'd like to 3 just go ahead and get started with today's 4 teleconference. Okay. Again, my name is Rich Guzman, 5 a project manager in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 6 Regulation. I'd like to thank everyone for attending 7 this meeting.

8 The purpose of today's teleconference is 9 to allow the petitioner, Mary Lampert, and her 10 associates to address the Petition Review Board, or 11 PRB, in light of its initial recommendations regarding 12 the 2.206 petition dated June 14th, 2013 and 13 supplemented on July 26th, 2013 concerning the NRC's 14 orders EA-12-050 and EA-13-109 related to hardened 15 containment vents for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

16 The teleconference is being recorded by 17 the NRC Operation Center and will be transcribed by a 18 court reporter. The transcript will become a 19 supplement to the petition and will also be made 20 publically available.

21 Before I briefly go over today's agenda, 22 I'd like to open the teleconference with 23 introductions. And as we go around the room and 24 bridge line, please be sure to clearly state your 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 5name, your position, and your office or organization 1 for the record.

2 I'll go ahead and start off. Again, this 3 is Rich Guzman, project manager in the Office of 4 Nuclear Regulation.

5 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, 2.206 6 coordinator in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 7 Regulation.

8 MR. GILMAN: Joe Gilman in the Office of 9 the General Counsel.

10 CHAIR CHEOK: I'm Mike Cheok. I'm the 11 deputy director in the Division of Engineering in the 12 Office of NRR.

13 MR. BETTLE: Jerome Bettle, NRR, 14 Containment and Ventilation Branch.

15 MR. AULUCK: Raj Auluck, Japan Lessons-16 Learned Directorate, NRR.

17 MR. GUZMAN: And we've completed 18 introductions at NRC headquarters, at this time are 19 there any NRC headquarter participants who have dialed 20 in on the phone? Okay. Will the NRC participants 21 from the regional office introduce themselves?

22 MR. SHAFFER: Hi. This is Steve Shaffer, 23 Division of Reactor Projects, Region I.

24 MR. GUZMAN: All right. And the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6representative for Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim?

1 MR. LYNCH: This is Joe Lynch, licensing 2 manager, Entergy, Pilgrim Station.

3 MR. GUZMAN: Ms. Lampert, would you please 4 introduce yourself and your associates for the record?

5 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. This is Mary Lampert, 6 director of Pilgrim Watch, the petitioner. The 7 others, I believe, should introduce themselves, or do 8 you want me to introduce them?

9 MR. GUZMAN: Either way is fine.

10 MS. LAMPERT: Why don't you introduce 11 yourselves, please?

12 MS. WILLIAMSON: Arlene Williamson, 13 Pilgrim Coalition.

14 MS. CHIN: Rebecca Chin, the Nuclear 15 Advisory Committee for the town of Duxbury.

16 MS. TURCO: Diane Turco, Cape Downwinders.

17 MR. MAURER: Bill Maurer, Cape 18 Downwinders.

19 MS. SHEEHAN: Margaret Sheehan, attorney 20 and director of the Project for Energy Accountability 21 based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

22 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. And it is not required 23 for members of the public to introduce themselves for 24 this call. However, if there are any members of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7public on the phone that wish to do so at this time, 1 please state your name for the record.

2 And for the record, we do have another 3 individual here at NRC headquarters.

4 MR. RECKLEY: Bill Reckley from NRR's 5 Japan Lessons-Learned Directorate.

6 MR. GUZMAN: And for our court reporter, 7 can you also please state your name?

8 COURT REPORTER: This is Sam Wojack, the 9 court reporter.

10 MR. GUZMAN: Thank you. All right. As a 11 brief overview of the agenda, the teleconference is 12 scheduled from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. Eastern time.

13 Following my introduction, we'll turn it over to the 14 PRB Chairman, who will provide opening remarks and 15 briefly summarize the scope of the petition under 16 consideration. Ms. Lampert will then give her 17 comments in light of the PRB's initial recommendation.

18 And, finally, the PRB Chairman will conclude the 19 conference call with closing remarks.

20 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 21 speak up and speak clearly to ensure that the court 22 reporter can accurately transcribe this 23 teleconference. Also, if you have something you would 24 like to say, please state your name first for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8record.

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

5 And then to unmute, press the *6 keys again. Thank 6 you. 7 And at this time, I'll turn it over to the 8 PRB Chairman, Mike Cheok.

9 CHAIR CHEOK: Good morning again, and 10 thank you for joining us at this meeting regarding the 11 2.206 petition submitted by Mary Lampert. I would 12 like to first share some background on our process.

13 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 14 Federal Regulations describes the petition process.

15 This is the primary mechanism for the public to 16 request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 17 process. The process permits anyone to petition the 18 NRC to take enforcement type action related to NRC 19 licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 20 results of this evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, 21 or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other 22 appropriate enforcement actions to resolve the 23 problem.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9disposition of 2.206 petitions is documented in 1 Management Directive 8.11, which is publically 2 available.

3 The purpose of today's teleconference is 4 to give the petitioner an opportunity to address the 5 PRB with additional explanation and support for the 6 petition in light of the PRB's initial recommendation, 7 which was communicated to the petitioner on August 8 22nd, 2013. I'll note that this meeting is not a 9 hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the petitioner 10 to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the 11 issues presented in the petition request.

12 No decisions regarding the merits of this 13 petition will be made during the teleconference.

14 Following this teleconference, the PRB will conduct 15 its own deliberations. The outcome of this internal 16 deliberation will be discussed with the petitioner.

17 The PRB typically consists of a chairman, 18 usually a member of the Senior Executive Service level 19 at the NRC. It has a petition manager and a PRB 20 coordinator. Other members of the Board are 21 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 22 the information in the petition request.

23 At this time, I would like to introduce 24 the Board. I am Mike Cheok, the PRB Chairman. Rich 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 10Guzman is the petition manager for the petition under 1 discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 2.206 2 coordinator. Our technical staff includes Bill 3 Reckley and Raj Auluck from NRR's Japan Lessons-4 Learned Project Directorate.

5 PRB also includes Jerome Bettle from NRR's 6 Containment and Ventilation Branch, Steve Shaffer from 7 NRC's Region I Division of Reactor Projects. We also 8 obtain advice from the Office of General Counsel, 9 represented by Joe Gilman.

10 As described in our process, NRC staff may 11 ask questions to clarify the petitioner's request.

12 After this discussion, the PRB will consider the need 13 to modify any of its recommendations. The final 14 recommendations will be included in a letter.

15 Next, I would like to summarize the scope 16 of the petition under consideration and NRC activities 17 to date. On June 14th, 2013, Ms. Lampert submitted to 18 the NRC a petition under 2.206 concerning the NRC 19 orders EA-12-050, EA-13-109, related to hardened 20 containment vents for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

21 In her petition, Ms. Lampert requests that 22 the NRC immediately suspend the operating license of 23 the Pilgrim Power Station until the provisions of 24 NRC's orders are fully implemented and until the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11containment vents at Pilgrim are augmented with 1 filters and rupture discs. The petitioner requests 2 this enforcement action on the basis that existing 3 design of Pilgrim is not sufficient to protect the 4 public health and safety. The petition also states 5 that the NRC is not meeting its statutory obligations 6 by allowing Pilgrim and other reactors of like design 7 to operate without fully implementing the requirements 8 of the NRC orders.

9 The NRC's activities to date. The PRB met 10 on June 27th, 2013 to review the petitioner's request 11 for immediate action. The PRB concluded that there is 12 no immediate safety concern at Pilgrim or to the 13 public health and safety to warrant the request of 14 immediate action.

15 Ms. Lampert also informed, Ms. Lampert was 16 informed of this decision on June 28th, 2013. Ms.

17 Lampert addressed the PRB in a teleconference on July 18 15th, 2013 and provided supplemental information dated 19 July 26th, 2013.

20 On August 22nd, 2013, Ms. Lampert was 21 informed of the PRB's initial recommendation that the 22 petition either did not provide sufficient facts to 23 warrant further inquiry or raised issues that have 24 already been reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12NRC. Therefore, the petition does not meet the 1 criteria for being considered for review under 10 CFR 2 2.206. On August 23rd, 2013, Ms. Lampert requested a 3 teleconference with the PRB to comment on the PRB's 4 initial recommendation.

5 As a reminder for the Board participants, 6 please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as 7 this will help us in the presentation of the meeting 8 transcript and will be made publically available.

9 Thank you.

10 Ms. Lampert, I will now turn it over to 11 you to allow you and your associates to provide any 12 information you believe the PRB should consider as 13 part of the petition.

14 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, good morning. Let me 15 start by thanking you for this opportunity to follow 16 up on the telephone conference we had in July. Given 17 that conference and the supplement that I sent to you 18 in July, I wanted to be sure we have a common 19 understanding of what this petition asks.

20 The original June 14th petition asked to 21 cease operations until the provisions of both orders 22 were fully implemented and the vents augmented with 23 filters and rupture discs. This is, we believe, to be 24 necessary to protect public health and safety.

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 13 However, in our July 26th supplement, we 1 provided information, factual background, that you had 2 requested showing that operators could install the 3 vents and filters in 18 to 24 months. So, therefore, 4 we offered the Petition Review Board an opportunity to 5 change the initial request and act on requiring the 6 installation of the orders and adding filters in the 7 18- to 24-month time period. So I did not hear you 8 mention that, so I hope you understand that we amended 9 the petition and provided the Board with a very 10 reasonable alternative.

11 As we see it, the recommendation, initial 12 recommendation said two things: the petition does not 13 provide sufficient facts; two, the petition raises 14 issues that were already reviewed. Neither of these 15 contentions in the initial recommendation are correct.

16 The petition included 14 quotes from the order. Each 17 said something in slightly different words that the 18 status quo does not adequately protect public health, 19 safety, and property at Pilgrim and other similarly-20 designed reactors today.

21 What the NRC said in its orders are facts.

22 There is utterly no basis for the initial 23 recommendation to suggest otherwise. What the orders 24 said is not hearsay. They are made in public records, 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 14and any court in this country would accept the orders 1 as evidence and treat what they said as factual 2 statements by the NRC. Rules of evidence 801 to 807, 3 as I remember.

4 I will agree that the quotations don't 5 detail all the underlying documents and facts that the 6 staff and Commission considered. But that is 7 unimportant. They admit the ultimate fact: what is 8 being done today does not meet the NRC's statutory 9 obligation to protect the public health and safety.

10 And that is not all they admit.

11 EA-13-109 says in its conclusion: one, the 12 requirements provide reliable HCVS to prevent or limit 13 core damage upon loss of heat removal capability is 14 necessary to ensure reasonable assurance of adequate 15 protection of public health and safety; and, two, the 16 requirement that the reliable HCVS remained functional 17 during severe accident conditions is a cost-justified 18 substantial safety improvement under 10 CFR 50.109 19 (a)(3). All of these are factual statements in NRC's 20 own words. Nothing in the initial recommendation says 21 that the order's statements are not true.

22 Apparently, the best whoever wrote the 23 initial recommendation could do was try to explain 24 away one of NRC's 14 admissions as being out of 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 15context, claiming that it simply was a statement to 1 justify the use of the backfit for the drywell vent.

2 The initial recommendation conveniently avoided 3 discussing any of the other 13 NRC admissions quoted 4 by NRC, by Pilgrim Watch in its petition. They are 5 listed in the original petition one by one. I do not 6 expect, at this point, you'd like me to re-read them.

7 But let's move on to the one quotation 8 that the initial recommendation does discuss, and that 9 discussion puts NRC's PRB in an even deeper hole. The 10 initial recommendation says that EA-12-050 was out of 11 context because its intent was to provide the 12 regulatory justification for imposing requirements of 13 the order, the backfit rule. But a backfit can only 14 be required, according to 10 CFR 50.109 (a)(3), when 15 the Commission "determines that there is a substantial 16 increase in the overall protection of public health 17 and safety derived from the backfit."

18 So as a matter of fact, EA-12-050 admitted 19 that a highly reliable vent would result in a 20 substantial increase in public protection. EA-13-109 21 took one step further. It said that a backfit 22 analysis wasn't needed to order hardened reliable 23 vents for the drywell. Why? Because 10 CFR 50.109 24 (a)(4) says that a backfit is not required if, and I 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 16quote, that regulatory action is necessary to ensure 1 that the facility provides adequate protection to the 2 health and safety of the public and is in accord with 3 the common defense and security.

4 What these two orders admit in context 5 also is pretty clear. Hardened vents are required to 6 provide adequate protection and will result in a 7 substantial increase in the level of protection. As a 8 matter of fact, EA-13-109 concluded, as I read to you 9 in the beginning, that both the drywell and the wet 10 well vents are needed for safety.

11 Once again, all those quotes are the NRC's 12 own words. It's stated facts. The petition provided 13 additional factual evidence that explained why the 14 order was necessary to protect public health and 15 safety.

16 The extra explanatory material was in the 17 fourth and fifth quote provided in the initial 18 petition. The fourth says that there was a 19 relatively, and I'm quoting, high probability that 20 those containments would fail should an accident 21 progress to melting the core and that the installation 22 of a reliable severe accident-capable containment 23 venting system, in combination with other actions, 24 such as ensuring drywell flooding capability, reduces 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 17the likelihood of containment failure and, thereby, 1 enhances the defense-in-depth projections in-plant 2 with Mark 1 and Mark II containments.

3 In the fifth quote, we provide more 4 factual information, explanation, and in NRC's own 5 words. During severe accidents involving molten core 6 debris breaching the reactor vessel, mitigating 7 strategies include injecting water into the 8 containment to help prevent drywell liner melt-through 9 which would result in a release pathway directly into 10 the reactor building, that water injection could 11 eventually increase the water level in their 12 suppression pool to a point where venting from the wet 13 well could no longer be possible, and that, without 14 venting, containment pressure could continue to 15 increase, threatening containment failure.

16 EA-13-109 clearly require licensees, like 17 Pilgrim, to provide both severe accident-capable wet 18 well and drywell venting systems because, as the 19 orders make clear in their factual statements, the 20 status quo does not adequately protect public health 21 and safety. That being so, the dispute between 22 Pilgrim Watch and the PRB seems really to come down to 23 one issue: when should they be implemented?

24 The NRC's position seems that nothing 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 18needs to be done, essentially, for five or six years.

1 Apparently, the NRC relies on Eric Leed's statement 2 in the introductory letter to the order at one that, 3 despite the fact that the status quo is admittedly 4 insufficient, there is no, quote, imminent danger. I 5 raised in our supplement that no one at NRC has 6 bothered to define "imminent." However, in my 7 supplement, I did by going to a couple of 8 dictionaries. Imminent is defined in the Free 9 Dictionary as about to occur, intending. The Oxford 10 Dictionary defines imminent as about to happen.

11 Even if we are somehow to have faith that 12 a serious accident is not about to happen, which would 13 highly mean that no such accident can or will happen 14 for several year or six years, what crystal ball are 15 you using to decide that there is no imminent danger 16 of severe accident during the next six years? It's 17 apparent you don't have one.

18 Both orders admit the ultimate fact is the 19 status quo doesn't provide protection. Even if I were 20 to agree, which I don't, that there is no imminent 21 danger, that would require shutting down these plants 22 now. There is no basis for not ordering Pilgrim and 23 similar plants to do what's needed within 18 to 24 24 months. 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 19 Your attempt to avoid NRC's obligations to 1 the public on the ground of these quotes without more 2 do not constitute sufficient facts or a sufficient 3 basis for taking requested enforcement action 4 approaches are ludicrous. Any rational person reading 5 the orders would agree that they plainly and 6 repeatedly said that the status quo does not provide 7 the public protection that the Atomic Energy Act 8 requires.

9 Finally, your following statements in the 10 initial recommendation that, quote, "NRC will not 11 treat general opposition to nuclear power or general 12 assertion of a safety problem," it bears no 13 relationship to what Pilgrim Watch has said, and, 14 quite frankly, it is unjustifiably insulting.

15 Now we'll move on to the second point that 16 the initial recommendation about filtering and rupture 17 discs. With respect to rupture discs, I raised issues 18 regarding their use in conjunction with wet well vents 19 in 2012, which you documented. But as far as I can 20 see, in reading other available documents, it wasn't 21 reviewed. There was no cost-benefit analysis done on 22 rupture discs that I have seen. There is absolutely 23 nothing to support the statement that these concerns 24 and issues were considered by NRC staff and evaluated.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 We have seen no evaluation of rupture discs. There 1 is no consideration or review in either SECY 12-0157 2 or any of the enclosures that I could find. EA-13-109 3 was issued to ensure that venting functions are also 4 available during severe accident conditions, but it 5 never mentions rupture discs, despite the fact that it 6 is precisely during such severe accident conditions 7 that rupture discs would be the most useful.

8 As for wet well vents, the staff, in 2012, 9 recommended filters for wet well vents operating under 10 severe accident conditions. The Commission in 2012 11 voted instead for option two and kicked the filters 12 can down the road. Well, it's now 2013, and we're 13 down that road and we have learned a lot of new and 14 significant information since my earlier submissions 15 and when the issue of wet well vents was reviewed.

16 Indeed, that is why 13-109 was issued.

17 Our brief introductory letter to 13-109 18 says that, while developing the requirements for EA-19 12-050, the NRC acknowledged that the questions 20 remained about maintaining containment integrity and 21 limiting the radioactive release of materials if the 22 venting systems were used during severe accident 23 conditions. One of these came about because, in an 24 earlier review, the water in the wet well was 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 21mistakenly assumed to provide sufficient so that a 1 filter in wet well vents was not justified. The order 2 admits this. It admits that the water in the 3 suppression pool provides only a degree of 4 decontamination before releases to the environment.

5 This admission was never considered in any previous 6 review of wet well venting.

7 It also highlights the never-considered 8 issue of dry well venting, where even the NRC cannot 9 pretend that water will provide scrubbing because 10 there is no water. Last, the order assumes that 11 filters are not needed on the drywell vent by saying, 12 in essence, that the only choice for the public is the 13 equivalent by death by one bullet to the head versus 14 three bullets to the head between releases from the 15 drywell unfiltered during severe accident conditions 16 to save containment or no venting and collapse of the 17 containment, resulting in far larger releases. The 18 third choice the NRC is refusing to provide is 19 filtering both the vents.

20 We should be able to agree that Pilgrim 21 and other similarly-designed reactors should be 22 required to complete these fixes, that being implement 23 the orders, both orders, and add filters and rupture 24 discs within two years' time. I thank you for the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22opportunity, and I'll turn it over to others who are 1 on this petition and on the call.

2 MS. WILLIAMSON: This is Arlene Williamson 3 from Pilgrim Coalition. One thing that I'm so alarmed 4 by is the last time we were on the conference call, I 5 think it was more than one person who asked the NRC 6 your reasoning for delaying this. And, apparently, we 7 have never gotten a response to that, and I find it 8 quite alarming because I'm not a scientist, I'm not a 9 lawyer, I'm a very concerned citizen who lives very 10 near Pilgrim. And there's been a lot of concern 11 lately. And, in fact, in our local paper today on the 12 very front page, there's a huge article about all the 13 shutdowns and the problems that this plant has had.

14 So with those problems, along with the 15 information that we know about Entergy and their 16 bottom line and why they closed Vermont Yankee, which 17 could also be a problem with Pilgrim, it isn't very 18 reassuring to me to allow this to just go on 19 indefinitely with all of the other problems that are 20 on the table, and there are many. So I'm very 21 concerned, and it just is common sense to me why you 22 would say something needs to be done, these vents need 23 to be implemented to assure public safety, and you are 24 allowing a company that is clearly having some trouble 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 23six years or five years now to implement those 1 changes. Absolutely, it really just doesn't give me a 2 whole lot of confidence with the NRC. Thank you.

3 MS. LAMPERT: Is someone speaking, or are 4 they on mute?

5 CHAIR CHEOK: Do we have any other 6 comments from any of the petitioners or the associates 7 at this point?

8 MS. SHEEHAN: Yes, this is Meg Sheehan. I 9 will comment. I'm from the Project for Energy 10 Accountability. I'm a native of Plymouth, Mass. My 11 family has lived there for four generations. We own 12 property there. We own a business there that employs 13 more people than Pilgrim does, and we've provided 14 employment for over four generations of our community.

15 And we find it completely unacceptable that the NRC 16 has been so lax in its enforcement, generally; and, 17 specifically, for it to fail to act on this decision 18 and require the venting under a set schedule of two 19 years. When you have the facts in front of you, it's 20 completely unacceptable and puts our economy, our 21 region, our business, our families at risk. And we 22 would urge you to take this petition seriously and 23 require a schedule for implementation of this fix.

24 MS. TURCO: Can I speak?

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 24 CHAIR CHEOK: Yes, please.

1 MS. TURCO: Hi. This is Diane Turco with 2 Cape Downwinders. And, you know, the federal 3 oversight, as you know, for the Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission is that you have the authority to shut a 5 nuclear reactor if the public health and safety cannot 6 be assured. And given your own petition on EA-13-109 7 and EA-12-050, you repeatedly state that the public 8 health and safety cannot be assured, so why aren't you 9 following your own mandate and close Pilgrim because 10 you state that the public safety cannot be assured?

11 That's a question to you.

12 CHAIR CHEOK: I'm sorry. I missed the 13 question. We missed the question. Can you please 14 repeat that?

15 MS. TURCO: I certainly will. The Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission, as you know, has the federal 17 oversight and authority to shut any nuclear reactor if 18 the public health and safety cannot be assured. In 19 your ruling, your staff has said repeatedly that 20 without the filtered vents in the hardened vents that 21 the public health and safety cannot be assured. So 22 why are you not following your mandate?

23 MR. RECKLEY: This is Bill Reckley. And 24 it all relates, as Ms. Lampert said, largely to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25timing and the fact that the NRC and, for that matter, 1 any regulatory agency that's setting requirements on 2 an industry, when it promulgates new rules, has to 3 decide on an implementation period for those rules or, 4 in this case, an order, based on its assessment of the 5 current safety of facilities and the improvements that 6 are being sought through the rulemaking or the order.

7 And so one difference, I think, from the 8 way we would characterize the statements made in the 9 order and how that connects to the implementation 10 period, and I know it's just the way you read things, 11 but we read all of the statements that Ms. Lampert 12 talked about that we included in the order as the 13 basis for its issuance as demonstrating the need to 14 improve the safety of these facilities, without 15 stating that the continued operation of those 16 facilities as they are is so unsafe as to warrant them 17 to shut down. Whereas you read our words and say they 18 are unsafe, they should be shut down, I think what we 19 intended in the order would be to say the safety can 20 be improved and here is an implementation period under 21 which those licensees are required to do those 22 improvements.

23 MS. LAMPERT: May I make a comment? Mary 24 Lampert. Okay. Here are the quotes from EA-12-050, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26"Reliable hard venting systems in BWR facilities with 1 Mark I and Mark II containments are needed to ensure 2 that adequate protection of public health and safety 3 is maintained."

4 My second quote I gave you says required.

5 The third, "are necessary to ensure adequate 6 protection of public health and safety." The fourth, 7 "additional requirements must be imposed." My fifth 8 quote in the petition, referring to 13-109, "The 9 orders were necessary." EA-12-050, next quote, "was 10 necessary." The NRC concluded in 13-109, "is 11 necessary."

12 It doesn't say, you know, things are jolly 13 now, but this could make it a little better. That 14 isn't what those words said. And, you know, we're in 15 the sports season. Eric Leeds, for example, in the 16 beginning, made a statement that current status is 17 okay, so score one for Eric Leeds and the PRB.

18 However, the other 13 quotes was very 19 definite. We'd have 13 scores. Now which football 20 team won? And are we in the world of Alice in 21 Wonderland where one point wins against 13? That's 22 ridiculous. Or against 14, rather. Ridiculous. And 23 because you need to go to looking at the backfit rule, 24 that, in itself, says it's necessary for public health 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 27and safety. You justify EA-109 as not requiring the 1 backfit rule because it's necessary for public health 2 and safety. So you can't get out of it and hold your 3 heads up high.

4 Excuse me, Diane, for interrupting.

5 MS. TURCO: Oh, no, Mary. No, thank you 6 very much. I just want to say that this is like a 7 dangerous intersection, a very dangerous intersection 8 where a stop sign is put up, but you put up a stop 9 sign, the NRC, but it's only a suggestion and that 10 does not provide public health and safety. Do your 11 job. 12 MS. CHIN: This is Rebecca Chin from the 13 town of Duxbury. I co-chair the Nuclear Advisory 14 Committee, and we are within the 10-mile EPZ for 15 Pilgrim, and I was also on the call in July and I 16 would like to repeat that the timing is of the essence 17 for us. For the calendar year of 2013, there have now 18 been 16 events at Pilgrim, and Pilgrim is currently 19 shut down because of a persistent pipe leak.

20 We feel that the orders should be 21 implemented as expeditiously as possible, and the town 22 of Duxbury is still on that since 2006. And, please, 23 review this favorably and implement the two-year time 24 line. Thank you.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28 CHAIR CHEOK: This is Mike Cheok. Are 1 there any more comments?

2 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I'll make one comment 3 further. I couldn't help but suspect that NRC's 4 choice of the six years, essentially, or after the 5 second refueling outage was a compromise reached with 6 the reactors in competitive markets who are looking at 7 their bottom line, are looking at what UBS and other 8 investment houses have said that these reactors cannot 9 compete and, therefore, they'll be shutting down.

10 Some, like Vermont Yankee, are running out 11 their current fuel load. That's a sizable investment.

12 Others, like Pilgrim, are talking about or at least 13 it is being talked about that they'll go through this 14 fuel cycle and one more. They signed a three-year 15 pilot agreement with the town of Plymouth, and they 16 are not doing well financially. Entergy, as you know, 17 has cut back employees. And I think all these event 18 reports reflect that they're not doing their, spending 19 any money for maintenance. That's what the workers 20 have been saying. And that's the story, so they may 21 be out of here.

22 So I expect the NRC is acquiescing to, 23 well, we might be shutting anyway, so why should we 24 have to order this stuff that's expensive? And if we 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 29have to do this, those of us who are on thin ice 1 already economically, this would push us right through 2 the hole.

3 Isn't this what it's about? But isn't the 4 NRC instead supposed to be about enforcing public 5 health and safety? So when you say that it's 6 necessary to do certain things, that's the issue. We 7 don't wait and wait because some reactors may or may 8 not be going down the tubes and shutting anyway. That 9 seems to be, in my opinion, what's behind all this, 10 and I'm asking you to put public health and safety out 11 first. They might continue. You never know what's 12 going to happen to a market.

13 MS. TURCO: Thank you, Mary.

14 MS. WILLIAMSON: This is Arlene 15 Williamson, Pilgrim Coalition. I now have to agree 16 with what Mary just said. I mean, it just seems like 17 it's the only logical reason why the NRC would allow 18 an industry to implement critical things to assure 19 public safety, and considering their finances, their 20 convenience, or whatever is appalling to put all of 21 that ahead of -- what you're supposed to do is to 22 provide public safety and assurance that we are okay.

23 And that is the only reason I can really see why you 24 would say something is necessary to implement and, you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30know, allow the industry some time to either get it 1 together, save the money, you know, figure out where 2 their bottom line is. That's just not acceptable.

3 I mean, it's just, it's gambling. It's 4 rolling out the dice and hoping that nothing happens 5 to this nuclear power plant until they decide what 6 works best for them, and that's just unacceptable.

7 Thank you.

8 MS. LAMPERT: And one question -- Mary 9 Lampert. One question for your review board. Now, I 10 sent you, as you requested, rationales of why they can 11 implement these orders in 18 to 24 months. Is there -

12 - do you disagree? Is it technically not possible?

13 If so, why? That would have to be in your response, 14 instead of a generalization, nothingness, which is the 15 best way to describe the initial recommendation.

16 As a matter of fact, I did send it to a 17 couple of lawyers who have been practicing in this 18 field for a very long time, one very distinguished 19 Harvard Law School graduate. His only comment was 20 this is a piece of, and I won't use the word that 21 begins with "S," end of quote. And we deserve better.

22 We deserve a lot better, and we don't need snide 23 remarks regarding those who are trying to shut down 24 nuclear power. If you look at my track record over 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 31the years, you will certainly understand I'm in this 1 to reduce risk and provide sensible documented 2 arguments. That is unacceptable.

3 MS. SHEEHAN: This is Meg Sheehan. I 4 would reiterate that. And I would note that today on 5 the front page of the Cape Cod Times

, which is the 6 leading publication on the Cape, the Union of 7 Concerned Scientists states that Pilgrim has had seven 8 times the normal number of shutdowns, and those are 9 emergency shutdowns for mechanical, electrical, and 10 other technical failures. And for you to allow that 11 situation to continue and not require these fixes 12 under some kind of a schedule is really, essentially, 13 immoral in our view.

14 MR. RECKLEY: Hi, this is Bill Reckley 15 again. It is not as if the orders do not have a 16 schedule. You can argue that the schedule under which 17 the licensees are required to make these 18 modifications, in your view, is too long, but I'd ask 19 that you not characterize it as there's not a 20 schedule.

21 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert did not 22 characterize it as such.

23 MR. RECKLEY: I understand. I understand.

24 MS. WILLIAMSON: Neither did Arlene 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 32Williamson.

1 MS. SHEEHAN: This is Meg Sheehan. If I 2 misspoke, I meant to say that we would like to see a 3 two-year schedule, as requested by Mary Lampert.

4 MR. RECKLEY: Okay. So, again, the order 5 lays out a schedule and, through that, it has various 6 milestones that we're currently working through now.

7 The first major one will be the submittal of the 8 licensee's integrated plans for compliance with this 9 order, putting in the modifications, which is due 10 June 2014.

11 And so in answer to your question could it 12 be done faster, hypothetically, it could be done 13 faster. But the NRC, in its deliberations and based 14 on the rationale that you quoted numerous times from 15 the discussion part of the order, we decided that the 16 appropriate implementation schedule was what we laid 17 out under the two phases of the order. And so that 18 decision was reached based on our assessment of the 19 safety benefits that are associated with the order, 20 the modifications, the improvements needed, and the 21 existing status of the plants. And so that was our 22 deliberation, that was our decision, all part of the 23 same order, all part of the same process, all part of 24 the same Commission review and approval that was 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 33associated with all the other parts of the order.

1 And so that's just basically the way the 2 process worked its way through and the decisions were 3 made, including the schedules that were incorporated 4 into the order.

5 MS. LAMPERT: The schedule that you just 6 went through -- Mary Lampert -- and I've read it many 7 times has an investment of paper for the industries in 8 the first go-around. No orders of parts, etcetera, 9 etcetera. It's paper.

10 Second, the reason for bringing this 11 petition, which is the right of citizens, is saying, 12 look, you could do this faster and the rationale for 13 doing is such and such. So because you'd say, well, 14 that's what we decided, what you're really saying is, 15 you know, we don't need this 2.206 process. Public 16 participation, in our view, is you can say things at 17 meetings. Otherwise, listening closely to what you 18 just said, you said if we decide something, grow up, 19 kids, that's it.

20 MR. RECKLEY: This is Bill Reckley again.

21 No, I don't think, if that's the way that came 22 across, then I'm sorry. That's not what was meant.

23 Of course, the petition process is your vehicle to 24 challenge decisions that the staff has made. I was 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 34just trying to lay out the rationale for what the 1 existing requirement is.

2 CHAIR CHEOK: I was just going to add 3 something. This is Mike Cheok. As part of any 4 regulatory process, the rulemaking or the orders, the 5 staff goes through a public hearing process. And 6 before these orders were put out, we had numerous, 7 numerous public involvements in terms of discussing 8 the plant safety, the current state of, where the 9 plants are at this point, and potential schedules.

10 And all that input was taken at that point and 11 factored into how our orders, the way it is.

12 And so you all provided some information 13 to us, at this point, for Pilgrim, and we will 14 definitely take into account your information in 15 deliberating the outcome of this PRB. So, yes, we 16 have taken a lot of public comments into account as 17 part of the orders, and we will take your input at 18 this point as part of this PRB also.

19 MS. LAMPERT: Well, that's important.

20 And, also, just for clarification, does the NRC have a 21 different vocabulary? The definition of imminent, is 22 it the same in the NRC as it is in all dictionary 23 definitions provided to you?

24 CHAIR CHEOK: I do not believe that we 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 35have a defined, very specific definition for imminent.

1 MS. LAMPERT: So, therefore, it would be 2 the common use as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, 3 etcetera? And so, therefore, the bottom line seems to 4 be on the timing issue that nothing is, the danger is 5 not imminent now. And I think we deserve a factual 6 support to that statement. Granted, Pilgrim now, 7 please, dear God, because I can see it from my window, 8 it's not in the process of melting fuel to which 9 they're having to add water. Now, if that be the 10 case, how could they install a drywell vent now?

11 Obviously, they couldn't. And so defense-in-depth 12 would say and common sense would say that you have to 13 follow the old Boy Scouts and be prepared, and it 14 doesn't take six years to be prepared. That's our 15 point. It's very simple.

16 CHAIR CHEOK: We understand your points, 17 and we will take everything you said into 18 consideration. At this point, I think I would like to 19 go into the regions or anybody else from headquarters 20 that's on the phone, do you have any questions for us?

21 MR. SHAFFER: Region I has no comments or 22 questions.

23 CHAIR CHEOK: Thank you. Does the 24 licensee have any questions?

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 36 MR. LYNCH: The licensee has no comments 1 or questions.

2 CHAIR CHEOK: Thank you. For any of the 3 members of the public, do you have any questions?

4 Again, as stated in the beginning, the purpose of this 5 meeting is not to provide an opportunity for the 6 petitioner or the public to question or examine the 7 PRB regarding the merits of the petition request, just 8 any clarifying questions from members of the public?

9 MS. WILLIAMSON: Yes, this is Arlene 10 Williamson. Just one last thing. I think it really 11 is important to ask you again specifically, 12 specifically why you are letting this go on for an 13 extended period of time to fix something that is 14 obviously very necessary to provide our safety? We 15 still haven't gotten to that issue, and I think that's 16 very, very important because we just can't wrap our 17 heads around why you would delay something as critical 18 as implementing this order. Thank you.

19 CHAIR CHEOK: I think the timing, we will 20 discuss the timing as part of the Board review, and we 21 will, I guess, inform Ms. Lampert and associates of 22 where we come up with.

23 So, Ms. Lampert and all petitioners 24 supporting this call, thank you for picking a time to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.

C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37provide us with additional comments on the petition 1 you have submitted.

2 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 3 concluded at 11:01 a.m.)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24