ML12221A375

Transcript of Augmented Inspection Team Exit Meeting with Southern Califorinia Edison Company, Dvd 3/4, June 18, 2012, Pages 1-47

ML12221A375
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	06/18/2012
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
NRC-1798
Download: ML12221A375 (47)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title: Augmented Inspection Team Exit Meeting with Southern California Edison Company DVD 3/4

Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: San Juan Capistrano, California

Date: Monday, June 18, 2012

Work Order No.: NRC-1798 Pages 1-47

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

3 AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM EXIT MEETING WITH SOUTHERN 4 CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 5 + + + + +

6 MONDAY 7 JUNE 18, 2012 8 + + + + +

9 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 10 DVD 3/4 11 + + + + +

12 The meeting convened in the Community Hall 13 at the San Juan Capistrano Community Center at 25925 14 Camino Del Avion, San Juan Capistrano, California, at 15 6:00 p.m., Richard Daniel, presiding.

16 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

17 RICHARD DANIEL, Facilitator 18 THOMAS BLOUNT 19 ELMO COLLINS 20 GEORGE CRAVER 21 EMMETT MURPHY 22 JOHN REYNOSO 23 JOEL RIVERA-ORTIZ 24 GREGORY WARNICK 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 PRESENT: (CONTINUED) 1 GREGORY WERNER 2 3 ALSO PRESENT:

4 PETER DIETRICH, Southern California Edison Co.

5 DOUGLAS BAUDER, Southern California Edison Co.

6 THOMAS PALMISANO, Southern California Edison Co.

7 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 3 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 (12:23 p.m.)

2 MR. STEINMETZ: (Joins during progress) 3 the 50.90 rule. The changed tube supports should have 4 fallen under the 50.90 rule. The add flow restrictors 5 should have fallen under the changed tube report. Any 6 additional water volume, the feedwater distribution 7 ring, as well.

8 I would like an answer on each one of these 9 as to why they did not fall under the 50.90 rule. Thank 10 you. 11 MR. WERNER: I'll answer the general 12 question. I'll let Joel answer the specifics for each 13 of those items. Actually, all those items did fall 14 under the 50.59 rule and they were evaluated in 15 disposition.

16 As we indicated, only two of those required 17 License Amendments. Joel, do you want to come up and 18 touch base on some of those other ones.

19 MR. STEINMETZ: That's just a statement.

20 It's not an answer.

21 MR. RIVERA-ORTIZ: Okay. Just for 22 clarification, when we talk about 50.59, we're talking 23 about Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 24 Section 50.59. And that section of the regulation 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 4establishes the threshold for regulatory review for 1 planned changes that are applicable to that regulation.

2 And those changes that apply to that 3 regulations are changes to the facility as described 4 in the Final Safety Analysis Report. And that is why 5 it's something that is very, very important, is how that 6 facility and the functions of those structures, systems 7 and components are described in the FSAR, Final Safety 8 Analysis Report, because they form the basis for the 9 operating license.

10 And we look at those changes and we assess 11 how the FSAR described those sub-components that you 12 mentioned and how they affected the threshold of the 13 steam generators.

14 And as Greg said, we still need to review.

15 We have more inspection to do in that area. But at 16 this time we don't have any indications that those 17 particular components were required to -- for a License 18 Amendment. The licensee did consider those in one other 19 process. 20 This process normally is a two-step 21 process. You do a screen where you identify all the 22 changes that are affecting your facility, and then you 23 move, does that screen in, ***12:26:10 (phonetic) then 24 you perform the evaluation under the criteria of 50.59.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 And that process was done in the course of the industry 1 process that we endorse through our regulatory guide.

2 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Hang on. Joel, stay 3 right there for a second. Do you have a follow up 4 question on this?

5 MR. STEINMETZ: I'm sorry, but I just want 6 to know from the audience. Did anybody understand 7 really why any one of those things were changed?

8 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Hang on. We are not 9 taking surveys here. But thank you, anyway.

10 MR. WERNER: The NRC was aware of the 11 changes that Southern California Edison was 12 implementing.

13 MR. STEINMETZ: All of them? All of them?

14 MR. WERNER: Yes. Yes.

15 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Okay. All right.

16 Do you have a question? Elmo, were you going to say 17 something? Okay. What's your name, ma'am?

18 A2. Marion Pak. (Phonetic). I'm a 19 resident of Laguna Beach. And I would like to 20 know -- actually I've got two questions -- the first 21 one is, when the steam generators, the four of them 22 arrived from Japan, there were some identifiable 23 problems at that point in time.

24 They were severe enough to even consider 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 6returning two of the generators to Japan. What were 1 those problems? What was the fixed that was done on it 2 and has it led to the four lemon generators we now are 3 dealing with at San Onofre?

4 And my second question is, we are 5 continually assured that the release of radiation there 6 was very small. I would like to know when we -- when 7 those generators are in the containment dome that is 8 four-foot thick of concrete and rebar, why didn't it 9 contain this small amount of radiation? Why was it 10 released into the atmosphere when it was within the 11 containment dome?

12 MR. WERNER: I will go ahead and take the 13 last question. I will let John Reynoso answer the first 14 question. He actually did what we call review of the 15 receipt inspections. We're not aware of any issues 16 associated with what you talked about. I'll let John 17 address that.

18 FACILITATOR DANIEL: John.

19 MR. REYNOSO: My name is John Reynoso. I 20 am part of the AIT and also the resident inspector there 21 at San Onofre. The way I understand your question was 22 the shipment of the steam generators was made -- they 23 never left Japan, the Unit 3 steam generators. They 24 had issues with the divider plate issues. But then 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 7arrival of the steam generators were delayed. Is that 1 your understanding of that?

2 (Off-mic question) 3 MR. REYNOSO: Well, I'm not aware of any 4 of those fixes that you talk about, but there were 5 conditions that were found with the Unit 3 steam 6 generators where they were stored in Kobe, Japan. They 7 took additional tests here on site with the Unit 2 steam 8 generators and they were determined not to have the same 9 conditions.

10 MR. WERNER: Now you could be talking about 11 the issue that was identified in Japan on the Unit 3 12 steam generator where it had the divider plate weld 13 crack, that had to be repaired in Japan. That is a true 14 statement, as far as they had to take extensive repair.

15 I discussed that during the AIT portion of the exit.

16 So, that was an area that the team specifically looked 17 at because that would be the biggest differences between 18 the two steam generators.

19 So they did have to cut-off, if you remember 20 the picture, the bottom of the bowl and the divider 21 plate, because of heated cracks, had to rework the welds, 22 re-weld the bowl back on and do pressure testing, as 23 well as post-weld heat treatments associated with those 24 activities.

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 8 But again, we did not find that those 1 contributed at all to the steam generator tube wear.

2 MR. REYNOSO: Now our process is that we 3 did a steam generator inspection specifically for 4 replacement of steam generators. We would not allow 5 Unit 2 steam generators to go in until we knew more about 6 the Unit 3 conditions, and that's what occurred. That 7 may be what you have heard. But at no time did we install 8 steam generators that did not meet our safety standard.

9 MR. WERNER: Now, as far as your second part 10 of your question about the leak, about why radiation 11 leaked out, it's because the tube leaked. So, once the 12 tube leaked, as Greg Warnick described, the tubes 13 actually separate the primary radioactive water from 14 the secondary clean water. Once those tubes leaked, 15 it leaks radioactive water into the secondary, which 16 goes to steam the turbine, which is outside containment.

17 So one of the principal radiation barriers, 18 primary reactor coolant system, which the tube is, 19 actually leaked and allowed the radioactivity to go into 20 the secondary side. So that's why it leaked outside 21 of containment because the steam goes under the turbine, 22 which is on the secondary side, outside of containment.

23 MR. REYNOSO: So, what you're saying is if 24 there is a larger accident, a larger leak than what there 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 9 was, the containment dome provides no protection?

1 MR. WERNER: If there is a tube rupture, 2 you're absolutely correct, the containment dome does 3 not. But like we said before, because of the ability 4 to rapidly detect at low levels, the steam generators 5 are isolated.

6 Now, again, the steam generators, I mean, 7 that plant is designed for a tube rupture event. So 8 there is a possibility, and I don't believe -- I mean, 9 Emmett might be able to tell me -- I don't believe we've 10 ever had what we call a steam generator tube design event 11 where both -- what's called a double-ended sheer where 12 essentially a chunk of the tube fails so you have leak 13 from both the cold side and the hot side. I don't think 14 that's ever occurred. I think we've had some failure 15 of one tube, but not a double-ended sheer. Is that 16 right, Emmett?

17 MR. MURPHY: (Off-mic) 18 MR. WERNER: But not double-ended sheer.

19 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Thank 20 you, Greg. You guys good? That's it?

21 MR. WERNER: Well, just again, to clarify, 22 again, the way that is combated and prevented to minimize 23 release of radioactivity is, as Greg Warnick identified, 24 the operators identified, and quickly button up 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 10steam generators that close the main steam isolation 1 valves and depressurize it so the primary system is less 2 than the secondary system, so it stops the leak.

3 So there will be some radioactivity 4 released, but it's minimized because of the actions that 5 the operators take. Again, as discussed before, it's 6 a combination of design, monitoring, as well as training 7 of the operators to rapidly identify, detect and 8 isolate. 9 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you Greg.

10 Sharon Hoffman, (phonetic) go ahead.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Thank you. I have two 12 technical questions and a logistics questions. The 13 first question is, I'm hearing repeatedly that this was 14 unexpected, and I'm wondering what the NRC is doing to 15 look at other replacement parts at other plants, whether 16 they are steam generators, reactor pressure vessel, 17 pumps, valves, whatever they may be where there was some 18 kind of change.

19 Obviously, when you're allowing 20 replacements, you're allowing changes in an attempt to 21 make things better. But clearly, the simulations don't 22 show what is going to happen. And we've seen that very 23 vividly in San Onofre.

24 And I'm wondering how you are applying that. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 Are you going back to look at every other application 1 of this sort that you have approved in the last 10, 20, 2 50 years? So that's my first technical question.

3 FACILITATOR DANIEL: How about the answer 4 to that one first and then we'll get your second one?

5 Okay? 6 MS. HOFFMAN: All right.

7 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right.

8 MR. COLLINS: Let me make sure I understand 9 the question is what's NRC doing with respect to other 10 significant design changes that they are implementing 11 in nuclear power plants.

12 I, specifically, for steam generators, the 13 learnings we're getting from San Onofre, number 1, we 14 talked about, we need to take a look at our processes, 15 our inspection procedures and potentially, even our 16 License Amendment review process to see if we need to 17 put more into that.

18 But also, there is one other plant, at least 19 that I know of, that has steam generator replacements 20 and we're taking a look at them as, well, with that 21 licensee to understand the design.

22 The real question is how do we know it meets 23 its design objectives when a design is made like that.

24 And so that falls back to the engineering design review, 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 12independent verification, all those engineering 1 principles that are at stake that we all rely on for 2 safety, yet somehow our life's experiences have shown 3 us over the years that design sometimes is not what it's 4 cracked up to be and that's what we've got to watch out 5 for in the NRC and make sure it does not have a 6 significant impact on safety when those types of errors 7 do occur.

8 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right, Sharon.

9 Your second question?

10 MS. HOFFMAN: I would just say that it does 11 have a significant impact on safety and you might 12 consider that precaution would be a prudent direction 13 and you ought to stop making changes and stop letting 14 engineering simulations project what we might have.

15 My second technical question has to do with 16 what about the possibility of cascading failures. So, 17 it's been discussed that when the tube burst, it could 18 have sent something flying into another tube. And 19 people have discussed here the possibility of an 20 earthquake happening at the same time.

21 Engineering failures do not happen in 22 isolation, and so I would ask the technical team to what 23 degree they are considering what might have happened 24 and what could happen in the future if that steam 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 generator went flying out, hit another tube, hit another 1 tube and next thing we know we have a much larger release 2 of radiation.

3 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Thank 4 you, Sharon.

5 MR. WERNER: Well, as part of the NRC 6 process we do a risk assessment and we'll look at the 7 possibility of the multiple tubes failing, and that's 8 being conducted right now.

9 So again, we initially did an assessment 10 for risk and that's why we lost the Augmented Inspection 11 Team, because the risk did increase by quite a bit.

12 So yes, we're concerned. It is a serious 13 safety issue, like I said. We share some of the same 14 concerns you do. We've got to understand what happened 15 so that it can be prevented.

16 And again, you know we -- there is no 17 decision that's been made. I mean, clearly, if it had 18 been, it would be started up. So, at this stage, they 19 have not done enough to demonstrate safety.

20 FACILITATOR DANIEL: A logistics question, 21 final question? Right?

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes. The logistics question 23 is there was an opportunity to submit questions 24 beforehand. We were told there would be opportunity 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 14to follow up with written questions. What are the 1 mechanics for distributing the answers to those 2 questions, and to any questions you were unable to answer 3 this evening, to the public?

4 MR. WERNER: Again, I'll take that one.

5 Again, the feedback form that Rick talked about, 6 actually I believe, is addressed to me, so I'll take 7 those questions. And if you'll put on the feedback form 8 how you want to be contacted, preferably by email, if 9 that's okay or if you would like a different type of 10 response, we can do that also. But I will have the 11 responsibility, as well as some of my team members, to 12 help me to address those issues, those questions.

13 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right, Mr. Dan 14 Hersh. (Phonetic) 15 MR. HERSH: I have two questions, and I 16 would like to preface it by trying to say what I think 17 many people here are feeling. There is tremendous 18 skepticism on the part of many of us about both Edison 19 and the NRC and their very cozy apparent relationship.

20 We wouldn't be here today if Edison had told 21 the NRC these were significant design changes and we 22 should go through a License Amendment process that the 23 public can be part of the review and there should be 24 a thorough review. And we wouldn't be here today if 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 15NRC had said we are going to do a License Amendment with 1 a full public hearing and with full review.

2 In light of that long history of things like 3 five years of fabrication of fire log records, and four 4 years of diesel generators without batteries attached, 5 and so forth, and the NRC doing essentially nothing, 6 my first question to you is, will the NRC, before a 7 decision is made on whether or not to permit restart 8 of either unit, hold a formal, full, adjudicatory, 9 evidentiary hearing in which parties, not just Edison 10 and the NRC participate, but whereby experts who are 11 critical of both of you testify with cross examination, 12 discovery and a full evaluation of whether it is safe 13 to restart?

14 My second question, directly on point about 15 your steam generators and the determination that you 16 want to be transparent, I, for three months, along with 17 numerous members of the press, have been trying to get 18 some numbers out of NRC, and I would like you to give 19 us those numbers today.

20 In early February, NRC spokesman Victor 21 Dricks said that they had inspected only one of the four 22 steam generators, that one being in Unit 2, only 80 23 percent of it, and had found somewhere in the vicinity 24 of 900 tubes that had wear, wear more than 10 percent.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 Through months we have been asking how many 1 tubes have you found with wear and we've been frankly 2 given the run-around.

3 We have just been told by Edison we only 4 found two tubes of trouble in Unit 2. We know that's 5 not true because in early February you had nearly 900.

6 So, will you tell us today how many tubes in Unit 2, 7 how many tubes in Unit 3 have wear of greater than 10 8 percent, and also how many tubes in Unit 2 and in Unit 9 3 have shown any indication of wear?

10 So, those are the two questions. Will you 11 permit an adjudicatory, evidentiary hearing on the 12 safety of restart before making that decision?

13 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right.

14 MR. HERSH: And secondly, how many bad 15 tubes are there in total?

16 (Applause) 17 MR. WERNER: The tube question, I'd have 18 to ask Emmett for the exact count. I don't even know 19 if he has the exact count. We do have that information, 20 and again, that's part of our inspection activity. But 21 there were a significant number of tubes that had wear 22 indications. The ones we've talked about in Unit 2 were 23 the two that had tube-to-tube wear. That is where the 24 large concern.

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 Now, there was other issues on the other 1 generators on Unit 2, have to do with any Unit 3 retainer 2 bar, which I also discussed, and those were measured 3 and plugged to address that issue.

4 But as far as the specifics, I would have 5 to have the raw data in front of me. I can't remember 6 all of that information.

7 (Off-mic question) 8 MR. WERNER: Well actually, we will publish 9 some of the information in the inspection report. But 10 I don't know if we will go to that level of detail, down 11 to 10 percent wear.

12 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Hang on, folks. Hang 13 on. Hang on.

14 MR. COLLINS: It's Mr. Hersh, right?

15 Hirst, I just don't think -- there's almost 20,000 tubes, 16 and so that data, we just don't have it at our 17 fingerprints. We have that, we just don't have it here 18 to relate it to you tonight.

19 And I'd like to take away a commitment.

20 What I'm going to offer is see if we can find away to 21 get that data and put it on our website and make it 22 publicly available so you can take a look at the info.

23 Would that be acceptable to you?

24 (Applause) 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 18 MR. HERSH: (Off-mic) 1 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Listen, how about 2 this. He committed to putting the information on the 3 public website so that it's publicly available. Rather 4 than him approximating, how about he does it right?

5 He's made a commitment to do that. All right. Hang 6 on. 7 MR. DIETRICH: Thank you for the question.

8 We will get you the specific numbers. Just a second.

9 I will share the percentages with you tonight. But 10 please keep in mind that we have already mentioned that 11 we measure on each tube, on each of the 9727 tubes on 12 each steam generator, we look for -- there could be 13 several wear indications as these tubes move through 14 the tube support plates.

15 Rough numbers, rough percentages on Unit 16 3, nine percent of the tubes in the Unit 3 steam 17 generators, so 19,454 tubes in the Unit 3 steam 18 generators, nine percent of them showed wear with 19 greater than 10 percent through-wall indications. Nine 20 percent. 21 On Unit 2, 12 percent of the tubes showed 22 wear greater than 10 percent through-wall indication.

23 Let me share with you that compared to other steam 24 generators in the industry, those numbers by themselves 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 are not alarming.

1 (Participant off-mic) 2 MR. dietrich: What is alarming, and the 3 reason we are here tonight, is because of the unexpected 4 tube-to-tube wear. We will get you the specific 5 information with that, with those numbers. On Unit 3, 6 we saw 326 tubes, with tube-to-tube wear, greater than 7 10 percent through-wall.

8 On Unit 2, we saw two tubes with the 9 unexpected tube-to-tube wear greater than 10 percent 10 through-wall. So we will get the information out to 11 you. I will get it to you, Mr. Hersh. But for tonight, 12 nine percent of the tubes on Unit 3 with greater than 13 10 percent through-wall wear. On Unit 2, 12 percent 14 of the tubes with greater than 10 percent through-wall 15 wear. 16 (Participant off-mic) 17 (Applause) 18 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you. Thank you 19 for your question. We are going to try to get it 20 answered.

21 MR. COLLINS: Tonight is the Augmented 22 Inspection Team exit meeting. I think if you have been 23 watching NRC all over the years, you understand our 24 processes. You might even know them better than I do, 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 for all I know.

1 But you know that inspection process does 2 not provide opportunity for hearing. I'm not defending 3 that. I'm just being straightforward with you to let 4 you know. That is the process we're in and we do intend 5 to follow our processes.

6 I will go on further to say, though, that 7 because we are so early on in to understanding what the 8 exact resolution of this problem will be, I cannot say 9 we will have a hearing and I can't say we will not have 10 a hearing. It's possible that when we consider the 11 actions that need to be taken by Edison that it will 12 drive us into the hearing process.

13 And so I just don't know the answer to it 14 tonight. But the inspection process does not send us 15 there. 16 MR. HERSH: (Off-mic).

17 MR. COLLINS: I have been back to my 18 superiors and with this question and we are in 19 collaboration on whether or not such a hearing is 20 possible. So, thank you.

21 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Okay.

22 Brian. Brian Crosby. (Phonetic).

23 MR. CROSBY: First of all, thank you for 24 the opportunity to have these sort of discussions. It's 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 21my understanding that there is a nuclear plant in Ohio, 1 Davis-Besse, that has recently discovered a similar 2 pinhole leak in that facility.

3 My question is to the NRC, what effects will 4 this have on the overall nuclear -- the overall nuclear 5 industry?

6 And secondly, just another quick question 7 is when this facility comes back up, is there a specific 8 percentage capacity that it will be operating at and 9 if so -- I know you don't want to give specific time 10 lines, but can we expect maybe a testing period and then 11 a shutdown and full-blown -- yes, bring it up --

12 full-blow, bad choice of words, but full-on, 100 percent 13 capacity startup?

14 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Brian.

15 MR. WERNER: Again, I'll do Davis-Besse 16 last. Again, no decision has been made for restart and 17 those decisions haven't been finalized. I can't 18 speculate on what the power would be.

19 But there will be, if you look at the 20 Confirmatory Action Letter, talks about a mid cycle 21 outage. So when we say mid cycle, that could be two 22 months, that could be three months, that could be four 23 months. Again, that will have to be part of the action 24 going forward. But again, no decision has been made 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 22 on start up.

1 As far as Davis-Besse, I'm not aware of 2 that, but I know we do -- actually, Emmett might be able 3 to answer that question better than I. But we are 4 actually -- his office is working on what we call an 5 Information Notice that talks about some other recent 6 issues with steam generators.

7 So again, just to reemphasize, where does 8 occurring steam generators -- the idea is not to have 9 unexpected wear and make sure when you do have wear, 10 you monitor it so it doesn't cause an issue of where 11 you have a leak. And that's why there is an inspection 12 program, because it is a mechanical system, and you do 13 get wear.

14 Emmett, do you know specifically about 15 Davis-Besse?

16 MR. MURPHY: (Off-mic) 17 MR. WERNER: Okay. Did you hear that?

18 Emmett is not aware of what's going on with Davis-Besse.

19 So I'm sorry, can't answer that. But again, there are 20 several -- I want to say three or four sites, that have 21 had recent steam generator tube issues that are 22 being -- an Information Notice that described what 23 occurred is being put out in industry.

24 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Mr. Campbell, do 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 23have a question about steam tubes?

1 MR. CAMPBELL: So, first of all, I want to 2 say that Southern California Edison is a privately owned 3 company and if they made a decision that didn't produce 4 the most profits for their shareholders, then they would 5 be removed.

6 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Is this about steam 7 tubes, though?

8 MR. CAMPBELL: It's getting there.

9 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right.

10 MR. CAMPBELL: This guy, Salzman -- I went 11 to the Diablo seismic hearings in the fall of 1980 and 12 Salzman headed the three-man atomic safety and licensing 13 appeals board panel, note that safety and licensing are 14 on the same board. They have approved all licenses, 15 to my knowledge, and to my knowledge, haven't granted 16 any appeals. So, and then Chairman Salzman got 17 appointed to a federal judgeship shortly before he ruled 18 Diablo was seismically safe, we can rest assured.

19 And then the Dietrich fellow with Edison, 20 I guess, he mentioned that over the longer term life 21 of the plant, as if it's an assumption that we're going 22 fire it up and have a longer life of the plant, and then 23 Dietrich introduced the fellow who mentioned, prior to 24 re-start, as if that's the obvious conclusion of where 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 this process is heading.

1 And regarding the steam generator tubes, 2 there is supposed to be a difference in the vibration 3 bars between Units 2 and 3. Now, Edison installed one 4 of the reactor vessels 180 degrees backwards, discovered 5 some months later, and decided to rewire the control 6 room and turn other things around to fit the backward 7 reactor. 8 Is the difference in the tube wear possibly 9 related to one of the reactor vessels being installed 10 180 degrees backward, or what accounts for the 11 difference? Thank you.

12 MR. WERNER: I'm sorry. I never heard 13 about a 180 degree backward reactor vessel. Can't 14 comment on that.

15 MR. CAMPBELL: At the San Clemente hearing 16 I asked the question -- I mentioned that and the guy 17 said, "Well, it is true one of the reactors had the 18 out-of-design orientation." So it is not a backward 19 reactor. It's an out-of-design orientation. Anyway, 20 talk to the guy that answered that question in San 21 Clemente.

22 FACILITATOR DANIEL: We'll try to look into 23 that. Okay?

24 MR. COLLINS: Well, at the risk of speaking 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 25for the team, I don't think that's been identified as 1 one of the causes. The installed configuration of the 2 steam generators was compared and looked at between 3 Units 2 and 3 and they didn't identify any configuration 4 differences in the units as a likely, or even prospective 5 cause, I think, for the issue.

6 PARTICIPANT: Thank you for answering the 7 questions as best as you can tonight. There was one 8 that was asked about the damage that was done to the 9 steam generators and so forth, and how that might be 10 affected by the level of seismic activity that could 11 be expected in California, just as it was expected in 12 Japan when they were planning for a 7.0 quake and had 13 a 9.0 quake.

14 We had a 4.2 one last week in Whittier.

15 That's not too far from here, and there is a big one 16 expected sometime in the future, whether it happens 17 precisely in San Onofre or nearby, it is going to affect 18 those steam generators and all the other fragile 19 equipment here and it's going to affect the lives of 20 eight million people.

21 Don't you know what capacity of earthquake 22 in this area this plant is built for?

23 MR. WERNER: As Elmo indicated earlier, 24 yes. Again, it is based on ground acceleration, not 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 26magnitude. They are somewhat related, but not related.

1 So, the steam generator tubes, again, during initial 2 design, seismic is taken into consideration. And 3 that's, again, why the tubes are tested to ensure that 4 they can maintain a tube integrity through all accident 5 condition situations.

6 MR. COLLINS: I'll add to that answer. You 7 know, at the original licensing of the plant the seismic 8 hazard was established, and it did take into 9 consideration the faults and the potential movement of 10 the faults and the energy in the faults, which would 11 translate into a magnitude earthquake.

12 But then you have got to build the plant 13 to something. And so how would that translate over what 14 distance, what's the soil, what are the characteristics 15 of that, to translate that energy to ground acceleration 16 at the site.

17 And so that's what determined the 0.67 gs 18 acceleration that the site is designed for. Then in 19 addition to that, though, because of the accident in 20 Japan, the NRC right now is requiring all nuclear power 21 plant licensees to go back and reestablish that seismic 22 hazard characterization based on the best, the latest 23 and maybe even have to go get some new information about 24 the seismic hazard, so we can make sure we understand 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 27the hazard, make sure the plant is built strong enough 1 to protect against it.

2 So, it's a major, important question here 3 in Southern California that we get this right. So thank 4 you. 5 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Thank 6 you. 7 MS. GREENBERG: Lenore Greenberg 8 (phonetic). It's become obvious to everybody here that 9 these tubes are horrendously dangerous, unreliable, 10 unpredictable and represent a tremendous threat to our 11 lives and the lives of our families.

12 And I'm not so sure about whether safety 13 is the first consideration here, especially for Edison.

14 I think that profit is.

15 And when it comes to these tubes, one of 16 the articles in the newspaper, I know this is some of 17 the propaganda of Edison, was that they were 18 talking -- the young man started to mention it -- they 19 were talking about opening this facility 50 percent, 20 or some level like that. What I want to know from the 21 NRC people is would that make those tubes safe?

22 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

23 MR. WERNER: Well, again, no decision has 24 been made for restart, and we don't know what that level 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 of power is going to be, but it will have to be evaluated.

1 So, again, the decision could be no restart or the 2 decision could be to restart. So that hasn't been made.

3 I just want to make things clear.

4 So again, we don't know what power level 5 it will be, but clearly if they reduce power, there will 6 be a reduction in the steam flow velocity that we talked 7 about, but again, that's not the only thing that's 8 causing the issue with the vibration.

9 So there's multiple causes and multiple 10 corrective actions that have to be taken, and again, 11 we are waiting to see what they are before we can make 12 a safety decision because we can't make it yet.

13 And again, if it was right now, if you asked 14 me right now, again, that's why they are shut down, 15 because right now it's not safe.

16 MS. GREENBERG: I realize you would not 17 know the level, the percentage at which it would reopen.

18 But would any reduction in the percentage make those 19 tubes safe, is what I'm asking.

20 MR. WERNER: Well again, without looking 21 at multiple corrective actions, I can't answer that 22 question. But if it was right now, with no other 23 changes, again, my inclination would be no. But again, 24 don't have all the information yet as far as additional 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 corrective actions.

1 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Okay. Richard 2 McPherson. (Phonetic) 3 MR. McPHERSON: Earlier, in talking about, 4 I think it was Emmett that answered the question, there 5 are some people here that are actually trying to 6 understand everything that's said. And the term was 7 used LOCA rarefication pressure wave.

8 Well, LOCAs and those sort of things I 9 understand a little bit, but some of the people around 10 go, huh? And so, when you are giving a technical answer 11 to something, please try to explain yourself in 12 something that the people can understand.

13 And when you talk about LOCA, a lot of us 14 have lived with those for four years and thought about 15 them for more ***12:59:03 (phonetic). But a lot of 16 people here that are serious people haven't, and they 17 would like to know what things like that mean. Thank 18 you. And thank you to the people that work at SONGS 19 for what you do. You do a great job.

20 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

21 MR. COLLINS: Thank you for your comment.

22 We live and work in this business every day. And 23 sometimes these things just slip out of our mouth. We 24 don't even really realize we're not using plain 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 30language. So we appreciate your patience and your 1 listening and your understanding tonight, as we do try 2 and will try to convey it in plain language so you can 3 understand. So, thank you.

4 MR. WERNER: And again, a LOCA is a loss 5 of coolant accident.

6 PARTICIPANT: Just briefly, I wonder 7 before Edison tries to fix these -- looking like huge 8 problems -- before ratepayers get asked to pay for this, 9 can you provide an honest cost comparison with, say, 10 solar panels, solar energy or alternative energy?

11 FACILITATOR DANIEL: That might be a little 12 off the subject, ma'am, but that's something -- well, 13 I know it may not be for folks here tonight. We are 14 on a certain topic. That's a question that might be 15 forwarded --

16 (Off-mic response from participant) 17 FACILITATOR DANIEL: I understand, but, 18 okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

19 (Applause) 20 MS. GILMORE: Hi. Donna Gilmore 21 (phonetic). I'm a close neighbor of San Onofre. In 22 the newspaper -- to answer your question about 23 alternatives, we don't need any alternatives because 24 we have about 40 percent surplus in every alphabet soup 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 31government agency and electric grid operators have said 1 we have plenty of power, we will not have a blackout 2 this summer. So, you know, to answer that question.

3 So then that raises the other question, why 4 do we need to take this risk, but, maybe that's off topic, 5 I don't know. Anyway, in 2009 when they 6 installed -- you're holding that, I don't need to hold 7 your hand -- when they installed the first generator, 8 there was a quote in the newspaper, "The new steam 9 generator is designed to last longer," said Mike Warden, 10 manager of the steam generator replacement project.

11 "They are designed for 40 years," he said. "We expect 12 we'll actually be able get 60 years out of it. Better 13 materials, better designs. You learn over the course 14 of the year what works well and what doesn't and you 15 try to build that into the next generation." 16 And then we had a special team of NRC 17 inspectors, and specialists in steam generators. And 18 I'm thinking about this quote, as I'm listing to all 19 these experts that we brought in and all the different 20 ones that Edison said they are bringing in, and I, you 21 know, I have a lot of respect for your skills and 22 everything.

23 But there's a limit and there's still a 24 risk. There's probabilities. And then you're talking 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 32about earthquakes even. Earthquakes is just a freaking 1 guess, you know. They come on suddenly.

2 So I'm listening to this, experts, and when 3 I see what happened, where it leaked radiation after 4 a year, and we were just lucky it wasn't a bigger 5 accident, why are we taking these risks for energy we 6 don't need? And I just can't have faith, you know?

7 I mean, that's the bottom line. Why would we boil water 8 with something that could destroy California, destroy 9 our food supply, also get to your house in Texas. You 10 know, why are we taking this risk for energy we don't 11 need? And I know you guys are working hard and you're 12 putting in a lot of time on this. And I appreciate all 13 your hard work.

14 But I feel like Alice in Wonderland here, 15 you know, dropped down some hole, and this is just 16 craziness.

17 (Applause) 18 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Donna.

19 Elmo? 20 MR. COLLINS: I think this -- I really 21 appreciate your sentiment, you know. I can convey to 22 you the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are 23 established by law. We have a certain job to do. But 24 we are not advocates or opponents to the use of nuclear 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33energy to generate electricity. What the law charges 1 us to do is, if it is going to be done, if that decision 2 is made, and it's implemented, to make sure it's done 3 safely. 4 And we're set up as an independent agency, 5 and that was for a reason, because back in 1975, the 6 wisdom of Congress said we don't want the safety question 7 to really be compromised to the extent that it can.

8 So, once that national policy decision was 9 made and the laws are put in place, you know, the agency 10 then is charged to go out and carry out that. And so 11 that's where we are at today.

12 We have got to make sure the regulations 13 are met, and I think even beyond that, I have worked 14 with licensee enough to know, that they are working to 15 reduce the risk.

16 And the question, your question is why do 17 you accept the risk using this method of generating 18 electricity. You know, that's a decision that is not 19 mine to make. Mine is to follow the law. I understand 20 your concern.

21 MS. GILMORE: (Off-mic) 22 MR. COLLINS: Exactly. I agree with you.

23 MS. GILMORE: (Off-mic) 24 MR. COLLINS: That was a key factor, 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 34 think, from the steam and that issue has to be understood 1 more fully and resolved before the unit is returned to 2 power, clearly.

3 That resolution has not been given to me, 4 and it is a difficult technical issue, I would offer 5 to you, or the answers would have already been evident.

6 But they are not. A lot of analysis, a lot of 7 engineering evaluation is left to be done before the 8 answer is produced. So we will take a look at it when 9 we get it.

10 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Elmo. We 11 had a question, a clarification for Toni Iseman here.

12 MS. ISEMAN: Hi, earlier in the evening 13 there was reference to the decommissioning of Unit 1 14 and what happens to the old generator. And the comment 15 was that because it has more radioactivity, it's sent 16 to another facility.

17 I was on the California Coastal Commission 18 when Unit 1 was decommissioned and a lot of time was 19 spent on how to get this generator on a raft, on a barge 20 to go around the tip of South America to go to the 21 Carolinas.

22 I found out after five hours on the web and 23 asking probably 10 people from Edison where it was.

24 They all assumed that it ended up in the Carolinas.

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 35It's buried on-site. The earlier reference was that 1 because these are more radioactive, they should be 2 moved. 3 MR. WARNICK: There was a 4 misunderstanding. That is not what I said. I was not 5 talking about Unit 1. I was talking about Units 2 and 6 3 replacement, the old steam generators. So Unit 2 and 7 3 is what I was talking about, and this is all happened 8 within the last couple of years. So I'm not talking 9 about Unit 1. It's something that happened years ago.

10 MS. ISEMAN: It wasn't that long ago. But 11 the question comes up and the question, I think, is 12 communication between Southern California Edison and 13 the NRC. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that 14 it was buried on-site.

15 MR. WARNICK: It's actually not buried.

16 It's in a vessel above ground, and I see it every day, 17 as I walk by.

18 MS. ISEMAN: Okay. Why did you spend a lot 19 of -- why did Edison go to the trouble of these hearings, 20 and lobbying the way they did, to move this, if, in fact, 21 it was all right to leave it on-site? What happened that 22 you didn't follow through with the approvals that were 23 granted? 24 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Toni.

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. WARNICK: It was years before my time.

1 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Peter?

2 MR. DIETRICH: The question, thank you for 3 bringing it up. We're conflicting issues. What you 4 were speaking about is the Unit 1 reactor vessel, which 5 is from the original Unit 1 reactor. There is only one 6 of those. It is still located on-site at San Onofre.

7 We are working with shipping specialists for being able 8 to secure a safe and insured and viable shipping 9 alternative. That work continues.

10 We have not concluded, nor is it our plans 11 to leave that reactor vessel on-site. But we have run 12 into over the years numerous problems with proposed 13 manners of shipping that original Unit 1 reactor vessel.

14 So that is what the issue that you're 15 bringing up specifically relates to, and we are working 16 quite diligently to continue to move that reactor vessel 17 to its final storage location.

18 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Peter.

19 I'm going to go to the back here. These poor folks back 20 here have been neglected all night. I was only back 21 here once. Why don't you give us your name?

22 MR. McDOWELL: It's Chris McDowell 23 (phonetic). My question is on Unit two. I heard some 24 different language between the NRC and SoCalEd on sort 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 37 of the restart.

1 And my question is, the NRC, will you 2 discuss Unit 2 as segmented from Unit 3 as far as the 3 restart? Are you separating that process?

4 And then the second question is, will you 5 allow temporary fixes? I heard a little bit of language 6 on long-term solutions versus the NRC saying we are 7 looking at the final solution. What's NRC's 8 perspective on both the long term and short term and 9 what's the NRC's perspective on Unit 2 versus Unit 3?

10 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

11 MR. WERNER: I'll take that question.

12 Actually, the Confirmatory Action Letter does have 13 different actions for Unit 2 and Unit 3, and that was 14 based upon the tube degradation different.

15 The wear was very significant in Unit 3 16 compared to Unit 2. So there are actions that are 17 different. Now it is important, if you look at the 18 Confirmatory Action Letter, one of the steps was to 19 actually -- you have to determine what happened in Unit 20 3 and take actions to make sure that same mechanism 21 doesn't show up on Unit 2.

22 So, does that answer your question there?

23 MR. McDOWELL: So, are we going to see a 24 resolution on Unit 2 before we are going to see a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 38resolution on Unit 3 or are they going to happen at the 1 exact same time?

2 MR. WERNER: Well, we anticipate, and we 3 can let Southern California Edison answer that also, 4 but we anticipate to have them come in with Unit 2 first 5 and then Unit 3. But again, that hasn't been finalized.

6 It could change. I don't know what the final will be.

7 But we do anticipate Unit 2 before Unit 3 because of 8 the severity on Unit 3.

9 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

10 MR. KIRCHNER: Good evening. My name is 11 Jeremy Kirchner. I am the emergency services 12 coordinator for the city of Dana Point, located right 13 next door to San Juan Capistrano. I'd just like to say 14 a couple of things really quick.

15 First, thank you to the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission for all the inspection process that's been 17 going on with the steam generators and the routine 18 inspections that happen at San Onofre every day.

19 Also, I'd like to just briefly mention the 20 communication that we have as the City of Dana Point 21 between Southern California Edison.

22 On numerous occasions, Mr. Dietrich and his 23 staff have met with our city management, our elected 24 officials, our emergency staff to update us on what has 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39been going on throughout the steam generator process 1 and this whole issue.

2 And we have routine discussions with other 3 San Onofre staff also regarding what is going on with 4 the plant, the status of inspections, and everything 5 that is going on currently.

6 And that's not just something that has just 7 happened in the last few months or since January, but 8 those discussions have been ongoing since the city's 9 incorporation in 1989 and even before that with the other 10 jurisdictions.

11 So, from our position, the city of Dana 12 Point, we are prepared to respond to any type of 13 emergency, whether it's San Onofre or not, whether the 14 plant is operating or not, and we hope that you would 15 all do the same. Thank you all for being here tonight.

16 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

17 (Applause) 18 MS. RIOKO: Hi, my name is Rioko 19 (phonetic). I'm a naturalized citizen. I am born and 20 raised in Japan. And I have a couple of questions.

21 You mentioned that steam amount was 22 released 5.2 milligrams and I am not familiar with how 23 to categorize steam to the milligrams. So could you 24 please explain to me about the amount, the strength 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 40the radiation at the source, ***1:12:28 (inaudible), 1 in, millisieverts?

2 MR. WARNICK: The number that I mentioned 3 was 5.2 times 10 to the minus 5. So that's 0.000052 4 millirem. I can't in my head do the conversion to 5 sieverts. I have a little conversion on my phone that 6 I use. But I apologize. Here in the US, we use terms 7 of rem and millirem and curies.

8 FACILITATOR DANIEL: It was 5.2 times 10 9 to the minus 5?

10 MR. WARNICK: That's right. If you want 11 to get with me after, I can put it into my little 12 conversion --

13 MS. RIOKO: That was sieverts, right. And 14 then the answer become millisieverts?

15 MR. WARNICK: Millirem. M-R-E-M. That's 16 the -- 17 MS. RIOKO: I understand milligrams.

18 MR. WARNICK: Yes, that's the unit that we 19 use in the United States to assess radiation exposure 20 to humans.

21 MS. RIOKO: Okay. And secondly --

22 MR. WARNICK: and the damage that it could 23 cause. 24 MS. RIOKO: Okay. I hope I can find out, 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 41you know, the level in sievert, because I'm familiar 1 with it. So, if you can put the answer in your website, 2 it will be helpful.

3 And then also, secondly, I'd like to ask, 4 it was supposed to be much lower amount than the limit, 5 but what is the limit? Up until how much you can release, 6 the amount of radiation?

7 MR. WARNICK: So, let me see if I understand 8 the question. You are wondering how much the licensee 9 can release in terms of radiation?

10 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Yes, what's the 11 allowed amount?

12 MR. WERNER: Essentially the regulatory 13 limit is 100 millirem to somebody, a member of the 14 public, but there's lower limits. And I want to say 15 it's give millirem. You have to forgive me. I don't 16 remember the exact number. I believe it's five millirem 17 for gaseous and three millirem for liquid. I could have 18 it backwards. But again, it's a very low level. That's 19 for a year.

20 And then going from, again, I'm going from 21 memory, the effluent that was released last year from 22 SONGS was, and I'm probably going to be high, was no 23 more than a 10th of a millirem to a member of the public.

24 So that would be 0.1 millirem, and that's probably too 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 42 high by a factor of 10 approximately.

1 So 0.1 millirem was what was released, both 2 gaseous and liquid effluent at SONGS last year. Again, 3 I could be off a little bit, but it's pretty close to 4 that value.

5 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Final 6 question here.

7 MR. WARNICK: Let me just interject. To 8 make sure we get your response back to that conversion, 9 if you could fill out a feedback form and ask your 10 question, that will ensure that we can get directly back 11 to you. 12 MS. RIOKO: And the steam, what kind of 13 radioisotopes were existing?

14 MR. WERNER: Again, without looking at 15 specifics, I think it's argon, noble gas -

16 MR. WARNICK: And iodine.

17 MR. WERNER: Yes, iodine. Thank you.

18 MR. WARNICK: The predominant 19 radionuclides released were argon 41, xenon 133, xenon 20 136, I'm sorry, 135, and then there was some iodide 21 components too, noble gases.

22 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Yes, sir. What's 23 your name?

24 MR. JOHNSTON: Harold Johnston (phonetic), 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 43San Diego. When you talk about tube wear greater than 1 10 percent, so what's the upper limit on tube degradation 2 that you're going to accept before you say it's bad, 3 and how do you monitor wear, tube wear and vibration 4 while the unit is running?

5 MR. WERNER: On the tube plugging, there 6 actually a limit in tech spec, it is limited at 35 7 percent. Once you reach that level it has to be plugged. 8 But again, that's a simplistic answer of course.

9 When they do the steam generator 10 inspections, before they restart, they have to go ahead 11 and do analysis to show that that won't be reached before 12 the next outage because, again, if it happens, it's not 13 acceptable per technical specifications.

14 So they have to go ahead and make an analysis 15 to show that they won't have that much wear before the 16 next time they get to the outage. I'm sorry. What was 17 your last question?

18 MR. JOHNSTON: How are you able to evaluate 19 degradation and amount of vibration while the unit is 20 running? 21 MR. WERNER: Actually, there is no current 22 way right now that you can evaluate vibration with the 23 unit is running. It's actually being looked at as a 24 potential method in the future.

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 44 They are doing it on boiling water reactors, 1 which is a different type of reactor. Different -- a 2 little slightly environment, not as harsh, but it 3 doesn't last for very long because it is a very harsh 4 environment. And you just can't go stick that on the 5 tubes because you may create an issue. If that detector 6 was to fall off, it could actually cause tube wear and 7 tube damage and cause a leak. So there are issues that 8 have to be explored before that gets done.

9 FACILITATOR DANIEL: All right. Mr. Cruz 10 has a question.

11 MR. CRUZ: Yes. Had there been no 12 unexpected tube-to-tube degradation and were there not 13 to be some major local seismic event and were everything 14 to go as projected, what would have been the minimum 15 extended life expectancy of this plant?

16 And I ask this to get some idea of whether 17 Southern Cal Edison has a sound business plan.

18 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you.

19 MR. WERNER: I'm not sure I totally 20 understand your question, but the plants were originally 21 designed for 40 years.

22 MR. CRUZ: Yes, I was thinking about 23 approximately $700 million already spent on the renewal 24 and upgrading of the plant, all the additional costs 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 45which will come from modifying the flaws that have been 1 found, and about the approximate loss of $1 million 2 dollars a day from lost revenue. So, this is -- these 3 little half-inch tubes have quite an expensive bottom 4 line. 5 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Cruz.

6 Next question.

7 PARTICIPANT: Given the -- my 8 understanding is that the plant originally, on its 9 40-year licensing agreement, would end in 2014. Is that 10 correct? 11 MR. WARNICK: 2022. There's essentially 12 10 years left --

13 PARTICIPANT: Okay. So how did the -- this 14 is my first question -- how did the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission find it acceptable to have, as I understand 16 it, two $600 million steam generators approved for a 17 plant that only had 10 years left, in the hopes that 18 it would last 40 to 60 years, given that my understanding 19 is that any machinery -- it's sort of like a car, I think 20 of it as a car, where if you don't do any tune-ups on 21 a car, beautiful muscle car that was built in, say, the 22 '60s and then you turn around and say, "Oh, I think it's 23 time for a tune-up," that car doesn't -- everyone 24 probably will know it, if they don't already -- knows 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 46that that car doesn't adjust well to that tune-up and 1 it never runs quite the same again.

2 So I'm wondering, again, how the NRC 3 approved new steam generators that will last 40 to 60 4 years when the licensing only goes for another 10?

5 MR. WERNER: Again, that's not considered 6 as part of what the NRC looks at as far as the economic 7 life, and it's based upon safety. The old generators 8 did have some issues. They couldn't reach full power 9 and the utility decided to go ahead and upgrade.

10 So we looked at it, again, from a safety 11 perspective, not from an economic perspective.

12 FACILITATOR DANIEL: Last question, from 13 this lady.

14 PARTICIPANT: I have a question about the 15 exact design change and since I have to include it in 16 my second question, I want to know whether the U design 17 was changed to a V design and if any of these concerns 18 were brought up by the whistle blower that was hushed 19 recently by the Southern California Edison company?

20 (Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., DVD 3 ended) 21 22 23 24