ML041900196

Meeting Transcript, Town Hall (Category 3) Public Meeting

ML041900196
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/08/2004
From:	William Jones NRC/RGN-IV/DRP/RPB-E
To:	NRC Region 4
References
Download: ML041900196 (74)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C 0 M M I S S I O N REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4005 July 8, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM FROM: William B. Jones, Chief, Project Branch E Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

MEETING TRANSCRIPT FOR JUNE 9,2004, TOWN HALL (CATEGORY 3) PUBLIC MEETING Enclosed is the transcript of the June 9, 2004, town hall (Category 3) public meeting conducted at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Luis Obispo, California. Statements provided by members of the audience have also been included. The NRC will review the transcript to ensure that questions raised during the meeting are adequately addressed.

In accordance with Section 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at httg://www.nrc.aov/readina-rmladamslindex.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

SincereIy ,

bdL-.=k William B. JoneyChief Project Branch E Division of Reactor Projects Dockets: 50-275 50-323 License : DPR-80 DPR-82

Enclosure:

Meeting transcript and statements

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CERTIFIED COPY May 9,2004 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV PUBLIC MEETING WITH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2004 6:30 P.M.

REPORTED BY CA'ROLYNN E. SPERE, CSR #lo091 McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 2 Page 4 1 APPEARANCES: 1 talk about format for the meeting, very simple set of 2 FORTHENRC:

3 2 ground rules for the meeting, and just give you an idea 4 T. GWYNN, DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 3 of what to expect in terms of the agenda for tonight's 5 M . SATORIUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS (DRP) 4 meeting.

6 5 In terms of format, we want to try to keep it W. JONES, CHIEF, PROJECTS BRANCH E, DRP 7 6 very simple, to try to maximize the interaction with all D. PROULX, SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR, DRP 7 of you. We have one NRC presentation on the results of a 8

T. JACKSON, RESIDENT INSPECTOR, DRP 8 seismic inspection that the NRC did. And we are going to 9 9 use that as a backdrop to get into a discussion of G. SHUKLA, PROJECT MANAGER, NRR IO LO seismic issues, which we know are of concern to everyone.

G. BAGCHI, SENIOR-LEVEL ADVISOR 11 And then after that discussion, we'll go on to other I1 V. DRICKS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE, RIV 12 issues that you might have.

I2 13 Grounds rules: If you have a question or you J. TAPIA, SENIOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 13 14 want to make a contact, just signal me. And if it's a L. CAMPER, NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & 15 question, I would like to operate by bringing you this 14 SAFEGUARDS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 15 G. IMBRO, CHIEF OF MECHANlCAL & ClVIL 16 cordless microphone. If you have a more formal comment ENGINEERING 17 or statement, we can either go to you with this cordless 16 Y. LI, STAFF SEISMOLOGIST 18 mike, or you can come up and use the podium that's right 17 19 here. We tried to place it so that you not only would be S. YOUNG, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, 18 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY tQ looking at the NRC, but so hopefully others in the 19 C. CAMERON, FACILITATOR 11 audience can see you talking also.

10 We are taking a transcript of the meeting, so

!2

!1

!2 !3 if I could ask you when you do talk, to give us your name 23 and affiliation, if appropriate. And in order to help 14 14

!S !5 our stenographer, Carolynn, the first time that you talk, Page 3 Page 5 1 WEDNESDAY, MAY 9,2004 1 if you could just spell your last name so that she has 2 6:30 P.M. 2 that on the transcript. And then when we come around 3 *** 3 again, you can just give your name, and that way we will 4 MR. CAMERON: Good evening everyone. My name 4 know who is talking tonight.

5 is Chip Cameron, and I'm the special counsel for public 5 I would also ask that only one person speak at 6 liaison at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And I 6 a time. That's going to allow us to get what I call a 7 would like to welcome all of you to the NRC's public 7 clean transcript. In other words, you will know who is 8 meeting tonight. And we are going to discuss seismic 8 talking. But the most important thing about that is so 9 issues with you, and other issues of concern that you may 9 that we can give our full attention to whomever has the 10 have in regard to Diablo Canyon. IO floor at the time.

11 And it's my pleasure to serve as your I1 And 1 would just ask you to try to be brief, or 12 facilitator tonight. And my general responsibility is to 12 perhaps direct is a better word, and to the point in your 13 try to assist all of you in having a productive meeting 13 comments. And I know that that can be difficult because 14 tonight. And some of my specific responsibilities will 14 these are complicated subjects and controversial 15 be to assist all of you in making sure that the 15 subjects, but that will at least -- the more that we can 16 information that's presented from the NRC is clear and 16 do that, that will at least make sure that we hear from 17 responsive, and to also assure that everyone who wants an 17 everybody who has something t? say tonight.

18 opportunity to speak tonight has that opportunity. I8 And I would just thank you all for being here.

19 I'm also going to keep track of any action items that 19 This meeting is just one point on a spectrum. And we are 20 come out of this meeting tonight. It's not meant to be a !O going to leave you with some telephone numbers and e-mail 21 summary of the meeting, but anything that the NRC commits !1 addresses tonight. If you have any questions, any 22 to looking at or doing during tonight's meeting. !2 concerns, any trouble finding NRC documents, I am going 23 And I wanted to take just a couple minutes to !3 to give you an initial contact. Please call them, and 24 talk about the meeting process before we get into the !4 they will try to help you. In fact, it's going to be 15 substance of the discussion tonight. And I wanted to !5 Mr. Victor Dricks. Victor is right there. He is with 2 (Pages 2 to 5)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page Page 1 our Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. His direct 1 got out. And I hope that our advance notice for this 2 number is right here, but if you want to use an 800 2 meeting is better than the one that we had before.

3 number, which I believe you will, it's up here. It's 3 The second piece of feedback that we got, that 4 1-800-952-9677. If you need to reach anybody at NRC 4 I thought was quite valuable, was that we, in our desire 5 headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, the 800 number is 5 to maximize the information we gave to the community, had 6 1-800-368-5642. We will put Victor's e-mail up there. 6 limited your opportunity to participate in the meeting.

7 And if you would like to get in touch with any of us, any 7 And I apologize for that. That was not our intention.

8 of the people who are here to talk tonight, just ask us 8 And so tonight, we've scheduled our meeting with Pacific 9 for our e-mail address, and we will be glad to give that 9 Gas & Electric Company for tomorrow.

10 to you and to talk to you in the future. 10 Tomorrow morning at 9:OO at the Community 11 And we are going for try to keep this informal, 11 Center, there is going to be a meeting between the 12 as informal as we can, in the spirit of having a good 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas & Electric 13 discussion with all of you tonight. And Pat Gwynn, who 13 Company in which we will perform our annual End of Cycle 14 is our Deputy Regional Administrator -- the NRC has four 14 Performance Review for the Diablo Canyon Plant. And you 15 regions. The region that handles the Diablo Canyon Plant 15 are welcome to come to that meeting. It's at a less 16 is Region IV. It's in Arlington, Texas. Pat, in one 16 convenient time. Unfortunately, we have to be efficient 17 minute, is going to come up and say a few minutes of 17 in the use of our time as well, but that meeting is open 18 formal welcome to you, and introduce the rest of the 18 for public observation. There will be an opportunity at 19 staff. 19 the close of that meeting for questions and answers as 20 Right after that, we are going to go to 20 well. So we've tried to maximize your opportunity to 21 Mr. Bill Jones, right here, and Pat will introduce Bill 21 participate and to dialogue with the NRC staff in this 22 and what he does. He is going to give you the summary of 22 meeting tonight.

23 the seismic inspection. And then we are to go right into 23 The third piece of feedback that we got was 24 addressing seismic issues. 24 that our facilitator should not be answering the 25 And with that, Pat, I turn it over to you. 25 questions. He was our public affairs officer. Tonight, Page : Page 9 1 MR. GWYNN: Thank you. Can the people in the 1 you saw that we brought a designated facilitator. That's 2 back of the room hear me? 2 his sole job. He will not be answering questions. If 3 Thank you. My name is Pat Gwynn. I'm the 3 you answer a question, you are fired.

4 deputy regional administrator for Region IV offices in 4 MR. CAMERON: That may be an advantage.

5 Arlington, Texas. And I wanted to first thank you all 5 MR. GWYNN: And finally, and perhaps the most 6 for coming out tonight. I recognize several of the faces 6 important piece of feedback that we got, was that we 7 in the audience that are here again from our February the 7 didn't have the people present to answer the questions 8 4th meeting. We got a lot of feedback from you, from 8 that you had. And in particular, we did not have an NRC 9 that February 4th meeting, and so you'll find that the 9 seismologist present, and we knew that you had issues and 10 meeting tonight is quite a bit different from the one 10 questions about seismology for the Diablo Canyon Plant.

I1 that we held in February. 1 hope that we are somewhat 11 And so tonight we have an NRC staff seismologist with us, 12 successful in improving the conditions of that meeting. 12 as well as 13 other members of the Nuclear Regulatory 13 There were four particular pieces of feedback 13 Commission staff, representing not only Region IV's 14 during and after the meeting that I wanted to just review 14 offices in Arlington, Texas, but also the Office of 15 with you to let you know that we recognize that we need 15 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear 16 to improve our process. The first was that we did not 16 Security & Incident Response, and the Office of Nuclear 17 give adequate advance notice for that meeting. W e agree 17 Material Safety & Safeguards. All three of those offices 18 with that. So this time we started a month in advance by 18 are located in our headquarters that's in Rockville, 19 sending out our meeting notice to the people that were on 19 Maryland.

20 our mailing list. !O And so I would like to, at this point, 11 Three weeks in advance, w e sent out a press !1 introduce those members of the NRC staff that are here 22 release to the local newspaper. About a week in advance, !2 with us tonight. And starting first with the Arlington,

!3 we sent out a paid advisement in the local newspaper. !3 Texas, staff, Arlington -- our regional offices, we have 24 And in addition to that, we contacted some people and !4 four. The one that's located in Arlington, Texas, is

!5 asked them to use their chains to make sure that the word !5 responsible for inspection and enforcement of the law 3 (Pages 6 to 9)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page IC Page 1:

1 that relates to the operation of nuclear power plants and 1 September the 11th of 2001. The NRC recognized that we 2 the safe use of nuclear materials in the Western United 2 had distributed the responsibility for nuclear power 3 States. And so the people that are here with me from 3 plant and nuclear material security throughout our 4 Region IV include: Mr. Mark Satorius, Mark is the Deputy 4 organization. We needed to provide a greater focus to 5 Director of the Division of Reactor Projects in Region 5 that. We developed a brand-new office. Mr. Skip Young 6 IV; Mr. Bill Jones, Bill Jones is the chief of projects 6 is here from the Office of Nuclear Security. And that's 7 Branch E in the Divisional Reactor Projects, and he has 7 in response -- he the senior project manager in the 8 responsibility for the day-to-day supervision of our 8 Division of Nuclear Security.

9 inspection program for three reactor plants, including 9 And finally, the Office of Nuclear Material 10 Diablo Canyon; Mr. David Proulx, who is our senior 10 Safety & Safeguards, we have Mr. Larry Camper. Larry is 11 on-site safety inspector at Diablo Canyon. He lives in 11 the deputy director for licensing and inspection in the 12 Atascadero. And Dave is here with us tonight. He 12 spent fuel project office, which is a part of the Office 13 performed part of the seismic inspections in response to 13 of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards. They have the 14 the San Simeon earthquake on December 22nd. Also Terry 14 responsibility for decommissioning of reactors for 15 Jackson, our on-site resident inspector, who works for 15 disposal of nuclear waste, high-level and low-level 16 David on site, and also participated in the inspections. 16 waste. And the Spent Fuel Project Office, in particular, 17 And Agnes Chen is here. Agnes is our site secretary at 17 has responsibility for the licensing of independent spent 18 Diablo Canyon. She also lives in the local community. I8 fuel storage installations, and so we've asked Mr. Camper 19 She is here helping us with the administration. And I9 to join us tonight to address matters in that area.

20 thank you, very much, for that, Agnes. 10 And so we have quite a group here. I hope that 21 In addition, from Region IV, we have Victor 11 by bringing all of these people -- it's very expensive 22 Dricks. You've already met our Public Affairs Officer. 22 for us to do this, so we have made a significant 23 Nick Taylor, Nick, would you stand up and hold your hand 13 investment in your community because we understand that 24 up in the back. Nick is a reactor engineer working out 14 you have questions, and we want to provide an opportunity 25 of our Region IV offices. And that is the group that we 15 for you to ask those questions of our people. These Page 11 Page 13 1 have from Arlington. 1 people, I hope, will maximize our ability to answer your 2 In addition to the Arlington staff, we have 2 questions tonight. I can't guarantee that we'll be able 3 three individuals from our Office of Nuclear Reactor 3 to answer a hundred percent, but I think we will do a 4 Regulation in Washington, or in Rockville, Maryland. The 4 better job than we did the last time that we were here.

5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has the 5 And with that, then, I would like to turn the 6 responsibility for licensing the operation of nuclear 6 meeting over to Mr. Bill Jones. Bill is going to 7 power plants and for maintaining those licenses. People 7 summarize the inspection that we performed in response to 8 need to have changes to their licenses from time to time. 8 the December 22nd San Simeon earthquake. We came here 9 They also deal with generic safety issues. They also 9 February 4th. We gave you an interim report. We weren't IO provide us the inspection program that we implement out IO finished yet. Our inspection is essentially complete 11 of the regional offices, and they oversee our I1 now. And Mr. Jones, we committed at that time to come 12 implementation of that inspection program. 12 back and give you a final report. And that's what we are 13 Tonight, from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 13 here for, first.

I4 Regulation, we have Mr. Gene Imbro, who is the Chief of 14 And Bill, I will turn it over to you.

15 the Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch in 15 MR. CAMERON: If we can just let Bill --

16 Washington; Mr. Yong Li, Yong is our staff seismologist 16 MR. GWYNN: Chip, I missed one person. I 17 form the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; and 17 apologize.

I8 Mr. Goutam Bagchi, Goutam is a senior structural engineer 18 Mr. Joe Tapia, Joe is a senior structural 19 working in the headquarters offices; and Girija Shukla, 19 engineer in our Region IV offices. And he was also 10 Girija is the licensing project manager who is !O involved in the on-site inspection in response to the 11 responsible for Diablo Canyon licensing. !1 San Simeon earthquake. My apologies, Joe.

22 In addition to the Office of Nuclear Reactor !2 MR. CAMERON: And Bill is going to try to be 13 Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Security & Incident !3 brief so that you won't have to just sit here and listen 14 Response, this is an office that was created as a direct !4 to us. But I would just ask if you can, hold your 15 result of the terrorist attacks that occurred on !5 questions and let him get through his presentation, and 4 (Pages 10 to 13)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 1I Page 11 1 then we will be out to you. 1 of Diablo Canyon. Although some residents sustained 2 Bill. 2 damage to their homes and property, no damage to Diablo 3 MR. JONES: Thank you, Chip. 3 Canyon from the earthquake has been identified. Diablo 4 My name is Bill Jones. I'm the branch chief 4 Canyon is built on San Luis Obispo structural block, and 5 out of Region IV with responsibility for Diablo Canyon 5 it is securely anchored to that rock structure. This is 6 and two other facilities in Region IV area. It is a 6 significant to understanding in the observed plant 7 pleasure for me to be here tonight, and I am very pleased 7 response to the San Simeon earthquake. Although the 8 to see this type of turnout from the community. 8 magnitude of the earthquake as sensed at the Plant, the 9 The NRC is here to address questions and 9 site, was only a small fraction of the design, the NRC 10 comments from this community and to provide an update to 10 did go out and inspect it.

11 the NRC's inspection activities at Diablo Canyon 11 The NRC inspectors performed an immediate 12 following the San Simeon earthquake. As Pat Gwynn 12 visual examination of Diablo Canyon. The individual 13 indicated, this is the follow-up meeting to discussions 13 examinations were very extensive and involve observation 14 we had with Pacific Gas & Electric and this community 14 of the main control room indications, outside areas, 15 last February. 15 system piping and supports. The building structures were 16 First, I want to recognize that the December 16 examined for any evidence of cracks or soil movement.

17 22nd earthquake had a real and lasting impact on this 17 Since the February public meeting where the NRC presented 18 community. The NRC has three employees located on site 18 the results of our inspections, the NRC has performed a 19 at Diablo Canyon, who were also affected. These 19 visual examination of the Unit 1 containment and its 20 employees, who were introduced earlier, are David Proulx, 20 internal structures, systems and components. I also 21 Terry Jackson and Agnes Chin. David and Terry are the 21 performed a visual examination of the Unit 1 containment 22 two individuals who are responsible for carrying out the 22 during the spring outage. It is a lessons learned from 23 day-to-day independent inspection activities at Diablo 23 the David-Bessie incident that we have NRC management go 24 Canyon. They were on site December 22nd to provide 24 out and observe the plants when they are shut down that 25 immediate inspection and assessment of the impact of the 25 includes a detailed, thorough review of the containments Page 15 Page 17 1 earthquake on Diablo Canyon and the adequacy of Pacific 1 and pulling up or going up -- to the reactor crew going 2 Gas & Electric's response to that earthquake. 2 up to areas we had problems with the David-Bessie head 3 This is in addition to the direct 3 and verifying that there is no boric acid and that 4 communications Pacific Gas & Electric implemented with 4 conditions are being identified.

5 the NRC through our headquarters' emergency center, as 5 We looked for any indications that pipes had 6 well as the State and local officials. The NRC's 6 moved, hangers and supports were intact, or that seismic 7 response to the earthquake and our follow-up inspection 7 restrains had been deflected. Our inspectors also looked 8 oversight activities were extremely thorough, involving 8 at systems and component testing performed since the 9 an immediate inspection of the plant and integration of 9 earthquake and the in-service inspections that were 10 the NRC staffs experts to identify what conditions LO performed during the Unit 1 Outage.

11 should be considered in our inspections. And we brought 11 No damage from the earthquake has been 12 Mr.Yong Li with us. He was instrumental in helping us 12 identified for any system, structures or components, 13 identify those initial systems and what we needed to be 13 including storage tanks, the spent fuel pool, or any of 14 looking for within those first few days to verify the 14 the spent fuel pool assemblies.

15 plant was safe. 15 The NRC's independent inspections verified that 16 A Region IV inspection was subsequent -- 16 Pacific Gas & Electric had followed the earthquake 17 inspector was subsequently dispatched to assist with 17 response procedure and appropriately implemented the 18 inspection of the facility. You met Mr. Tapia early on. 18 emergency plant, including the lowest level of event 19 The inspections were performed immediately after the 19 classification and notification of unusual event. The 20 earthquake and continued through March with the !O NRC did identify an issue about the subsequent reporting

!1 inspection of the Unit 1 containment. The NRC continues !1 to the NRC of the emergency sirens that were unavailable

!2 to implement a baseline inspection of Diablo Canyon on a !2 because of the loss of power. The NRC found that for the 13 daily basis by the resident inspectors and the regional !3 San Simeon earthquake, the emergency sirens were not

!4 inspectors. !4 needed; however, alternate means -- I'm cutting in and

!5 The earthquake struck 35 miles northhorthwest !5 out on you. I apologize for that.

5 (Pages 14 to 17)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 11 Page 24 1 The NRC found that for the San Simeon 1 B-e-c-k-e-r.

2 earthquake, the emergency sirens were not needed; 2 On February 4th, several county residents asked 3 however, alternate means for notifying persons within the 3 questions on seismic concerns and waited three and a half 4 emergency planning zone existed. It is important to note 4 months for a response, which contained either partial 5 that the purpose of the emergency sirens, or alternate 5 answers or non-answers. We would like to try and clarify 6 notification method, is to notify individuals of the need 6 any questions and receive full responses tonight.

7 to modify the emergency broadcast stations. 7 Mr. Jones is quoted in our local paper as 8 In January, the NRC inspectors found that the 8 stating, "We are going to stay as late as they need us to 9 seismic instrumentation, located in the Unit 1 9 and make sure we have all the individuals there to answer 10 containment dome had not yet been evaluated. This matter 10 all the questions." I personally find this puzzling.

11 was to Pacific Gas & Electric. Their subsequent 11 For over 3 0 years, this community has been waiting for 12 analysis, which was reviewed by the NRC staff, showed 12 answers to our safety concerns. If you are really here 13 that the plant response was consistent with the Hosgri 13 to listen to our voices as homeowners, business owners, 14 evaluation. 14 parents and grandparents, and not just as the NRC, you 15 The NRC is continuing the evaluation of the 15 might actually hear us. You might actually admit that a 16 San Simeon earthquake, including a June 7th update to the 16 nuclear power plant and high-level radioactive waste dump 17 seismic evaluation performed by Pacific Gas & Electric. 17 does not belong on our earthquake-prone coastal zone.

18 In summary, the NRC found, through our independent 18 The Mothers For Peace remind you that virtually 19 inspection and reviews, that the plant's response was 19 everyone in this room lives in a county which experienced

!O well within the design basis of the plant. The decision 20 a 6.5 magnitude earthquake last December. The loss is

!I to continue to operate was well supported, the 21 still being felt. And I can assure you that the first

!2 declaration of Notification of unusual Event was 22 thing in the minds of this community when the quake hit

!3 appropriate, and the conditions for exiting the NUE were 23 was, "Has there been a radioactive release at Diablo? Is

!4 met. Alternate means for notifying the community in case 24 Diablo safe?"

!5 of the need to monitor the emergency broadcast system 25 The quake made international news. Why?

Page 19 Page 2 1 1 were available for those areas affected by the siren 1 Because there is a nuclear plant on our coast. N o one 2 power outage. The emergency evacuation routes were open, 2 believes the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is truly 3 and no damage to the plant occurred from the San Simeon 3 safe. No one believes that the potential for an 4 earthquake. 4 accident, earthquake, terrorist attack, or act of malice 5 NRC has completed the follow-up inspection, as 5 and insanity does not exist, The NRC and PG&E speak in 6 we discussed during the February 4th public meeting. The 6 terms of probabilistic risk. We ask that instead, you 7 NRC will continue to inspect Diablo Canyon through the 7 consider the risk to our children and grandchildren whose 8 NRC's baseline inspection program. All reviews of the 8 future is in your hands.

9 San Simeon special reports and the insights from the 9 With risk in mind, these are follow-up 0 Long-Term Seismic Program established for the Diablo LO questions which resulted from the NRC's partial, evasive 1 Canyon license continue. 11 or non-answers and its additional responses dated May 2 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill. 12 28th.

3 We are going to use that report and backdrop to 13 And I would like to begin with questions to 4 first go to Rochelle Becker, who has three sets of 14 Dr. Li. And I do appreciate you bringing a seismologist 5 questions on seismic issues for the NRC. After the NRC 15 tonight, which would have been nice at the last seismic 6 tries to address Rochelle's questions on the first set, 16 meeting.

7 we are going to go out to any of you who have any 17 So was it you, Dr. Li, whq answered the 8 questions about that or any questions about the 18 questions, the scientific seismic questions in the NRC 9 inspection report. We are going to go back to Rochelle 19 responses?

10 for a second set of questions and do the same thing. !O MR. CAMERON: The answers that were posted on 11 So Rochelle, are you ready for us? And if you !1 the website, did you prepare those answers? And please,

!2 can just spell your name. !2 Yong, hold the microphone up closer to you so people can

!3 MS. BECKER: Yes, I'm ready. !3 hear.

14 MR. CAMERON: All right. !4 MR. LI: I was not personally involved in

-5 MS. BECKER: Rochelle Becker; R-o-c-h-e-I-Le, !5 preparing those questions.

6 (Pages 18 to 2 1)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 2: Page 2r 1 MS. BECKER: Well, I guess you are going to 1 Nuclear Material Safety -- I'm SOKY,the Office of 2 take the heat for the person who did, because you are the 2 Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards, and by their 3 only seismologist here. 3 contractors. And I believe the seismologist that 4 MR. LI: I'm ready for that. 4 actually did that review works for the Southwest Researcb 5 MS. BECKER: You're ready for that. Okay. 5 Institute in San Antonio, Texas. And he was not able to 6 A question was asked if a survey for the, 6 be here with us tonight, so maybe Larry Camper can add i 7 quote, transition, quote, has been done in the vicinity 7 little bit to what's been said about that seismic review.

8 of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant to see if there are 8 Larry.

9 any faults that are right next to shore. 9 MR. CAMPER: Thank you, Pat.

10 The NRC's response was as follows: "The area 10 As part of the application for the independent 11 referenced as the, quote, transition zone, unquote, has 11 spent fuel storage installation, the utility did go 12 been, quotefunquote surveyed as part of the Long-Term 12 through and do additional analysis and updated the 13 Seismic Program." Skipping on, "The Long-Term Seismic 13 seismic information. In doing that, one of the things 14 Program has resulted in the identification of five active 14 that it did was is it chose the dry cask storage system 15 faults with significant earthquake potential. All are 15 that it wanted to use, the high storm system, ISFSI. It 16 newly recognized or newly determined to be active." The 16 made a decision that based upon that analysis, that was 17 NRC answer later states that the identification was prior 17 done as part of the application which goes back a couple 18 to 1991. 18 years now; that they were using modifications to high 19 Is the information on which the NRC is basing 19 storm systems.

20 its decision to license an expanded high-level 20 That modification is the anchoring system that 21 radioactive waste dump on our coast really 13 years old? 21 they chose to use. That anchoring system that they opted 22 MR. LI: To answer your question, we -- NRC 22 to use is 5-feet long, 2 112 inches in diameter. There 23 requires licensee to implement Long-Term Seismic Program. 23 are 16 of them that will bolt each of the storage casks 24 Licensee spent a lot of efforts to acquire seismic line 24 to the concrete bank. So I think the simple answer to 25 offshore and onshore, and they did their additional work 25 your question is there was an update of their seismic Page 23 Page 25 1 to acquire the new seismic line too. And also they 1 analysis as part of the application for the independent 2 checked the deeper crust seismic line. Through those 2 spent fuel storage system.

3 works, they did not identify any new active faults in 3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.

4 this so-called transitional zone. 4 Rochelle, why don't you go on.

5 MS. BECKER: So my question is, Is this 5 MS. BECKER: This question was not answered by 6 information really 13 years old? 6 Mr. Cluff about the --back to the transition zone survey 7 MR. LI: It's -- at that time, we conclude 7 of PG&E, nor was it answered by PG&E's expert or the NRC 8 that. But the licensing conditions required the 8 staff. And in fact, Mr. Gwynn stated, "Well, we do not 9 licensee, if they have any new discovery, to keep us 9 have a staff geologist with us tonight." However, the 10 informed. And they are doing this continuously. IO NRC's response of May 28th still did not answer this very 11 MS.BECKER: But the information is based on I1 direct and clear question.

12 the Long-Term Seismic Program that was last updated in 12 It is our understanding that the methods PG&E 13 1991? 13 mentions in their long-term seismic final report are not 14 MR. LI: Yes. 14 adequate to determine if there is a similar fault to that 15 MS.BECKER: Everybody else is shaking their 15 which broke on December 22nd, just offshore of this 16 head yes. Okay. 16 nuclear plant, and certainly could not have been included 17 MR. CAMERON: Let me just make sure that that's 17 in their cask design program because the earthquake was 18 clarified. And the question is the recency of the 18 after that.

19 information on which this transition zone conclusion was 19 The only way to do this is what oil companies 20 reached. Can you add anything to that? And you are !O refer to as a, quote, Transition Zone Seismic Survey. We 21 going to have to do it on the record. !I understand that this is the only way to see the 22 MR. GWYNN: Pat Gwynn, again. And to be fair !2 subsurface structure below the coast. Looking at purely '

23 to Mr. Li, the seismic review for the independent spent !3 offshore and onshore seismic and geology cannot give 24 fuel storage installation was not done by the Office of !4 information on the near offshore region. For the NRC to 15 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. It was done by the Office of !5 refuse to order this survey and ignore the possibility of 7 (Pages 22 to 25)

McDANIEL REPORTING @OS) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 2r Page 21 1 faults right next to the shore adjacent to the Diablo 1 you just wait one minute. I want to make sure we answer 2 Canyon Nuclear Plant and recently-licensed nuclear waste 2 Rochelle's question about do we need to do a transition 3 dump is really irresponsible. Refusal defies the NRC's 3 zone survey and would we do one? And if you could --

4 mandate to protect public health and safety. 4 MS. BECKER: Has it ever been done?

5 During the licensing phase for the Diablo 5 MR. CAMERON: Could you address those 6 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, cost estimates for retrofits 6 questions?

7 from lack of independent NRC oversight, cost rate payers 7 MR. BAGCHI: It has been done. We have 8 2.2 billion dollars, according to a CPUC report. Rate 8 acquired information from the oil company surveys for the 9 payers across the nation are growing tired of being 9 Long-Term Seismic Program. Just because the Long-Term 10 forced to pay for NRC's incompetence in adequately IO Seismic Program happens to be however many years old does 11 monitoring nuclear facilities. These surveys may be 11 not nullify the fact that information has not been 12 expensive, but our lives and the lives of our children 12 challenged. It has produced useful information based on 13 and grandchildren are priceless, and a near-shore survey I3 which the NRC has drawn some useful conclusions. And NRC 14 must be required. 14 did not entirely depend on one utility. NRC used 15 We would like to know if the NRC will require I5 independent sources of evaluation. USGS performed 16 PG&E to commission an independent Transition Zone Seismic 16 evaluation of that infomation. And University of Reno, 17 Study, and we would like to know the answer to this 17 Nevada, conducted geological work, along with the -- as a 18 tonight. 18 contractor to NRC. And absolutely, Transition Zone 19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Rochelle. 19 Survey has been done. I have heard assertions here that 20 Yong Li, you heard the question, and there is !O no survey has been done. That is not true.

21 really two basic parts here. One, if you could perhaps, !I MS. BECKER: Mr. Bagchi, are you a 22 if you have an opinion on whether the type of information !2 seismologist?

23 that Rochelle is interested in, if a Transition Zone !3 MR. BAGCHI: I am not a seismologist.

24 Seismic Survey is the only way to get that; and also, her !4 MS. BECKER: Are you a mechanical engineer?

25 second very direct question is whether the NRC would !5 MR. BAGCHI: I am a structural engineer.

Page 27 Page 25 1 commission this Transition Zone Seismic Survey. 1 MS. BECKER: A structural engineer. Okay.

2 Do you have anything to say on that? And 2 MR. BAGCHI: There are two aspects to it; one 3 please use your microphone. 3 is the ground motion, and then how the ground motion is 4 MR. LI: So it's a Long-Term Seismic Program. 4 used to perform the capacity -- the analysis and 5 After the Long-Term Seismic Program, it's concluded, 5 determination of the capacity of the plant. And I a m 6 there is no new active faults discovered along this 6 informed about both aspects of it because I have stayed 7 transitional zone there. Although it was done some years 7 with the NRC long enough to know the operating license 8 ago, but there are several ways to uncover new fault 8 process. I have stayed with the entire Long-Term Seismic 9 lines in this offshore situation. I think a lot of 9 Program, and I was in a supervisory capacity to review 10 California aware of this factor here. IO the Long-Term Seismic Program progress and reaching a 11 MR. CAMERON: Yong, just keep that mike. 11 conclusion through the supplementary report.

12 MS. BECKER: I talk with my hands too. 12 MR. CAMERON: And Rochelle, what I hear the 13 MR. LI: So if there is new earthquake occur !3 answer being to this question is some of this type of 14 along some -- in the new fault line, it will be uncovered 4 work has been done.

15 by those concentrated at the epicenter. But since we 5 MR. BAGCHI: Yes. That is my presentation to 16 --

implement the NRC I mean, since the NRC contract with 6 you.

17 PG&E finished the Long-Tern Seismic Program, still, there 7 MR. GWYNN: I think $at it would be fair --

I8 is no such new seismic activity along the new fault line. 8 Pat Gwynn, again. I think it would be fair, Rochelle, if I9 And so those seismic line either reflection line or 9 your seismologist would like to sit down and talk with 10 refraction line. They study those seismic line. They 10 our seismologist, perhaps, you know, we can get a better 21 tell us there is no active fault line there, so it is !1 understanding and they can get a better understanding of 12 concluded there is no active fault line which can 12 what actually has been done. But based on what you've 13 generate earthquake, other than the Hosgri Fault. 13 heard from the staff here, I don't see any reason why 14 MR. CAMERON: So is our answer to the question 14 NRC, at this point in time, would require additional 25 about whether we need a transition zone survey -- could 15 investigations.

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 3( Page 3 1 MS. BECKER: Okay. Actually, our seismologists 1 exists. It is on surface geologic maps. How did this 2 are all out of the country at this moment in different 2 fold form? By faults like the one that jolted our county 3 places. And so I will certainly make sure I get a 3 on December 22nd? The 1994 Northridge earthquake? The 4 transcript of this to them and that they get back to you. 4 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake? The 1984 Coalinga 5 They certainly were not unwilling to meet. They were 5 earthquake? All of these moderate to large earthquakes 6 just unavailable today. 6 occurred on unknown faults because none of the faults 7 MR. CAMERON: And we'll put that down as an 7 reached the surface. The folds are evidence that the 8 action. 8 faults exist.

9 MS. BECKER: Yes. And I would like a copy of 9 The NRC licensed an expanded high-level 10 this survey that you did, that you said you -- and I 10 radioactive waste dump on our coast in March of this 11 don't want an answer. I just want a copy. 11 year, knowing full well that new seismic information 12 MR. BAGGHI: That copy is voluminous. It's on 12 questions the validity of seismic design of the Diablo 13 the docket. It is available to the public. 13 Canyon Nuclear Plant. What was your hurry? The reactive 14 MS. BECKER: Oh, I'm sure it's on Adams. I'd 14 spent fuel pools will not be full until 2006. The USGS I5 like a copy sent to me, please. 15 is gathering data and analyzing it as we speak. The 16 MR. CAMERON: And we'll identify that 16 Mothers for Peace raised the issue of new seismic data in 17 specifically, and we will take care of that. So two 17 our Contentions before the ASLB in 2002. And our request 18 action items: Possible NRC meeting with Mothers for 18 for a hearing was denied, not on the merits, but because 19 Peace seismic expert, and a copy of the document that :- 19 we were in the wrong forum. We were told to file a 20 MS. BECKER: That they are referring to as a 20 petition to reopen the original licensing proceeding to

?I survey. 21 discuss new seismic information.

?2 MR. CAMERON: -- that Goutam referred to. 22 Is the NRC seriously continuing to tell this

?3 And okay. Rochelle, on this particular 23 community we must raise money to file yet another 14 segment, do you have any more? 14 petition? We are growing tired of forcing the NRC to

!5 MS. BECKER: Yeah. I'm sorry my questions 15 uphold this mandate to protect public health and safety.

Page 3 1 Page 3:

1 aren't short, but they are all directed to the 1 It is your job to consider and independently review new 2 seismologist, so they all have to go together. Sorry. 2 data on the earthquake design adequacy of a nuclear plant 3 The next question: What actions is the NRC 3 and high-level radioactive waste dump in our seismically 4 taking to insure that they are not previously undetected 4 active coastal zone before making a bigger radioactive 5 thrust faults near and underneath the plant? That was 5 mess.

6 the question I asked. 6 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Rochelle. Let's go to Yong 7 The NRC's response was: "The Long-Term Seismic 7 Li for --

8 Program updates on the geology/seismology and tectonics 8 MS. BECKER: This is about folds.

9 associated with Diablo Canyon continue to support the 9 MR. CAMERON: The direct question is, Are the 0 conclusion that there are no undetected thrust faults IO folds evidence of undiscovered faults? I think that was 1 near or underneath the plant." I am still going to I1 the direct question.

12 assume we are talking about a 13-year-old study. 12 MS. BECKER: That's it.

3 The NRC response continues: "A recent 13 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Yong Li.

4 preliminary report on the December 22,2003, 6.5 14 MR. LI: There are no new -- the conclusion --

5 magnitude San Simeon earthquake discusses the probable 15 let me put the conclusion first. There are no new folds 6 origin of the San Simeon earthquake as a blind thrust 16 or faults, active faults or active folds associated with 7 fault. The NRC plans to review the integration of this 7 the earthquake under the Diablo Canyon Plant.

8 report into the Long-Term Seismic Program at a later 8 MR. CAMERON: Are yod familiar with what 9 date." 9 Rochelle means by "folds"?

!O Has the NRC looked into the possibility that !O MS. BECKER: I would just like to undo this

!1 the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant is built on top of a !1 map. And 1 am not going to pretend, because everybody in

!2 geologic fold that is caused by a fault that has never !2 the room would know that I am lying, that I am a

!3 been addressed by the NRC? We know from the recent !3 seismologist. But this is a map by some of our experts

!4 San Simeon earthquake that the fold belt is seismically !4 which shows the folds. And if you would like to pay for

!5 active. The fold under Diablo Nuclear Power Plant !5 a copy of this, we would happy to get one for you.

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 34 Page 36 1 MR. LI: Okay. 1 Mr. Li.

2 MS. BECKER: It's probably something you want 2 MR. LI: I also want to mention a little bit of 3 to look at more than three seconds, so I'll fold this 3 your first comment. Before you asked a question about 4 fold map back up again, and I will ask you to pay for it 4 the NRC's attitude toward the seismic research here. I'm 5 from our experts, and they will send it to you. 5 a geophysicist there working for the NRC. When this 6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And did you want to 6 earthquake occurred December 22nd, I was actually in the 7 comment at all on the relationship between the folds and 7 emergency response room. Although I do not -- I did not 8 the issue of undisclosed, undetected faults? 8 feel the vibration of the earthquake, but I am with you, 9 MR. LI: If we are talking about the active 9 with the people here, because I was in the emergency I O faults or active folds, which can generate the 10 response room.

I 1 earthquake, we are talking about those fault lines or I1 Whenever a big earthquake occurs in this I 2 folds -- I2 country or in the world, especially those earthquake that 13 MS. BECKER: I'm sorry. I am having a hard I3 occur near a nuclear power plant, we are a hundred 14 time between "fold" and "fault," even though you are like I4 percent concerned about those. We are extremely 15 two inches away from me, so could you enunciate? It's I5 concerned, 1 should say, because we can learn lessons 16 not your fault. I am just having a hard time which one I6 from those earthquakes occurring near the nuclear power 17 you're talking about. I7 plant. We can apply those lessons into our design of the 18 MR. LI: You are emphasizing active folds. 18 nuclear power plant.

I9 MS. BECKER: F-0-1-d-s. And actually, when I was at the emergency 20 MR. LI: Right. 10 response room, I talked to the local people, asked them 11 MS. BECKER: We're talking about the same !1 about the cracks, if there were any abnormal phenomenon 12 thing. !2 observed during the earthquakes. And I asked them about 23 MR. LI: But according to the CDMG definition, !3 the ground motion they observed. And we have a lot of 14 California Geological Survey definition, if you want to !4 exchange between the local people and the NRC staff 15 say some folds are active, they must be active within 25 member.

Page 35 Page 31 1 quarternary, within 10,000 years. But the map you showed I MS. BECKER: Okay.

2 us here, they are not active within those period. They 2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.

3 are folded, but they are folded much older than this time 3 MS. BECKER: This isn't personal. I am just 4 here, so it is not an active fold definition. They 4 asking these questions, so don't take offense.

5 didn't match with that definition. And there is no -- 5 MR. CAMERON: We have one clarification down 6 most important thing, there are no more than seismicity 6 here from Goutam on something you said.

7 associated with the folds you mentioned here, so we don't 7 Goutam.

8 have any evidence to tell the public, tell anybody here, 8 MR. BAGCHI: I just want to be sure that I 9 those are active folds which can cause an earthquake. 9 understood you to say that the San Simeon earthquake was 10 MS. BECKER: Those are active faults or folds? 10 caused by a blind thrust fault. The source mechanism 11 MR. LI: Folds, f-0-1-d-s. 11 does not indicate that, and I really do not understand 12 MS. BECKER: I'm sorry. It's not your fault. 12 where you got that information from.

13 I'm just having a hard time with the two words. 13 MS. BECKER: Actually, it's a quote from the 14 MR. LI: Does that answer your question? 14 NRC's response to me. Quote, "A recent preliminary 15 MS. BECKER: I have no idea. The transcript 15 report on December 22,2003, magnitude 6.5 San Simeon 16 will be sent to the seismic experts, and I will tell you 16 earthquake discusses the probable origin of the 17 if it answers the question. I'm sorry they couldn't be 17 San Simeon earthquake as a blivd thrust fault."

18 here. 18 That's what I said. That's'what you said.

19 MR. CAMERON: We will look at the fold map. I 19 It's whoever answered your question said.

!O think you heard, Yong. It's his opinion that the folds !O MR. BAGCHI: You are quoting somebody's

!1 on the fold map are not, in his opinion, evidence of !1 report --

!2 undetected fault. !2 MS. BECKER: I am quoting the NRC's response to

!3 And Rochelle, do you want to get out to other !3 me.

!4 people on this? !4 MR. BAGCHI: We need to verify that. I would

!5 MS. BECKER: This is my last question to !5 verify that.

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 3, Page 4 1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. We are going to obviously 1 vertical and one-half horizontal, since 1991? Where is 2 have to address that. 2 the paperwork to assure an independent review has taken 3 MS. BECKER: Let's get my third question out of 3 or is taking place on this issue?

4 the way. 4 On the question of near-field accelerations, 5 MR. CAMERON: Let him make a clarification. 5 which does not appear to be covered in any NRC or PG&E 6 MR. GWYNN: Just for clarification for the 6 reports, evidence from directly over the fault that broke 7 people in the room, because I want to make sure that it's 7 December 22nd, is that the vertical acceleration exceeded 8 clear to the local community, that it's the policy of the 8 1G. Our understanding is that what happens in this case 9 United States government that these independent spent 9 is that rocks and most everything else tend to fly off 10 fuel storage installations are only temporary measures. 10 the ground. And that the resulting recontact with the 11 MS. BECKER: I'm sorry, Pat. That really 11 ground is often severe. To our knowledge, neither Diablo 12 didn't help. 12 Canyon Nuclear Plant, nor the recently licensed expanded 13 MR. CAMERON: The point that follows from that I3 on-site, high-level radioactive waste storage is designed 14 would be what? 14 for high vertical accelerations, especially none that 15 MR. GWYNN: For the long-term, there will be a 15 exceed gravity.

16 geologic repository for the permanent disposal of 16 MR. BAGCHI: The damaging effect of an 17 high-level nuclear waste. L7 earthquake is caused by horizontal shaking. All man-made 18 MS. BECKER: And Mr. McGaffigan has just moved L8 structures are affected -- most man-made structures are 19 that another three years down the road, three to five I9 affected that way. The vertical acceleration causes no 20 years down the road. Promises have been made to be !O damage to a plant built like the Diablo Canyon Nuclear 21 broken by the NRC. So sorry, that one doesn't wash here. !1 Power Plant. Its foundation is anchored well into the 22 (Applause.) !2 rock, and the vertical acceleration is not likely to 23 MR. CAMERON: That was the last one. !3 cause any damage of concern.

24 MS. BECKER: This is my last one right here. !4 MS. BECKER: So it doesn't make any difference 25 And if you weren't so defensive, I could get through this !5 to you whether it's one-half and one-half, or two-thirds Page 39 Page 41 1 faster, guys. 1 and one-third?

2 Has the NRC instituted or commissioned an 2 MR. BAGCHI: I believe that the vertical 3 independent study to determine the ground motion on the 3 acceleration considered is appropriate for the magnitude 4 Hosgri Fault, whether it's a thrust or reverse motion, 4 of the earthquake that has been postulated.

5 which according to some geologists could result in 5 MS. BECKER: That didn't answer my question.

6 greater ground motion? 6 MR. BAGCHI: What is the question, please?

7 The NRC's response was: "The NRC concluded 7 MS. BECKER: My question is, Is there any 8 that ground motion at the site should be evaluated for an 8 difference if it's one-half vertical and one-half 9 earthquake on the Hosgri Fault that is two-thirds 9 horizontal or two-thirds horizontal and one-third 10 strike/slip and one-third reverse/slip. Thus, the NRC 0 vertical.

11 conclusion gave greater weight to the ground motion 1 MR. BAGCHI: The component of the thrust, you 12 associated with strikehlip component of motion for the 2 mean?

13 design of Diablo Canyon." 3 MS. BECKER: Yeah.

14 I'm assuming this is still the 13-year-old 4 MR. BAGCHI: Maybe the ground motion will 15 study, so I'll go on. "It appears on the question of 5 increase a little bit and the vertical components will 16 vertical versus horizontal movement on faults in the 6 not increase to such an extent that it's going to nullify 17 vicinity of the Hosgri, the NRC and PG&E's position 7 anything. I do not believe that increase of that kind of 18 remains two-thirds of the motion is horizontal. We have 8 proportion will affect the verticaf component, the safety 19 heard that the USGS is reevaluating their position and 9 of the plant due to the vertical component.

20 the Hosgri is likely to have as much vertical as 0 MR. CAMERON: And Yong Li, do you want to add 21 horizontal movement. We have also heard that this will 1 something to that for Rochelle?

22 increase the accelerations from the design earthquake." 2 MR. LI: To answer your question about the 23 What independent review of the USGS information 3 one-third and two-thirds, one-third vertical and 14 has the NRC done to uphold its position of the two-thirds 4 two-thirds horizontal motion along the Hosgri Fault, the

!5 horizontal and one-third vertical, versus one-half 5 Hosgri Fault was identified as a predominantly 11 (Pages 38 to 41)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 4; Page 44 1 strikehlip fault with some component of vertical motion. 1 provided as information because that report was issued, 2 There are many evidence to prove that. Let me just 2 so it is there just as another document to be considered 3 describe a little bit here. 3 that we will consider later on. But that is not an NRC 4 First, from the surface, you look at the Hosgri 4 conclusion at all. And you saw the reaction to that, and 5 Fault, it's very good lenient. And that's the first 5 that is because he had not seen that and he had not 6 geological evidence to indicate that the Hosgri Fault is 6 reviewed that. It is a preliminary report and still 7 a strikehlip fault. That's the first line of evidence. 7 ongoing additional review with US Geological Survey.

8 There are more. 8 MR. CAMERON: So I think we cleared that up, 9 And another important evidence is from the 9 hopefully. It's not an NRC statement. And before you 10 earthquake, distribution of the hypercenter distribution 10 go, Ma'am, just let me ask, Larry Camper, did you have 11 of the earthquakes. If you look at the profile of the 11 something?

12 earthquake, the earthquake lining up vertically with 12 MR. CAMPER: I just wanted, Rochelle, to 13 certain angle dipped to the northeast, that also tells 13 further clarify one of your points. The basis for 14 you -- it's another evidence to indicate that this is a 14 licensing the ISFSI was based upon three things. One was 15 strikehlip fault because if it's a reverse fault, the 15 analysis that showed that spent nuclear fuel can continue 16 angle could be gentle. And also, according to some of 16 to be stored there safely, the design basis for the 17 the research, they believe those faults are called 17 earthquakes -- I recognize you might have some argument 18 Listric faults. 18 with that, but that was one criteria.

19 MS.BECKER: Listric? 19 The second criteria is the fact that the 20 MR.LI: Yeah. So if that's the situation, you 20 utility provided additional earthquake analysis and chose 21 won't see the earthquake that had that kind of lenient on 21 to modify the high storm by using anchoring bolts that 1 22 the profile. You will see it's going to be bending a 22 mentioned a few moments ago. That was another criteria.

23 little bit more. So basically there are many evidence 23 And the third criteria is for that cask or any 24 tell us you that Hosgri Fault is predominantly a 24 cask, one of the design criteria that we evaluate when we 25 stri ke/slip fault. 25 approve a certificate of compliance for a cask is severe Page 43 Page 45 1 And also another factor -- and all those 1 earthquake analysis, so those three things were the basis 2 evidence will be -- as I understood, will be published by 2 for the licensing the ISFSI in terms of the earthquake 3 USGS professional paper will be published soon, and those 3 considerations.

4 results are summarized there. When it is published, I 4 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Larry.

5 can obtain a copy and send it to you for your reference. 5 Let's go to you. And if you could, just first 6 MS. BECKER: I would appreciate that. 6 time, just spell your name, and then we'll go over to 7 MR. LI: Another evidence -- I just mentioned 7 you.

8 two of them. Another evidence is the horizontal slip 8 MS. GROOT: My name is Henriette Groot. The 9 rate is must steeper than the vertical slip rate. The 9 first name is spelled H-e-n-r-i-e-t-t-e; last name is 10 horizontal slip rate is 1 to 3 millimeters per year. But 10 G-r-o-o-t.

11 the vertical slip rate is much lower than that. 11 And I kind of muscled my way into this 12 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Rochelle. I would like 12 discussion because I was present at the Diablo 13 to -- 13 Independent Safety Committee meeting last week, June 2nd, 14 MS. BECKER: I'm done with that line. 14 and there was all this discussion about seismic matters.

15 MR. GWYNN: Excuse me, Chip. We have a little 15 Dr. Cluff, from PG&E, gave a report, and I felt that it 16 clarification here for Rochelle. 16 was relevant that you should know what was said there. I 17 MR. JONES: Bill Jones. With regard to, I 17 can't pretend to give a full report; I8 believe, I feel the section to the one answer you are 18 He did state quite clearly that since the I9 referring to when we talked about a recent preliminary 19 Long-Term Seismic Study was finished in '91, there have 20 report on December 22,2003, magnitude 6.5 earthquake, 20 been a great deal of additional data collected, some of 21 we provided that in our answer because that report came 21 it on new faults. And I am a little hazy on that. But 22 out at about the same time we are issuing the answers to 22 his clear statement was that there was a lot of 23 these questions. 23 additional information which had not been put out in a 24 We had not drawn any conclusions from that 24 report yet and that USGS and PG&E would come out with a 25 report. We had not reviewed that report. That was 25 report -- would try to integrate this data and come out 12 (Pages 42 to 45)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 41 Page 41 1 with a report later this year. 1 that's Board of Supervisors, San Luis Obispo.

2 But the critical point I wanted you to be aware 2 MS.BIANCHI: Well, I'm not speaking for them.

3 of is that he did say there was a lot of additional 3 M R . CAMERON: I know you're not, and we want to 4 information that had come out. I have other questions 4 be clear. Thank you for those comments.

5 and comments, but they can wait until later, I'm sure. 5 How are we going to address the action items in 6 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much for pointing 6 terms of getting the information out to people? And 7 that out to us, and we will look forward to you speaking 7 regardless of whether it's connected to the action items 8 again, and we are going to go over right here. 8 at all, do you have anything to say about other meetings 9 And if you could just give us your name and 9 with the public to go through this type of information?

10 spell it for us. 10 Pat, I think that's one for you.

11 MS. BIANCHI: My name is Shirley, that's 11 MR. GWYNN: Can you hear me in the back of the 12 S-h-i-r-I-e-y, and last name is Bianchi, B-i-a-n-c-h-i. 12 room?

13 And I am a member of the Board of Supervisors, but I am 13 We haven't really planned further down the road 14 not authorized to speak for them tonight. 14 in terms of whether or not another meeting is needed.

15 I was really interested in the comment that the I5 Obviously, we desire to satisfy your questions, answer I6 on-site storage would be temporary. You know we are 16 all those questions to your satisfaction. And so if, in 17 dealing with something that has a half-life, as you well 17 fact, as a result of this meeting, it looks like we need 18 know, of 250 years. So for us, "temporary" is relative. 18 to come back to have a follow-up meeting, I think that at 19 I doubt very much, if the state of Nevada has anything to 19 least some of us would be pleased to do that. I can't 20 do with it, that Yucca Mountain will be the repository. !O guarantee you that we can bring this large a group again 21 There may be one sometime, someplace, somewhere, but I !I in the near future, but I think we would like to have the 22 don't think we should depend on Yucca Mountain, just as !2 opportunity to communicate with you.

23 we were told that there would be a Ward Valley for !3 But more recently, or to be more prompt in 24 low-level. Well, we managed to get that one stopped as 14 answering the questions, I am sure we will take an 25 well. !5 approach, like we did the last time, which is to get the Page 47 Page 49 1 But my other comment, dealing with seismic 1 transcript from the meeting back, review that transcript 2 stuff, obviously, we are really concerned because of the 2 against the information that we brought from our own 3 earthquake. And I am really concerned with some of the 3 notes from the meeting, to prepare answers to questions 4 comments that were made because I live virtually on top 4 that were not adequately answered here in the meeting, 5 of the epicenter of that earthquake. And I have a very 5 and to post those answers on our website, and to make 6 large boulder in my front yard. It was -- well, it used 6 them available to our electronic public document room, 7 to be about 6-feet square, you know, about that. It was 7 that Adams system.

8 a boulder; now it's two boulders. So when you tell me 8 I know that I heard a couple people have 9 that the plant is anchored in rock, this doesn't really 9 skepticism about Adams. And I would like to say that if IO encourage me a whole lot because the rock can break as .o you tried Adams in the past and you didn't like it, you L1 well. .1 really ought to try it again, because we eliminated --

I2 We are really pleased that you are having a 2 and for people who are not technically informed, it's L3 public meeting tonight. We really are. We are really 3 confusing to me, believe me. There is a system called L4 happy that you are listening to our concerns. My 4 Citrix, and Citrix was not friendly to people's home 15 question is, Will you be back at another public meeting 5 computers, and it made some people have trouble using our 16 to tell us what the results of the action items are going 6 Adams system. We've eliminated Citrix. It's now L7 to be; that you have actually listened to what our 7 directly web-enabled. If you have a web browser on your 18 concerns are going to be; that you will actively respond 8 computer, you can get into our pbblic document room. If L9 to those concerns; and that you will actively let us know 9 you have Adobe Acrobat Reader, or similar, you can

!O what you are going to do about those concerns? Because 10 download the documents, and you will be able to read them

!1 frankly, we are all a little bit tired of going to public !1 on your computer.

!2 meetings and being listened to. :2 13

!4 So for those people who have computers in their 13 Thank you. homes, you will be able to download that information and

!4 (Applause.) we have a website that's specifically designated to 15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Shirley. And :5 Diablo Canyon. And the handout that we provided you at 13 (Pages 46 to 49)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 5( Page 5:

1 the beginning of the meeting, it identifies that web 1 take it this is steam generator tubes, and other people 2 location. And so hopefully, that will help you to get 2 may have issues, so please be patient. We will get 3 prompt answers. And then, we'll be able to follow-up. 3 through the seismic. I will put it up here, and we won't 4 And Shirley, thank you very much for your 4 forget to go back to it.

5 commen t. 5 And thank you.

6 MS. BIANCHI: I would like an answer to the 6 David Weisman.

7 question. Will you be coming back? 7 MR. WEISMAN: David Weisman, W-e-i-s-m-a-n.

8 MR. GWYNN: I believe we will be coming back. 8 And I would like to address sort of the part two of the 9 Maybe not this same group. 9 seismic issue. What happens when the ground stops IO MR. CAMERON: Okay. And we have a quick IO shaking? Sorry, I am just middle age now, and this 11 question here, and then we are going to go to David 11 glasses thing about not being able to see all of you and 12 Weisman, and then we are going to go to you, and we'll 12 read at the same time. Anyone experience that before?

13 keep going through. 13 It's like new to me.

14 You have a quick question for us, and please 14 My concerns involve the aftermath of the 15 tell us your name and spell it. 15 San Simeon earthquake and involve the question as to 16 MS. ANDERSON: Good evening. My name is Carol 16 whether the NRC is truly regulating emergency 17 Anderson. It's C-a-r-0-1, A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. And I was 17 preparedness for seismic or other event -- it could be a 18 one person that attended the meeting last week. It was 18 terrorist event -- that would require the enactment of 19 the concluding meeting, and I wanted to thank PG&E 19 the Alert Notification System and Evaluation Plan, or 20 personnel, very generous with their time at the meeting; 20 merely, as we will later see in an answer, passing the 21 however, I was the only one in that meeting. And I was 21 buck on to other agencies.

22 going to approach this question tomorrow, but I realized 22 As a primer, just a quick show of hands of the 23 that I probably wouldn't have the rest of the public 23 assembled people from the NRC here this evening, How many 24 here. 24 do happen to have a personal residence within the 17 mile 25 I was a little disturbed earlier when people 25 primary evacuation zone of a nuclear reactor?

Page 51 Page 52 1 started breaking into laughter. I just wanted to ask a 1 MR. GWYNN: Today?

2 concerned and serious question. And I would address this 2 MR. WEISMAN: As of today. Okay. That's just 3 to Mr. James Dyer. I know he is in charge of the nuclear 3 because sometimes when you say "we are with you on this 4 reactor regulation with the NRC. I know he is not here, 4 in the control room in Arlington, which is not a seismic 5 but maybe it can get back to him. 5 area, keep that in mind. It's really scary when it's 6 But at the meeting last week, it was discovered 6 your own dishes and things that are falling all over the 7 that there are 85 tubes of degradation. And the quote 7 place.

8 was made that these same tubes were cracking over a year 8 I would like to ask the question why the NRC is 9 ago. It's a critical area. And the U-bends on these 9 not considering, and has not considered in the past, the IO tubes -- and I'm not engineer. So forgive me, I don't IO symbiotic effect of both an earthquake and an accident at 11 know where they lie within the reactor, but on the I1 the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. At the time of 12 Huntington steam generator, these Huntington are 12 the licensing, the interveners were told the two 13 American-made. They are no longer made in America. The 13 incidents would be look at separately, but not together; 14 bending processes are now bent in Sweden because there is 14 however, as the events of the morning of December 22nd 15 a problem with these cracking tubes, and there is leakage 15 demonstrated, there could b e an earthquake and there 16 still occurring. 16 could have been an accident at the plant. What is the 17 So it would be interesting to find out if the 17 potential problem for the 240,OqP resident of this 18 NRC is going to go along with PG&E and have these 18 county, and how would that be addressed?

19 replaced or repaired, because right now, they are not 19 Another show of hands here, How many people

!O being so, and PG&E did mention that. !O here at the NRC attended or received a transcript from

!I Thank you. !1 the California State Seismic Commission hearing held in

!2 MR. CAMERON: And Carol, I am going to put that !3

!2 Paso Robles on March 1 Ith and 12th of this year? Okay.

!3 in "parking lot right now. How many have sought to obtain a transcript of that

!4 Where is Carol? I am going to put that in a !4 meeting? Because, you see, there is some very

!5 parking lot, and we will come back and address this. I !5 interesting facts that come to light among the 14 (Pages 50 to 53)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 9 Page 51 1 seismologists from the State who were there. 1 will add another layer of public safety and free up 2 The verbatim transcript has not been prepared, 2 police and firefighters. Currently if the sirens fail, 3 but I have the minutes. But before I get to the minutes 3 fire agencies must alert the public using public address 4 of that meeting, let me quickly summarize your own NRC 4 systems on their vehicles. David Oatley, the general 5 report, dated January 30th, 2004, on the earthquake, from 5 manager of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, stressed that even 6 page 14. "The Emergency Operating Facility advised the 6 without battery backups, the siren system is 99.7 percent 7 control room of damage to Highway 46 and falling rocks on 7 reliable," I guess except on the morning of December 8 Highway 41," though earlier we heard it said that there 8 22nd. "The County has a fallback procedure for notifying 9 was not a problem with traffic or that kind of thing. 9 the public. The use of public address systems and the 10 "4 1 and 46 had debris on the road and 46 10 police." His quote is, "The equation that no sirens 11 experienced buckling, but the highways were passable for 11 equals you are not safe is not accurate," Oatley said.

12 emergency response," not evacuation emergency response. 12 Well, I have some questions about this. I 13 "In addition, the personnel in the EOF communicated the 13 would like to know, since the NRC response to our 14 status of the emergency sirens that were inoperable 14 concerns cites joint authority with FEMA, would the FEMA 15 because of power outages in San Luis Obispo County." 15 representative here this evening kindly identify him or 16 As we all know by now, or maybe some who don't, 16 herself?

17 56 of the 13 1 emergency sirens were inoperable because of 17 Okay. That's an answer. It's going to be a 18 power outages. "Alternate means of notifying people 18 question. If it's a joint thing, we want to know who is 19 within affected areas were unavailable," and this we've 19 looking out for us. If the buck is going to passed from 20 heard, and I'll get to that on page 2. 20 one agency to another, then at least bring the other ones 21 Now, when we asked at the original meeting, 21 in so they can take half the lashing.

22 "Why is there not backup power supply for the emergency 22 Is there anyone here besides the supervisor 23 notification sirens within the emergency planning zones," 23 from the County tonight who represents emergency 24 answer, "Current Federal regulations do not require 24 services?

25 emergency notification sirens within emergency planning 25 Okay.

Page 55 Page 57 1 zones to have backup power. The NRC regulations are 1 MR. CAMERON: You are not batting a hundred, 2 published in Appendix E, Title 10, Codes of Federal 2 are you?

3 Regulations, Part 50, New Reg, 0654, FEMA REP-1, a joint 3 MR. WEISMAN: Nor are we.

4 publication of the NRC and FEMA, Federal Emergency 4 Well, this brings up the next point. There is 5 Management Act, published in 2002, criteria for 5 a serious communication problem here, isn't there? This 6 preparation and evaluation of radiological emergency 6 is not the first and only place where this is happening, 7 response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear 7 folks. This is a national epidemic. Many of you may 8 power plants. That's what I read over breakfast this 8 have seen, from U.S.News and World Report, just two 9 morning. 9 weeks ago, "Excuse me. Can we talk? Why Emergency LO "In the event the emergency sirens are not 10 Responders Still Can't Communicate With Each Other." It II available and are needed, alternate means of notifying 11 is happening in New York. It is part of the 91 1 12 the public have been established, including the use of 12 investigation. We know that these emergencies can happen 13 local law enforcement." And here is the question, which 13 as a result of earthquakes or terror threats, and we are 14 is why I wondered who was or wasn't at the seismic 14 seeing here in this county, spearheaded by the agencies 15 commission meeting here in our town. And the thing is 15 at the top, FEMA and the NRC, a lack and a neglect of 16 this: The fact is those systems don't work and didn't 16 concern for those problems here.

17 work. And these were reported at that meeting, and 17 More than two years after September 1 lth, we 18 that's what I will get to now. 18 see this happening in New York: So moving to the 19 Just to quickly update for those who may be new 19 conclusion here, "It took the earthquake itself to reveal

!O to that part of the issue, from the Tribune here on March 20 that a loss of power to the emergency siren system is

!1 26th, so we don't get off on the wrong foot, "PG&E will 11 indeed a reality, even though a static system of the test

!2 equip the County's emergency warning systems with battery !2 is conducted every year. What procedures and policies is

!3 backups by the end of 2006." 13 the NRC going to require at facilities to create a

!4 From the same article, "Ron Alsap, a County !4 testing model that truly takes into account all

!5 Emergency Service Coordinator, said the battery backups !5 scenarios?"

15 (Pages 54 to 57)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 51 Page 6(

1 In addition, "Approximately 60,000 San Luis 1 remarks, "Power outages pose the greatest challenge in 2 Obispo County residents lost three to five hours of 2 sustaining customer service and most significantly," she 3 electricity at the time of the quake." That's one out of 3 writes, "and formal emergency response plans don't work 4 four residents. Without the power, how were these people 4 well even on small systems. That is my conclusion." She 5 going to turn on the TV and the radio, assuming everyone 5 is the County's Utilities Manager and Division 6 has read the instructions in the phone book and has a 6 Supervisor.

7 battery-powered backup kit in their emergency 7 So, so much for my confidence in the statements 8 preparedness thing? So how would they able to turn on 8 of Mr. Alsap and Mr. Oatley. Where is the interagency 9 the TV or radio to hear the alerts that would be 9 communication that seems to be lacking that we hear is 10 required? Perhaps they would call from their cell 10 endemic across the nation? And that includes the NRC I1 phones. 11 here tonight. No one should be under any 12 How many people here used their cell phone at 12 misunderstanding in this room. As we have been told that 13 the time of the earthquake? 13 the emergency alert system in this county is not really 14 A couple of them. Okay. 14 for Diablo Canyon, it's for Tsunami warnings and other 15 You can't. And here is why. And this is from 15 things of civil disobedience as well. If that's the 16 Christine Ferrara, Utilities Division Manager, County of ,6 case, then why isn't there one in Santa Barbara County?

17 San Luis Obispo County, from her Power Point presentation .7 So that must be passed along.

I8 at the seismic commission hearing. Quote, from !8 You can pass the buck to FEMA or the County, or 19 Ms. Ferrara, "Cell towers connected to failed water tanks 9 you can step up and take the plate in the lead role in 20 will also fail also and at critical times. TCSD tanks at !O coordinating this effort. I'm assuming at tomorrow's 21 cell towers and the epoxy connections all failed." Okay. !I meeting you present the matrix charts that show how the

!2 The second loss of communication. !2 reactors do in a variety of areas. That's a typical

!3 With the loss of communication, how will !3 end-of-cycle thing. Let m e be correct, this is first

!4 residents know about an evacuation? Well, the next !4 quarter, 2004, performance summary. Letting you know

!5 assumption is law enforcement will go out with their !5 that that's what we are dealing with.

Page 59 Page 6 1 1 megaphones. Right. Except that in Morro Bay, the garage 1 Under "Reactor Safety" -- I'm sorry I don't 2 doors jammed shut on the fire truck station as a result 2 have a color print and a Power Point for you folks. I 3 of it. Luckily, they had moved the big truck outside the 3 don't know much about that on computers, but here is 4 night before. Coincidence only. 4 Emergency Preparedness, and here is the one marked "Alert 5 We also know from Ms. Ferrara's report that 5 and Notification Systems." And it's gets a G for green.

6 there was a police station in San Luis Obispo where the 6 You get reds, yellows and greens. Green is go; yellow is 7 doors jammed shut on the thing. Now, it's just a couple 7 like "hey, hey"; and red is "huh-uh."

8 of examples, but it's the kind of thing that we can't 8 Well, here we are, quite a ways after the 9 count on. So when we're assured that there are backups 9 earthquake. To my knowledge I have not seen 0 to the backups, of which there are still no backups at 0 solared-powered backup batteries or things installed on 1 this point, it's a little bit concerning. 1 these yet. So as far as we know, we're still operating 2 The next thing about that would be, and I don't 2 under the same system that existed. How could these 3 want to use the euphemism here, the logic tree, because 3 people have a green when, in fact, were the same thing to 4 what we've heard from tree so far is that the G forces 4 happen again tomorrow, there is absolutely no assurance 5 uproot them and throw them. But we hear from Lou 5 that the emergency alert system would work any better, 6 Rosenberg, the County's geologist, and we have seen 6 except for your statement that, "Well, it's up to FEMA 7 photographs of rocks and boulders on Route 46, the two 7 and the County"?

8 principal east-west evacuation routes. Unless this NRC 8 MR.CAMERON: Okay. David, thank you. And I 9 begins to look at the coincident events of earthquake and 9 know the NRC would be interested in that transcript from

0 accident at the plant, they will see an orderly 0 the March --

I1 evacuation is not possible. If the roads themselves are 1 MR. WEISMAN: 1 lth and 12th.

.2 damaged and were damaged by the quake, that could cause 2 MR. CAMERON: -- March 1 lth and 12th. So if we 13 the damage at the plant. And you can see Mr. Rosenberg's 3 could get that from you.

4 slides, which are available for that. 4 And I think that there is two issues for NRC to

15. TO further conclude with Mrs. Ferrara's 5 address right now. And one is a general issue about 16 (Pages 58 to 61)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 6 Page 68 1 communication, notification of the public. David went 1 MR. SATORIUS: You know, I want to be as 2 through a number of problems with that. Can someone frorr 2 accurate as I can, but I know that -- somebody help m e 3 the NRC talk about that aspect of it? And then there is 3 here. The Director of Emergency Preparedness, and they 4 the specific question that was raised about the greedred 4 just went over to NSIR recently, but they had a 5 finding. So can we do those, and then we will go to this 5 directorate that was put in place about two months ago, 6 young woman right here for her question. 6 which elevated it beyond a group with a first line 7 Who is going to handle that for us? 7 supervisor to a manager with several supervisors. And 8 MR. SATORIUS: Yes. Mark Satorius. And let me 8 that took place -- I want to say, since the first of the 9 talk to you about the communications aspects of it, 9 year.

IO because I think a that's very important aspect. IO A month ago, so it's been this year.

I1 MR. WEISMAN: Do you mean communications I1 MR. CAMERON: Mark, could you give David -- and 12 between agencies or communications between the reactor 12 we are going to go to this red/green.

13 community and the plant itself? 1.3 MR. PROULX: To address the greedred issue, in 14 MR. SATORIUS: I think between agencies. And I I4 the performance indicators, what they report, with 15 want to start with answering by the focus that our 5 respect to the sirens, is the percentage of time that

'6 chairman has pointed towards the importance of emergency 6 they are available. During the San Simeon earthquake, 7 preparedness. It's always been one of the three major 7 there were a number of them that were not operable 8 areas that we focus our agency's response to. 8 because of the loss of power. But that was for about a

,9 But very recently he came out with a statement 9 period of about five hours, three to five hours depending

!O -- previously our agency has focused on being a safety 10 on the location of the siren. Now, five hours in an

!I agency. Our chairman recently came out with a refocus to 11 entire quarter doesn't make up a very high percentage --

!2 the staff that we need to focus not only on safety, but 12 MR. WEISMAN: Unless it happens at the time of

!3 we need to focus on nuclear security, and we need to !3 the accident.

!4 focus on emergency preparedness. And that statement !4 MR. PROULX: There wasn't an accident.

15 focused the staff with we need to take an additional .s MR. WEISMAN: There wasn't this time.

Page 6: Page 65 I effort to look at that triad, because they all relate 1 Here w e go. Sir, just so I can -- save your 2 very closely to each other. 2 paper change. Red, green and yellow, here w e go, folks, 3 And to give an example on how that has played 3 yellow, green and red. We will now begin passing out the 4 through, there is -- at the highest levels of the agency, 4 colored plates because since they can grade the reactors, 5 there is a Deputy Executive Director whose sole purpose 5 w e can grade the graders. So for those who would like to 6 is nuclear security and emergency preparedness. And 6 take a plate this evening, and we'll pass them out, when 7 that's a new change within the staff. 7 you begin to hear answers and things you think w e are 8 Emergency preparedness has taken a very, very 8 being given the line straight and all, you give them a 9 high level of interest, and very, very high level of 9 green, folks. You think there are some questions, you 0 focus and resources applied to within out agency. We 0 can give them a yellow. And you think somehow it's not 1 have increased the staff there. We understand the 1 being met by those needs, you can give them a red.

2 necessity for there to be good communications between 2 Five hours out of a quarter.

3 ourselves and FEMA. The purpose of this reorganization 3 MR. CAMERON: David, thank you for those 4 is to put an exclamation point at the end of that 4 instructions. I think people will know that.

5 sentence to make sure that that happens, because we 5 But I do want to give David, our resident 6 realize the necessity for that to happen so that I-- 6 inspector, to complete the answer to that question, and 7 guess we are not up here as the sole bag holder, as you 7 then we are going to go right here, and then w e will go 8 pointed out; we can have our Federal partners in line 8 right there.

9 with us and working together. 9 Let's give him a chance to complete what he 0 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Can we go to the greedred 0 said.

1 issue? 1 David, go ahead.

2 UNIDENTIFIED: Can I ask a quick question about 2 MR. PROULX: The performance indicators are 3 when did the reorganization start? 3 based on the percentage of time that the sirens are 4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. The question is, When did 4 available for the entire quarter. Now, for it to go from the reorganization start? 5 green to white or to another -- the sirens have to be 17 (Pages 62 to 65)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 61 Page 6 1 inoperable about five percent of the time. And for the 1 And then we have some people over here, and I 2 entire quarter, they were available only less than one 2 know that we have some people here. We will get back to 3 percent of the time. 3 you. Go ahead, Gene, very, very quickly, please, if you 4 MR. CAMERON: And these criteria, for people 4 can.

5 who are interested on how this is set, if people want to 5 MR. IMBRO: Part of what I am going to say is 6 see what the criteria is, what documents, what do they 6 what Pat has said, maybe in a little more detail, so you 7 look at to see what the criteria are, if that would be 7 can get your red plates out and we can see them.

8 useful for people? 8 First of all, the reason that seismic and an 9 MR. GWYNN: Can you hear me again? Pat Gwynn. 9 accident are not combined is that in containment 10 I wanted to add to what's been said so far. IO building, are the buildings that house safe-related 11 You may have heard about the power loss that 11 equipment, and the reactor coolant system, which contains 12 was experienced in the Northeast last summer. And as a I2 all the radioactivity, is all designed to withstand at 13 result of that power loss, the agency recognized that I3 least the Hosgri earthquake, which is postulated as the 14 there may be a need for relooking at some of our 14 worst earthquake, and possibly more.

15 requirements for alert notification systems, so there is 15 So the seismic event is not going to cause an 16 an internal review that's going on in that area. I can't 16 accident because the plant is designed for that 17 tell you what the results of that will be, but that 17 eventuality, possibly. And secondly, I understand, but I8 internal review is undergoing right now. 18 also, even though the plant is designed for the seismic 19 I wanted to also state that at the time that 19 event, it won't cause an accident. As part of a defense, 20 the NRC's requirements for alert notification systems !O all the safety systems that are required to mitigate an 21 were established, that there was no such thing as a solar !1 accident or also designed to be functional during and 22 backup system. SD that's why you had such things as !2 after the seismic event. So the premise is basically 23 route alerting as possible options. There are other !3 flawed that we will have an accident and an earthquake.

24 options that different utilities use. Some people have !4 You may choose not to believe that, but that's what we

!S tone alert radios that are activated in people's homes in !5 believe, and that's what's documented in our SER.

Page 67 Page 69 1 order to provide that type of alert notification. 1 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much.

2 Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Weisman if 2 And we're finally going to get to you.

3 there was any question in his mind on December 22nd, if 3 Do you need to do something, Carolynn?

4 there was any question in your mind on December 22nd that 4 MR. GWYNN: Let's take a break.

5 there had been an earthquake in this county. So were you 5 MR. CAMERON: We've got to keep going. Let's 6 alerted to that problem or not? 6 not take a break because we're never going to get back on 7 MR. WEISMAN: You bet I knew there was an 7 track here, so we're just going to keep going. And I 8 earthquake. 8 have three people over there that we're going to go to, 9 MR. GWYNN: The design of the Diablo Canyon 9 and we're going to come back here and the gentleman 10 Nuclear Power Plant is such that no earthquake that can 0 there.

I1 happen on the faults in this area can cause an accident 1 MR.GWYNN: Chip, I hate to defer with you but 12 to occur at that facility. 2 we have a court stenographer here who is working harder 13 MR. WEISMAN: Who is going to sign a piece of 3 than anybody else in this room, and she deserves a break.

14 paper that I can put in my chest of drawers and keep 4 And I just think we need to give her a break. Now, if 5 there safe and snug to hold against him at a later date? 5 this isn't the right time, maybe another five or ten 6 We've been assured -- and the people of Toledo, Ohio, 6 minutes.

7 believed there was a more than 318 inch of steel keeping 7 MR. CAMERON: Maybe this isn't the right time.

8 the boiler reactor head on a David-Bessie reactor tube. 8 Okay.

9 MR. CAMERON: All right. We have one more NRC 9 Go ahead. Please tell us your name and spell

!O comment on this. And if you want to, it's fine to hold 0 it for the court reporter.

!I up the plates, but you don't need to yell "red." We will 1 MS. COLLINS: Good evening. My name is Tarren 12 probably be hearing a tot of that, so hold your plates 2 Collins. That's T, as in time, a-r-r-e-n; C-o-1-I-i-n-s.

13 UP. 3 I'm the chair of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra 14 Gene Imbro, and then we are going to get to 4 Club. I'm also the co-chair of the Southcoast Alliance.

!5 you. 5 That's 33 environmental groups on the Central Coast, with 18 (Pages 66 to 69)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 71 Page 7; 1 over 22,000 members. I am also the chair of the Great 1 (Applause.)

2 Coastal Placements Campaign for Sierra Club and the 2 MS. COLLINS: A case in point, virtually all 3 attorney for the San Luis Obispo County Chumash Counsel. 3 components at nuclear power plants' have failed before 4 I am also a proud to be a fifth generation 4 their expected time. Most were supposed to be available 5 member -- resident of San Luis Obispo County. And I 5 for the lifetime of the facility. So if casks, licensed 6 brought pictures of my grandchildren to show you. This 6 for 20 years -- of course w e know they will be there 7 is my daughter, Kia, she is the sixth generation of my 7 longer -- but if they are licensed for 20 years, begin to 8 family to live in this county. That's little Evan and 8 leak or crack, then what's the plan?

9 his sister Chloe, and they represent the seventh 9 The NRC ruled that we are not allowed to bring 10 generation of my family to live in this county. 10 this up in hearings. Why? That's my first question, I 11 This picture was taken at Avila Beach, just 11 guess. Actually, you can wait. I'll keep going.

12 downwind from the Nuclear Power Plant. We are brave, I 12 Better cask designs are available and being 13 know. 13 used in Germany. We deserve the most studied and 14 This picture was taken near my house in Shell 14 hardened casks on the market. Why isn't the NRC 15 Beach, downwind from the nuclear power plant. It's a 15 demanding this for the public? Why have you, the NRC, 16 little bit bigger picture of little Chloe. She was just 16 licensed a cask system for Diablo that is easily 17 a year and a half last week, and her brother in this 17 accessible? It's an easily-accessible target for 18 stunning red hat, Evan, three years old. 18 terrorism, acts of malice and insanity.

19 I am concerned about the high-level nuclear 19 There is new seismic information that the NRC 20 waste that will likely be stored in Diablo Canyon beyond 20 refused to consider before granting a license to expand 21 the next seven generations. The NRC issued a statement 21 on-site, high-level radioactive waste storage on this 22 last week, I guess that's you, announced the deadline to 22 earthquake active coast. The NRC stated that its denial 23 open for the -- where we are all going to take this stuff 23 of the seismic hazard information, presented by Mothers 24 later on. That deadline slipped again, so we need to 24 for Peace and the Sierra Club, was not based on merit.

25 plan on this radioactive waste being stored here forever. 25 That's not why you are rejecting it, not because it lacks Page 71 Page 13 1 And to me, it's insulting for you to act like 1 any merit, but on the NRC's contention that the new 2 it's temporary until you can say that tomorrow that waste 2 seismic information should be filed in a petition to 3 will be moved, and you know where and you know when. 3 reopen the original license case for Diablo Canyon.

4 (Applause.) 4 As I lawyer, I know this is form over 5 MS.COLLINS: Of course, you know; it might be 5 substance. It is reckless and irresponsible for the NRC 6 more temporary than any of us think because the storage 6 not to have gathered this new seismic evidence itself.

7 facility, as currently proposed, 138 casks above ground 7 To now sweep the seismic information under the rug 8 in a bowling pin formation, perfect for a big jet liner 8 endangers all living things in the vicinity of this power 9 hijacked by terrorists, nice target. So they might be 9 plant.

10 right, it might be temporary. LO The time has come for the public to demand that 11 Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 11 PG&E and the NRC stop placing politics over science.

12 NRC has concluded that the possibility of a terrorist 12 Your cavalier attitude about safety is playing Russian 13 attack on a proposed nuclear facility is, quote, 13 roulette with the future, and the future of your children 14 speculative and simply far too removed from the natural 14 and grandchildren. What are we leaving for the seventh 15 or expected consequences of agency action to require a 15 generation of to children to come?

I6 study under NEPA. 16 Now, I don't recognize any of you from my 17 I agree with our state attorney general who I7 neighborhood in Shell Beach. I am assuming that none of 18 responded to this statement by saying, quote, this 18 you live downwind of the powei plant.

19 confusion defies logic and is inconsistent with 19 You live downwind of the power plant in 10 statements made and activities undertaken subsequent to !O Atascadero? I guess the wind blows that way sometimes.

11 September 1 lth by the president, the members of his !1 MR. PROULX: I spend a lot of time there, 12 cabinet, and the NRC itself. !2 though.

13 In my opinion, NRC decisions concerning !3 MS. COLLINS: Do your children spend a lot of 14 terrorism and seismic safety are based on politics and !4 time there?

15 corporate power, not on sound scientific evidence. !5 MR. PROULX: They play there, too.

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 71 Page 7(

1 MS. COLLINS: From now on when you are making 1 MR. LI: The fault was recognized -- I think it 2 decisions about this power plant and the safety issues, I 2 was around 1970s.

3 want you to remember my grandchildren and my children, 3 MS. COLLINS: That's after the plant was built.

4 and think of your own children being placed in jeopardy. 4 MR. LI: The plant was -- those two gentleman, 5 Now, I have a few questions. Although I am an 5 they went through the Long-Term Seismic Program. They 6 amateur geologist, I did take geology in college. It's a 6 have better data on those things.

7 fascinating subject, one in which there really aren't a 7 MS. COLLINS: But my question is probably 8 lot of absolutes or knowns, in my understanding. 8 pretty simple, and I don't think it takes a rocket 9 And correct me if I am wrong, but geologists 9 scientist or a geologist to answer the question. You 10 and seismologists aren't able to predict earthquakes 10 don't know with absolute certainty that there won't be 11 before they happen, are they? 11 another earthquake fault discovered by virtue of another 12 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's answer that 12 earthquake happening, or any other -- new technology. Do 13 question. 13 you know that for certain?

14 Yong Li. 14 MR. CAMERON: And Tarren, that's a 15 MS. COLLINS: That's just a yes-or-no question. 15 million-dollar question you are asking.

16 MR. LI: It's very hard to predict earthquake, 16 And Yong, can you tell us how seismologists do 17 especially in the short-term. But in the long-term, we 17 their work in terms of prediction? Tell everybody that.

18 can predict within a certain time frame that the 18 MS.COLLINS: I'm really not looking for 19 earthquake will occur. 19 predictions. I'm looking for certainty. And I guess 20 MS. COLLINS: So did you predict the earthquake 20 what I'am wanting you to admit is that your science is 21 at San Simeon? 21 not able to predict earthquakes and that we cannot rely 12 MR. LI: San Simeon was not predicted, as I 22 completely on anything known today.

13 understood. But the fault that can generate an 23 MR. CAMERON: And that's a statement of your 14 earthquake, that's a known fact. We know that the fault 24 belief.

!5 can generate earthquake. But actually, based on the 25 MS. COLLINS: I am asking him to answer yes or Page 75 Page 77 1 starting, that earthquake was overestimate. W e predict 1 no.

2 could have happened like a 6.7 to 7.0, but it turned out 2 MR. CAMERON: I'm asking him to tell how 3 it only generate a 6.5 earthquake. 3 seismologists try to do what you are asking about, which 4 MS.COLLINS: But there is nothing that you can 4 is prediction, and then go on to other people.

5 say with all absolute assurance that there won't be a 5 MS.COLLINS: I have one more question. Rather 6 larger earthquake on that fault, right? 6 than that question, I would rather have you answer this.

7 MR. LI: T h e size of the earthquake depend on 7 Are you familiar with the precautionary 8 many factors. The size of the fault line, the rupture, 8 principle?

9 is a key fracture. If you have a longer fault, it could 9 MR. LI: Precautionary principles? in terms IO generate bigger earthquake. But if the physical size of LO of --

11 the fault is limited, you can only generate that size 11 MS. COLLINS: When you are planning -- I think 12 earthquake . 12 it's a scientific principle. One of you should know 13 MS. COLLINS: When was the last time a new 13 about it, but I can try to explain it to the best of my 14 fault was discovered? 14 ability, although I am not a scientist. It means you try 15 MR. LI: I'm sorry. Could you repeat -- 15 to use caution. If you don't know the answer because you 16 MS. COLLINS: When was the last new fault 16 can't determine it absolutely by science, then you take 17 discovered anywhere on earth? 17 the worst-case scenario and plap for that. Are you 18 MR. LI: There are many faults in this world, 18 familiar with that principle? Because it leads to the 19 but only those faults which are active can generate the 19 last question, and then I will release the podium.

!O earthquakes. !O MR. LI: I can't answer that question very

!1 MS. COLLINS: Now, is the Hosgri Fault an !1 generically, but I can answer you specifically regarding

!2 active fault? !2 the Hosgri Fault. There are many conservative factors in

!3 MR. LI: T h e Hosgri Fault was recognized as !3 determining the seismic design of the power plant. Just

!4 active fault, you are right. !4 to give you a quick, simple example.

!5 MS. COLLINS: And when was that recognized? !5 The earthquake could occur, as a matter of 20 (Pages 74 to 77)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

- - . - ~ _

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 7 Page 8(

1 fact, on any point along the Hosgri Fault, which has a 1 I live right next to the nuclear power plant.

2 land of 110 kilometers from north to south. The 2 I'm in the Sunset Palisades. My husband and my sweet 3 earthquake could occur on any point of this fault line 3 little boy, he is three, he is sleeping over there, we 4 here. But as NRC required, the license, when they 4 play all the time in our vicinity. What I have are a few 5 designed this power plant, they purposely asked them to 5 comments, and I also have questions for you, but I want 6 put this earthquake on the coastal location of the power 6 to thank every single one of you for being here. I did 7 plant, which is 4.5 kilometer away from the power plant. 7 listen to the senate committee hearings, and I was very 8 MS. COLLINS: You asked them to do that? 8 disappointed in the responses. But here, I feel, at 9 MR. LI: Yes. So that has a lot of safety 9 least, we are more one on one, and I really do appreciate 10 factor embedded in this design. 10 to be able to talk to you.

11 MS. COLLINS: But that is my last question to 11 A couple comments that I have are I've been in 12 you. And that is, is the California coast -- I learned 12 major earthquakes, even bigger than this recent one we 13 this in geology. It's a constantly moving, active place. 13 had. I was in the Loma Prieta, and I was in the San 14 And in your estimation as a geologist, is the 14 Fernando Valley in the Sylmar in 1971. And as I recall, 15 California coastline the safest place to put a nuclear 15 and I have a lot of videotape afterwards, because once 16 power plant or long-term storage? It's just a yes or no. 16 the power came back on, it was constant on the news, 17 I mean, is that the safest place you can think of! 17 those were not considered active plates at the time 18 MR. LI: I know there are many places in 18 either.

19 California with a faster speeding, moving rate. Like the 19 The other comment 1 have is not only do you 20 San Andreas Fault, it moves very fast. 20 have emergency problems with notifying people of, say, a 21 MR. CAMERON: He doesn't have to be forced into 21 nuclear release, but also the telephone companies are 22 a yes-or-no answer. 22 jammed, and you cannot call anyone. The emergency 23 MS. COLLINS: I don't mean to, but you are 23 systems tell us that we need to have someone out of state 24 asking me to hurry. 24 because that's the only way we can get ahold of anyone to 25 MR. L1: But this part of the world, this 25 let people know where we are. In the Loma Prietta, I Page 79 Page 8 I 1 Central California area, this San Luis Obispo, it's 1 happened to be in downtown San Francisco, so it was 2 relatively the rate of the displacement is relatively 2 really tough getting home.

3 slow, very slow. For example, along the Hosgri Fault, 3 We here live in quite a small population area, 4 the relative motions are 1 to 3 millimeters per year. 4 and I understand that there is risk benefits that are 5 MS. COLLINS: That you are aware of now. I 5 looked into; however, my comment in relation to that is 6 mean, that's how long it's been in the recent history. 6 Los Angeles is downwind of this plant. If there were to 7 But again, we just had the San Simeon Fault, which didn't 7 be a major disaster, and San Francisco isn't really that 8 really go along with your predictions, did it? 8 far away in relative terms, so the damage could be a lot 9 MR. LI: As I told you, that the size of the 9 more serious than just little San Luis Obispo area.

IO earthquake was actually overly predicted, yeah. It's 10 The other comments I have to make are in those 11 within the limit. It's not go beyond the prediction. 11 large earthquakes that I was in, the damage that was done 12 MS. COLLINS: So is the California coast the 12 was a lot more serious than they expected, and those were 13 safest place to build long-term storage? 13 even in earthquake-proof buildings. The movements of the 14 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Tarren. And 14 earthquake faults were much more damaging and much more 15 thank you, Y ong Li. 15 -- what I want to say is that they found from diagonal 16 We have a mother who needs to return to her 16 thrusts, in addition to vertical and horizontal thrusts, 17 son. And we have a student, and we are going to get you 17 which they didn't expect. So structurally, some of the 18 two up. And we had three people waiting over there. And 18 buildings that they thought were'earthquake-proof.

19 if it's okay with you, I would like to see if you can do 19 Turned out not to be, quotelunquote, earthquake-proof, 20 these two and those three, and then we are going to take 20 they didn't have as much damage as they could have if 2 1 a break. So can you get up and tell us your name and 21 they hadn't been earthquake-proof, but they did have 22 your concerns, questions. 22 damage. And that concerns me with the plant, Diablo to 23 MS.CRAM: Hi. My name is Cynthia Cram; 23 be exact.

24 C-y-n-t-h-i-a, C-r-a-m. I'm just a mom. I don't 24 Another couple comments, a question actually, 25 represent any committee or anybody. 25 and I don't know if you could answer this. PG&E, do they 21 (Pages 78 to 81)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 8: Page 8, 1 have seismic equipment on site? 1 often get informed by the U.S.Geological Service 2 MR. BAGCHI: Yes. 2 website. Living here in San Luis Obispo County, I've 3 MS. CRAM: Because, I was home one day -- I am 3 also experienced a number of the aftershocks that there 4 very close to the plant. I was home one day when we had 4 have been. And the first thing we do when we feel them, 5 an aftershock, and it was very jolting. And I turned on 5 we call the control room to find out if they have 6 your public radio station to here to see what magnitude 6 registered any instrumentation.

7 it was, or whatever, and within two minutes, PG&E calls 7 Now, if there is an earthquake that nobody 8 in and says, "Just letting you know, there was no damage 8 feels, and it doesn't even register on the seismic 9 at the plant. And our equipment showed no movement at 9 instrumentation, generally the utility won't perform any 10 all." And it was something to that effect, but very, IO inspections. There was a significant aftershock on March 11 very close to that. Those weren't the exact words by the 11 17th, which I believe was around 4.4, that we were at the 12 spokesperson. But that really bothered me as someone who 12 plant when that earthquake occurred. We didn't feel it, 13 has been in major earthquakes, because I know it takes 13 but a number of people on site did, but it didn't provide 14 time to look over a plant and see if damage has been 14 enough motion to even register on the seismic monitors, I5 done. It doesn't take two minutes. An hour, I may have 15 but we did perform inspections on that day as well.

16 felt a little more comfortable if he called back and 16 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. And I am going 17 said, "I'll get back to you guys and let you know," but 17 to put your potential consequences over here in "Parking 18 to immediately call in and say within a two-minute period 18 Lot" for now to give this young man --

19 and say that there is no damage, n o cracks, no movement, 19 MR. GWYNN: And I would like to just say a few 20 no water leakage, again, I've been in these quakes so I 20 words myself about communications in particular. I know 11 know what things can happen. 21 that it's troublesome for homes and families when there 12 And two more quick things. You may not be 22 is a problem that occurred in the community that impacts 23 aware, but we can fly over this plant. And you can just 23 a large number of people, and you can't get out on your 24 open a small plane cockpit window and drop something out 24 telephone to let people know that you are okay. And 25 if you wanted to, so it's a little bit concerning to me. 25 that's a limitation of technology, but we don't have that Page 83 Page 85 1 And there are planes going over every day. I mean, I 1 limitation when it comes to our emergency response 2 live right next to the plant. There are planes 2 functions.

3 constantly going over. Now, we do have a military base, 3 Our communication systems are set up so that we 4 which is a little bit comforting, but still. 4 have special circuits that we use in communicating not 5 And my big question is a hypothetical. What 5 only with the power plant, but with State and local 6 projections do you have if there were to be a major 6 officials, with our headquarters offices in Washington, 7 disaster at the plant caused by, say, an earthquake of a 7 D.C., and with other Federal agencies. It's a thing 8 9, 10, magnitude? Have you looked at that possibility? a called a Government Emergency Telephone System. If for 9 Thank you. 9 some reason the telephone lines are down, we can't rely 10 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And thank you. When we IO on those, why then we go to other forms of communication.

I1 come back from the break we are going to get to some of I1 And we even have satellite telephones that we 12 the security issues. 12 can use to communicate with our people at the site, if 13 Anybody want to address the last question 13 it's necessary. Those satellite telephones have come in

!4 before about what type of hazard we are talking about? 14 handy on a couple of occasions. For example, when 15 MR. PROULX: I can address your question about 15 Hurricane Andrew hit Southern Florida, it also hit one of

.6 instrumentation they have at the plant. They have 16 the nuclear plants in Florida head-on, wiped out all of

.7 seismic instrumentation located in several locations 17 the communications. We still ha$ some communication

.8 inside the containments in each of the buildings in the I8 capabilities there. So from an emergency response

.9 ground and in and near the plant. This instrumentation, 19 standpoint, we can communicate under virtually every

!O you can visually see it within the control room within !O circumstances. I think that we heard -- but that depends

!1 minutes, and if it exceeds -- if it even comes on-line, !I upon your access to a telephone, your access to a radio,

!2 it will give them an alarm in the control room that there !2 perhaps a radio that has a battery associated with it.

!3 has been any seismic movement. !3 We, in Texas, don't have earthquakes, but we do

!4 Now, the way they often get informed about the !4 have tornadoes. And everybody in our community, my

!5 earthquakes is not because they feel them because they !S community, has a place in our home where we can go to be 22 (Pages 82 to 85)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 81 Page 81 1 safe. And we have the equipment that we need in that 1 adequate emergency response in place in this County. And 2 location so that we can keep in contact with the world 2 I am particularly curious if David and Terry are familiar 3 and know whether or not we are in danger from that 3 with this green sheet that came out in the water bills 4 tornado. 4 recently? I'd like to call it to your attention.

5 MR. CAMERON: Okay. And we did hear you about 5 I found it rather alarming, considering the 6 the major point about communication. We did hear that. 6 fact that we had drills and assurances for years that 7 Let's go to this young man. And just tell us 7 there is an emergency response plan in place. Anyway, 8 your name and give a spelling. 8 but I'm making some assumptions that you all are 9 MR. ACOSTA: My name is Jesse Acosta; 9 responsible, at least to some degree, for coordinating 10 J-e-s-s-e, A-c-o-s-t-a. 10 this.

11 I grew up in Goleta, just south of here. I've 11 This came from the City of San Luis Obispo. As 12 lived there all my life, some hiatus to different parts I2 I say, it came in the water bill. It's the second or 13 of the country. As I s e e it, oftentimes we are victims I3 third time I've gotten one like this. I'm sure many in 14 of technology, in the sense that we have this nuclear 14 this room have. At the top it says, "What if you dialed 15 technology. And instead of thinking that if there could 15 91 1 and there was a busy tone or there wasn't any dial 16 be something that's wrong with it, we proceed with the 16 tone at all?" So what this is announcing are training 17 momentum to continue to use it, whether it's good or not. 17 classes for a community emergency response team, put on 18 And the problem I see today is that -- I mean, 18 by the Fire Department of San Luis Obispo.

19 I'm a student here at Cal Poly. I have finals; I have to 19 And to me the particularly alarming part of 10 go study for them. That's why I am making it so brief. 10 this is the answer to why they are doing this. "In the 21 What I am learning is that I don't know everything. And !1 event of a large-scale disaster, the normal emergency 12 as you ask any professor who has maybe got a doctorate in !2 response agencies that serve you, and this is 13 cellular biology, if you ask him about ecology, he has no !3 underlined, "will be overwhelmed, and they might not be 14 idea. !4 able to assist you for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. It's simply a 15 And what I see today, it concerns me because I !5 supply-and-demand issue."

Page 87 Page 89 1 feel as if oftentimes as humans, our biggest weakness is 1 Dave and Terry, are you aware of this? That 2 that we don't admit that we don't know everything. And 2 our County Office of Community Services is not up to 3 you guys are constantly telling us that everything is 3 handling it faster? You can certainly have it. I'll get 4 okay, but what don't you know? I mean, show some 4 another one. I'm sure I'll get another one in another 5 humanity here. I mean, we know that you may be experts, 5 water bill.

6 and I respect that. And I know that I'm not. But there 6 MR. CAMERON: W e will attach it to the 7 could be serious problems. And I mean, are the I transcript.

8 consequences really worth it? I mean, is it really worth 8 MS. NORWOOD: In fact, I have some more 9 it? Is the power, the energy that we have in this room, 9 extensive remarks that I was going to make. But in the IO the lights, is it really worth it? I mean, is it really .o interest of time, I have decided not to. You can attach I1 worth it? Can we ask that question and have an answer? .I these, please. Thank you.

12 I mean, there is millions of lives at stake. .2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Nancy.

13 There is millions of lives and generations at stake. And .3 And we are going to go here and to this 14 it's okay to be wrong. It's okay to say that this is the .4 gentleman.

I5 best idea, that nuclear energy is not the best idea. .5 (Discussion held off the record.)

16 That's okay, because we can figure it out. We are 6 MS. GRABIEL: My name is Nina Grabiel. It's 17 inventive. We are humans. We are inventive. .7 N-i-n-a, G-r-a-b-i-e-I.

18 (Applause.) 8 And I just have two quehtions, comments, I 19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. We are going to have 9 guess. The first one is, What's the size of the

!O three final, before-the-break comments, and going to go !O earthquake that Diablo is built to withstand? I mean, I

!1 to is this lady right here. And if you can just -- !I hear that it's earthquake-proof, but how big of an

!2 MS. NORWOOD: My name is Nancy Norwood. It's !2 earthquake are you talking about?

!3 N-o-r-w-o-o-d. I live in San Luis Obispo, and I want to !3 MR. LI: Could you repeat the question, 14 harken back a minute to the emergency response planning, !4 quickly.

15 because for years we've been assured that there is an !5 MS. GRABIEL: I just want to know, when you 23 (Pages 86 to 89)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 9 Page 9:

1 planned the construction of Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, 1 supposed to pay you to do, is to protect me in the case 2 what was the size of the earthquake that you built it to 2 of a worst thing happening?

3 with st and? 3 I feel very betrayed by the government, by the 4 MR. LI: 7.2. 4 NRC, by the County, by PG&E, everybody who is making a 5 MS. GRABIEL: So it's supposed to withstand a 5 buck off of this, and they are basically forfeiting my 6 7.2? 6 future and the future of Mother Earth.

7 MR. LI: Yes. 7 MR. CAMERON: I think Girija wants to add 8 MS. GRABIEL: So beyond a 7.2, what's the 8 something there. Yong Li, do you have anything else, or 9 projected thing to happen? 9 can we give it to Girija?

10 MR. LI: Well, as I mentioned before to another 10 MR. LI: I just want to quickly answer her 11 lady there, in our plan language, if you want to have a 11 question regarding the worst scenario. The 7.2 12 bigger earthquake, to have an capital fault there. But 12 earthquake I mentioned to you is the worst scenario. As 13 from all the research results we have, the Hosgri Fault 13 I mentioned -- there are many big earthquakes around the 14 is the most capital fault there, but this fault can only 14 world, but as I mentioned, you have to have a capital 15 generate this kind of size of the earthquake. The 7.2 is 15 fault which can generate earthquake. But from all the 16 a cap, maximum earthquake, we call it. 16 research and our seismic study in this area, the Hosgri 17 MS. GRABIEL: Okay. So you've just come to 17 Fault is the biggest fault.

18 this conclusion just basically by scratching numbers on a 18 As I mentioned before, we purposely required 19 piece of paper. And so when you go through all your 19 the licensee to put the earthquake at the coastal point 20 equations, that's the final number at the end of your 20 near the power plant, which is 4.5 kilometers away. This 21 equation is the 7.2. So this is assuming that you guys, 21 Hosgri Fault has a 110 kilometers, and some point are

,2 whoever is coming up with these numbers, has, I guess -- 22 very far from the power plant, but we put the worst 23 what's the word? -- that you know what Mother Nature is 23 scenario 4.5 kilometers away. And also there are many, 14 going to do. I am just putting that out there, because 24 many safety factors, the conservative factors imbedded in

!5 really the reality is you don't know. You really don't 25 the whole design process.

Page 9 I Page 93 1 know. You can't predict it. There is nothing that you 1 Another example, attenuation relationship which 2 can really do about it. I just wanted to make that 2 tell us you the seismic wave could be decreased away from 3 assertion right there. So that even your own premise is 3 the earthquake epicenter, that relationship also 4 a little bit faulty, just on that. 4 overestimates the ground motion at the power plant. So 5 And then my second, I guess, concern would be 5 basically, the real ground motion would be smaller than 6 earlier in the discussion here, other people have brought 6 the predicted ground motion. So there are many layers of 7 up the idea of an earthquake happening at the same time 7 the conservative factors here, so we are giving you the 8 as a disaster. And one of the responses was, you know, 8 worst scenario. How about that?

9 that wasn't figured into any of your equations because 9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Yong. Girija, do you 10 that's really not very likely to happen. So my feeling IO want to add something before we go to this gentleman.

11 is, you know, if we are going to be -- I imagine you are 11 MR. SHUKLA: Yeah. My name is Girija Shukla.

12 charged with protecting the people who are in the 12 I am the project manager for Diable Canyon from the NRC.

13 vicinity of these power plants, and also the way the wind 13 I am the man between you and the NRC as far as the 4 blows down the line. So we are talking about millions 14 licensing is concerned. I am not an expert of 5 and millions of people, lots and lots of hundreds of I5 earthquakes, but I'm an expert of licensing, so I'll tell 6 acres of miles of land and so forth. Because it isn't 6 you what all these numbers mean to you.

7 just people who suffer. It's everything. Life itself 7 When Diablo Canyon was,built and licensed, 8 suffers. 8 there were three faults, and all they can produce is less 9 So if that's the consequence of something 9 than .2G accelerations. So the plant was designed for

!O happening over here, why don't we use some forethought !O .2G accelerations. But PG&E doubled that number to .4G.

!1 and prepare for a worst-case scenario? Even though it !1 accelerations for the safety of the plant.

!2 may never really happen, what is wrong with planning out !2 Then we found out Hosgri, which is .75G, and

!3 the worst-case scenario and, you know, let's find !3 NRC required PG&E to look at this plant, augment the 14 solutions for that as a protective measure? Isn't that !4 plant, reinforce the plant to meet .75G.

5 what you are paid to do? Isn't that what my taxes are !5 Now, what does this number mean to you? The 24 (Pages 90 to 93)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 9~ Page 91 1 plant is required by NRC to have equipment to operate, tc 1 that? To use an analogy, PG&E applied for a 2 make sure your health and safety is protected at.2G. 2 three-bedroom house, then built six bedrooms, and now 3 Okay. At .2G level, the plant will keep on operating 3 wants to put beds in the yards so people can sleep 4 safely. No problem. At .4G, the plant will shut down. 4 wherever they want. Help us out here and explain your 5 In fact, the shutdown set point for Diablo Canyon is 5 reasoning. We don't quite get it.

6 .35G. 6 Why would you be granting a new license to 7 What that means? That means that they have 7 store waste in our backyard? This is ludicrous, unfair 8 equipment they are required to operate to safely shut 8 and unjust. The student who rose to speak about the 9 down the plant and keep it safely shut down. These 9 humanistic issue is right on the mark. This is a human 10 equipment are supposed to operate. So the plant will be 10 issue -- 57 channels and nothing on. This is what we've I1 shut down at .35G. .75G is a design number. Diablo 11 got -- television experts but no answers for our 12 Canyon will never reach more than .35G.It will be 12 concerns. You do not live in our area.

13 safely shut down and you will be safe in your homes. 13 I submit the only reasonable plan would be to 14 That's the story. 14 close Diablo until the storage site is approved. Very I5 MR. CAMERON: Thank you. 15 simple thing to do. Why not err on the side of safety.

I6 And we are going to go to this gentleman right 16 Let's do a brief look at recent history. How many 17 here, and if you could just introduce yourself to us, 17 nuclear plants have been ordered since Three Mile Island?

18 please. 18 Zero. Let's look at our state. Humboldt Nuclear Plant, 19 MR. BIESEK: My name is Jack Biesek, 19 closed. Rancho Sac0 near Sacramento and the legislators, 20 B-i-e-s-e-k. And I want to thank you for the opportunity 20 closed.

!1 to speak to you tonight and thank you for coming here to 21 Let's look at the world. Chernobyl, what a

!2 listen to our concerns. 22 waste of human resource and a shame upon the human race

!3 I live near Avila Beach going on 28 years now. 23 that is. Are we going to experience a great disaster

!4 I am a member of the Avila Valley Advisory Council, the 24 here in California? We hope not. And that's why we are

!5 local planning review group for the Avila Beach area, and 25 here tonight, to ask you to hold off on licensing until Page 95 Page 97 1 our volunteer work as concerned citizens lets us look 1 some studies and evaluations about these thrust faults 2 into the future and help people with their planning and 2 and folds can be done scientifically and fairly.

3 their properties in such a way they respect the natural 3 Why is the onus on us to acquiesce to PG&E and 4 resources and respect their fellow citizen's right to 4 the NRC? Why isn't the onus on PG&E to perform their 5 share these resources. 5 duty and earn the right and pay for their efforts and 6 I am not here as a representative of AVAC. 1 6 live up -- if they made poor planning and they didn't 7 am here as an individual and as a concerned citizen and 7 plan to storage racks, fine. Close them down.

8 as a steward of the land where I live. In 1977, we were 8 I think it's -- (applause.)

9 promised that radioactive nuclear waste would be stored 9 I've taken some time this week to look into the 0 in a repository, a safe storage site, outside of IO future and think about Diablo, and I don't like what I 1 California, to be provided by the U.S.Government, and I1 see. 1 see a mothballed site that is a nuclear waste 2 that the Diablo Canyon was only going to be a temporary 12 dump, and we the local citizens are stuck with the deadly 3 holding for these wastes. What is the status of that 13 remains of an outdated technology stored above ground, a 4 promise? Zero commitment to date. Although we heard 14 sitting duck for terrorists or for Mother Nature to show 5 tonight that this is temporary storage, I would like that 15 her strength and sweep it out to sea, or for the earth to 6 to be defined with a specific date when you get a chance 16 quake and tear open the strongest of the strong 7 to answer that. 17 containers like they were eggshells.

8 What are the current plans for removing the 18 If we don't stop the external storage idea, 9 waste? Zilch, I think is the technical term for that 19 then this site needs to be marked adequately for the

!O answer. And what is the status of PG&E being responsible !O future generations, and the hundreds and thousands of

!1 when they can file bankruptcy at the drop of a hat? !1 years from now where people cannot approach the plant and

!2 And what are we left with: !2 deal with the deadly radioactive waste. I know about

!3 When the plant was licensed, it was licensed !3 this a little bit because I was asked to study for the

!4 for storing a limited amount of nuclear waste. Now that !4 Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico, where they

!5 plant was doubled the storage racks. And what is up with !5 asked me as a consultant, "What kind of signs do we need 25 (Pages 94 to 97)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 91 Page 101 1 to mark a site for 10,000 years to let people know there 1 How many of you have been here since the plant 2 is deadly radioactive waste that they didn't go near, 2 was built? How many have been on your various boards 3 that they can't come into the area?" 3 since, say, I975? Anybody since 1980? On a board that 4 I would like to submit an idea, for the record. 4 has to do with the NRC or Atomic Energy Commission, on -.

5 This sketch of a sign shows a boundary marker that has a 5 in the agency, employed for 20 years?

6 warning that hazardous materials are in use. In 6 Thirty years? Okay.

7 California we have a law known as Proposition 65. This 7 I just notice that at 7:OO p.m., the simple 8 law safeguards our citizens by providing a warning notice 8 lapel microphone used by Mr. Jones failed, so if the NRC 9 when carcinogenic materials are in use. And this idea 9 can't operate a lapel mike in a hotel ballroom, what can IO follows the spirit of that law. It indicates that there 10 we expect from a complex nuclear plant with a storage 11 is a hazardous warning. And it says, "This area is known 11 site on an earthquake fault?

12 to contain hazardous nuclear products known to the State 12 MR. SHUKLA: We don't regulate the microphones.

13 of California to cause cancer, birth defects and other 13 MR. KREJSA: I see. They are not under your 14 reproductive harm. This site has been authorized by the 14 regulation.

15 PG&E and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be suitable 15 I just have to tell you that I haven't been to 16 for long-term storage of hazardous waste." 16 an NRC meeting, or any kind of a meeting, since 17 Of course, if we move the storage on your 17 approximately 1983, so it was bad for my health then, and 18 temporary storage, we can take the markers down. We also 18 I am standing here with a TENS unit now. I've been 19 site the names of the NRC members: Nils Diaz, Jeffrey 19 waiting for two and a half hours, and I didn't want to 10 McGaffigan, and Edward -- I'm sorry, getting old with the 20 get cut off, because I'm in a little bit of pain to be 21 glasses -- and Robert D. Glynn, CEO of PG&E, so I believe 21 here.

!2 giving credit where credit is due. And for 10,000 years 22 I was a member of the Board of Supervisors of 23 we'll have your name emblazoned on these signs that you 23 the San Luis Obispo County from 1973 to 1980. That was 14 know you deserve and have earned the responsibility. 24 during the period which most of the construction at

!5 In summary, let me just reiterate, that until 25 Diablo occurred, except for the reconstruction, you know, Page 99 Page 101 1 there is a permanent storage site for nuclear waste, we 1 when the towers were switched and all of the extra $5 2 should not generate any more nuclear waste at Diablo 2 billion that went into that.

3 Canyon. That's my personal opinion as a concerned 3 In 1975,29, years ago, I was chairman of the 4 citizen. 4 Board of Supervisors in this county. And as chairman, I 5 Thank you for listening. 5 asked the staff whether we had a nuclear emergency 6 (Applause.) 6 response plan. And the answer was no. I asked the staff I MR. CAMERON: We are going to this gentleman. 7 to begin to assemble such a plan, but our Board of 8 We don't want any trouble. And then we're going to take 8 Supervisors at that time, who were all enamored of 9 a break. A11 right, sir. Please introduce yourself. 9 nuclear power as the biggest tax source, tax revenue 10 MR. KREJSA: Honorable members of the staff and IO source that this county had, they voted three to two 11 members of NRC, would you stand up and just -- my name is I1 against having an emergency response plan. It took m e 12 Dr. Richard Krejsa. That's K-r-e-j-s-a. 12 four years, from 1975 to 1979, and the only reason we got 13 Do you gentleman want to stand up and stretch? 13 an emergency response plan in this county was because of 14 You really look uncomfortable, all this body language. I4 the Three Mile Island, quote, incident, as it's reported.

15 You've been there a long time. You can do it. 15 Now, within six months of the Three Mile Island 16 MR. GWYNN: We are going to take a break when 16 incident, we had a nuclear emergency response plan in 17 you are finished. Thank you. 17 this county. And that plan was borrowed verbatim from 18 MR. KREJSA: I am a emeritus professor of I8 San Diego County, from the plait down there. And we just 19 biological sciences at Cal Poly State University, and I 19 changed the words to make it V a n Luis Obispo County,"

!O am impressed by the number of people you've provided here 20 and we fit it that way. And so that was the plan. And

!1 at great expense, as one gentleman said earlier on. Of !I that plan at that time was certified and accepted by the

!2 course, we are the taxpayers who pay for that expense. 12 NRC. Excuse me. I'm a little nervous. I haven't done

!3 And I am glad that you think it is great, because we 23 this for a long time.

!4 think our children and our grandchildren here are worth !4 MR. CAMERON: Just take your time.

!5 it. 25 MR. KREJSA: San Luis Obispo County Nuclear 26 (Pages 98 to 101)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

_ I I _ .

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 10: Page 10 1 Emergency Response Plan, thrown together 25 years ago, I Anyhow, he was not there. And I talked to his 2 was deemed acceptable, and it was certified for this 2 assistant. And the assistant said, "He is on vacation."

3 county. And one would have thought that 25 years after 3 And I said, "Well, I have an emergency." And they said, 4 our first emergency response plan, we and our families 4 "Well, you'll have to wait until he comes home." So 1 5 could feel safe here; that we would have had enough 5 waited two weeks, and he came back from his vacation.

6 experience to have a plan that's worked. But as you see, 6 And I asked him -- I told him the emergency. And he 7 the emergency alert system in this county failed during 7 said, "Dick, why don't you come here. Why don't you come 8 the most recent earthquake. 8 down to the plant, and we've got all these books from the 9 And I just referred to David Weisman's 9 Atomic Energy Commission on our shelves here, and the 10 questions, and I would just endorse all of the other 10 answer has got to be there someplace."

11 questions that were asked. And I am not going to ask I1 So I was to come down to his place to read all 12 only but one or two questions, but I want to tell a few 12 these books on these shelves full of NRC, only at the 13 stories from a historical point o f view so that you 13 time still Atomic Energy Commission, regulations. And I 14 understand why some of the people are here and continue 14 said, "No. I just want an answer to this question: What 15 to come to these meetings for all these years. 15 do I do when a truck with a nuclear waste product has 16 I've listened to your responses to questions I6 gone into the creek in San Luis Obispo County, and what 17 from the people of this county, and I personally think 17 am I supposed to do as chairman of the Board? What's the I8 that for the most part, they are typical bureaucracies. I8 process?"

19 I've been out of this business since 1980, but tonight, 19 And he said, "Well, I'll call NRC tomorrow --

20 24 years later, I feel like I'm listening to the same !O or AEC tomorrow. So he called. And the next day, he 11 kind of nonsense, the same kind of questions -- not same !I called me back and said, "I have told them the problem, 12 kind of questions, the same questions are being answered !2 and I explained to them that you want an answer." Four 13 and the same answers are being given that we got from the !3 weeks later, I got a letter from the Atomic Energy 14 old Atomic Energy Commission before 1976, and from the !4 Commission, and in it was a booklet. And the booklet had 15 NRC since. !5 -- the title of the booklet was, "79 Questions You Always Page 103 Page 105 1 Let me tell you a true story. In 1975, as 1 Wanted to Ask About Nuclear Power." And Question No. 78, 2 chairman of the Board, I created a nuclear emergency. 2 the answer to Question No. 78, "What do you do in the 3 And I said that a truck coming from Diablo with waste in 3 event of an emergency, call your local county sheriff."

4 it had slipped off the bank and fallen into San Luis 4 It took me seven weeks as chairman of the Board 5 Obispo Creek, which is just seven miles downstream of the 5 of Supervisors to get an answer for an emergency. And I 6 city of San Luis Obispo. And so I called the 6 don't think anything has changed in 25 years. We are at 7 administrative officer, County Administrative Officer, 7 the same position we were. We've got all you gentleman, 8 and it was just a few minutes after 5:OO. I called the 8 and we thank you very much for coming here. I feel sorry 9 County Administrative Officer. H e was gone, but his 9 for you. I really do, for you to have to sit and listen 10 assistant answered. And I said, "I've got an emergency 0 to all this stuff. Because I did this for eight years.

'1 here, and I want some answers. What do we do if somebody 1 I was listening to this stuff for all my career as a 12 --

calls what do I do," because I was the person 2 public official, and now I come to you as a private 13 responsible for pushing the button if we had an 3 individual to say that this is more of the same.

4 emergency. I was supposed to call somebody. 4 Finally, I'm glad that Mr. Li and his 5 So I called the CAO, and the CAO's assistant 5 colleagues and his, quote, can learn from earthquakes.

16 told me, "You better the call the sheriff," so I called 6 One of the answers to one of the questions asked earlier

.7 the sheriff. The sheriffs department is supposed to be , 7 was "we can learn from earthquakes." But this learning, 8 connected to PG&E. I called the sheriffs department, 8 it seems to me, comes after the eafthquake. So does this 19 and I told them the problem. And they said, "You better 9 mean that we'll have to wait until after the next

!O call PG&E," so I called PG&E. And at that time, and I 0 earthquake in the county to discover if we have been

!1 guess they still do, they had a person who was delegated ,1 guinea pigs or not.

!2 to the Board of Supervisors to answer any questions, and 2 I have some more stuff here, but I think I'll

!3 so forth, and they are very friendly, very nice guy. And 3 just close it off with that and say thank you for coming.

!4 I talked to this gentleman. And I won't say his name. 4 And I hope I listen to the people here today, because

!5 He is retired and also deceased now. 5 we've been doing this for a long time, longer than most 27 (Pages 102 to 105)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page IO( Page 101 1 of you people have been serving in whatever office or 1 issues, okay. And we have security. IRA has a question.

2 capacity you are in. And I didn't think I would ever 2 And you know, please don't line up. Okay. I'll get to 3 have to come back to a microphone again. I just came 3 you, because we want to listen. We want everybody to 4 tonight to hear what was going on, because I've been out 4 listen to what's being said. And we are going to get to 5 of the loop. But it sounds like the loop is the same. 5 you. And we have one gentleman in the back who talked to 6 The loop is the same as I heard 25 years ago, and we are 6 me who is back there.

7 not getting anywhere. 7 But, I guess, the one thing I would ask you is 8 And we've got more people here. We used to 8 everybody here who wants to say something, what you have 9 have three people and fourteen attorneys would come. And 9 to say to us is important. And it may be that we are 10 at least you are sitting down at our level. Those people IO hearing the same type of thing from you. That doesn't 11 would all be over here, and we would have one little I1 mean that it's not important for you as an individual to 12 stand over here to chat, to talk and tell us what our 12 be able to say that, and we want to respect that. We 13 concerns are. So we thank you. You've done a really 13 will respect that.

14 good job of moderating this. I don't know your name, 14 But if you can -- if it is a point that's been 15 sir, but thank you very much. And thank you all for 15 said before, if you can make the point briefly, then that 16 coming tonight. 16 might help all of us to make sure that we hear from 17 MR. GWYNN: Chip, a couple of things that I 17 everybody. And we have ordered some cots, sleeping bags.

18 would like to say about our ability to respond to 18 But let me tell you one thing, seriously: We do have an 19 emergencies at nuclear power plants. You probably are 19 NRC Public Meeting Feedback Form. And thank you for 20 aware at the time that this occurred, the plant wasn't !O reminding us to tell people about it. But this helps us 21 licensed. In fact, the agency requires the demonstration !I to improve our meetings, and certainly put any type of 22 of the effectiveness of the emergency plan as a !2 comment you want down here. But either leave it with us 23 prerequisite to the issuance of an operating license. !3 tonight or mail it back in. It already has postage on 24 And so that had to be done sometime in the middle '80s. !4 it. And there is a handout that's out there that has 25 I'm not sure about the exact date. But you probably also !5 phone numbers and things like that on it. If you haven't Page 107 Page 109 1 know that as a result of the accident at Three Mile 1 seen that, please pick that up.

2 Island, that the president's commission that looked at 2 Okay, sir. W e are going to security, right?

3 the action criticized our agency and criticized others 3 MR. RIECHERT: My name is Andrew Riechert.

4 because we were not prepared to respond to that 4 I've already spelled it, so I won't waste any time on 5 emergency. 5 that.

6 There has been so much work that has been done 6 My former position -- I'm semi-retired in this 7 since that time to improve not only the plans, but also 7 area. I run a small business. Formerly, I've been vice 8 to improve the implementation of those plans, the 8 president of engineering for U.S.West and also for 9 effectiveness of that. It's tested on a regular basis. 9 Ericsson, U.S.A., and the cell phones. And I'm sorry 10 And I can assure you that what you experienced in 1975 0 they don't work during earthquakes.

11 and what you would experience today, if you were the 1 And I thought I would give you guys a break.

12 leader of the organization, I believe would be quite a 2 Thank you very much for coming. I am going to speak 13 bit different. 3 rather quickly, if I can. I would like you to listen 14 MR. KREJSA: Okay. That's nice to say that, 4 quickly. I am not going to ask you any embarrassing 15 thank you, but I don't feel comfortable with your answer 5 questions. I am going to change the thing around, and 16 to that. Thanks. 6 you can listen to me, if that's all right, and we'll see 17 MR. CAMERON: All right. We are going to take 7 how well that works.

18 a break now, and it is 9:12. Be back at 9:30, and we'll 8 The reason I am here is ;hat 1 am extremely 19 go for another hour, and we are going to start with 9 concerned. I am also extremely upset and depressed, but 20 security. IO I thought what I would do here is not ask the questions.

21 (Break taken.) !1 I thought I'd try and see if we can come up with some 22 MR. CAMERON: There is going to be a point !3 12 answers. One of the things that concerned m e is that 13 tonight where w e just want to try to answer, again, some we've had a tragedy called 9 11. I remember it well.

24 of the more important questions that we heard. We are 14 It's my birthday. The problem we have with 9 1 1, 25 going to continue on. We're going to go to some new !5 apparently, is that some people didn't connect the dots.

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

- --__II PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page I I ( Page 11:

1 Those people were in high government positions. I assume 1 they wore out is something called cavitation. And I 2 that you are similar, so my job here is to give you some 2 don't know if any of you go water-skiing, but propellers 3 dots, connect them for you, and let you go on and worry 3 in water wear out.

4 about them, if that's all right. Everybody okay with 4 Why does a smooth propeller in smooth water 5 that? 5 wear out? It's called cavitation. When the propeller 6 Okay. Let me give you the first dot. The 6 moves very quickly through the water, it creates a little 7 Russian submarine, the Kursk, sank tragically in August 7 vacuum behind each blade, and those vacuums look like 8 of 2000. Everyone remember that one? President Putin, I 8 bubbles, but they are not. They are actually no water, 9 think, was playing golf at the time. Lost a lot of 9 no air. And when they collapse, they cause an extreme 10 Russian sailors. 10 wearing action on the propeller. It turns out that if 11 Okay. President Jack Kennedy was a famous 11 you put a rocket, and you put a little prod on the front 12 torpedo boatman, PT109. The San Diego fires occurred 12 of the rocket, and you fire it under water, the little 13 roughly, I think, October 24th of 2003. Traffic school, 13 prod in front of the rocket causes cavitation, which is 14 the Queen Mary in Long Beach and lots of cold water. 14 so big that the rocket is actually running in a vacuum 15 What are these? These are a bunch of dots. 15 under water. And the Russians are a little bit smarter 16 The only thing that connects them is a nuclear power 16 than us, they figure this out, and they produced this 17 plant. Without a nuclear power plant, there is no 17 weapon in '97. They've been testing it ever since.

I8 connection. Let me explain. 18 The first version they have, which is now 19 The Kursk went down on, I think, August 2000. 19 superceded, ran at 230 miles an hour under water, can 20 There was an article in Scientific American, which I'll !O carry a nuclear warhead or massive equipment of an 21 just quote quickly from. This is an article in May 2001. !1 artillery shell, and can travel 10 miles. Think about 22 You can look it up. With my background, I'm quite !2 that.

13 comfortable with the quality of the reporting in !3 Traffic school: Everybody has been to traffic

!4 Scientific American. I hope you are to. "Warp Drive !4 school. You travel 30 miles an hour, 44 feet a second.

!5 Underwater," it's entitled. "When the Russian submarine, !5 Right? You all know that one? Okay. 230 miles an hour Page 1 1 1 Page 113 1 K151 Kursk, sank last August, rumors rapidly arose that 1 is roughly 300 feet a second. If a cavitating torpedo is 2 the mysterious blast that sent the big boat to the bottom 2 fired from a vessel that's less than 10 miles offshore, 3 of the Barents Sea, was connected to the testing of an 3 it will come inland at 230 miles an hour. It only needs 4 ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Several months earlier, 4 fins on the front of it to tip up at that point, and it 5 American businessman, Edmond Pope, was arrested in Moscow 5 will leave the water at 230 miles an hour, 300 feet a 6 on charges to espionage. He apparently was working for 6 second. If you take force of gravity at 32 feet a second 7 the American Government and trying to steal plans of this 7 square, which I'm sure everybody on the other side there 8 torpedo just before the tragedy." 8 knows very well, it takes approximately ten seconds, if 9 What is a cavitating torpedo? That was the 9 that was fired directly outright before it comes to a 0 weapon that was under discussion. Cavitating torpedo is 0 halt. Ten seconds, 300 feet a second, average speed 100 I1 actually a rocket that runs under water. According to 1 feet a second, it will rise 1500 feet. I would like you

.2 the spec of the Russian torpedo that was being tested, 2 guys to think about that. It will get there in ten 3 the explosion was sufficient to blast apart a nuclear 3 seconds, of course.

14 submarine with all the pressure-resistanthull that it 4 It will then take another ten seconds. It will 15 had on board to stop that, so it has a hell of a punch. 5 then take another ten seconds, it will come down 1500

!6 It's believed that the torpedo, which is sometimes 6 feet. It will come down and hit the ground at 230 miles 7 referred to as "The Squaw can actually carry a nuclear 7 an hour, with all the weight of a huge cavitating 8 warhead. 8 torpedo, which is roughly the s&mesize as a school bus.

9 The way it works is to do with the Queen Mary 9 So now we know that there are weapons out there

!O on Long Beach. If you go down and see the Queen Mary, !O that already exist that have caused the United States

!I you go down to the bottom of the ship, you will see a 12

!1 government already great concern. There is not a lot of

!2 section where the propellers are under water and well lit publicity about this because obviously governments don't 13 up. And there is a note saying that the Queen Mary used !3 want people to worry, but the United States government --

!4 to have to, I think, change its propellers every two or !4 and I know nothing about this -- under obviously all 15 three trips because they wore out so fast. The reason :5 sorts of confidentiality is working into this and trying 29 (Pages 110 to 113)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 1 1 Page 1 1 1 to produce countermeasures. 1 the atmosphere at 1500 feet, the winds take over, and you 2 If we have a weapon which is aimed at a coastal 2 are looking at damage, collateral damage, people damage 3 installation, then that weapon can hit the coastal 3 and possibly massive civilian casualties, easily within 4 installation. I think it's about something over maybe 4 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> in San Francisco andlor L.A.

5 one to two minutes. A rocket traveling under water where 5 This is not a local phenomenon. The NRC office 6 no aircraft, no missile, no torpedo, no countermeasures 6 in Monterey, forget it. You guys might die just a little 7 can hit it, will suddenly emerge from the water, and 7 bit longer than we do. The effect here is that what 8 within ten seconds will hit a target that could be 8 we've got is we have effectively dirty bombs being built 9 possibly 5,000 feet away. 9 on the coast, where a weapon which is very difficult to 10 I note that you are building a -- effectively a 10 -- let me just quote back to the end of that article.

11 dirty bomb, and sticking it in a container near the 11 "Other informed sources claim the missiles, in fact, is 12 shore, and all you are left without is the explosives. 12 an offensive weapon designed to explode a high-yield 13 If a cavitating torpedo came inbound, even if the 13 nuclear charge amid a carrier battle group, thereby 14 cavitating torpedo was equipped with a massive artillery 14 taking out the entire armada. During a nuclear war, it 15 shell warhead, it would still hit the ground as the 15 could be even be directed at a port or coastal land 16 explosive didn't come off, it would go over intervening 16 target."

17 walls, highlands, et cetera, to the height of 1500 feet, 17 Then the quote is, "As there are no known 18 come down and hit something with a force of 230 miles an 18 countermeasures to such a weapon," states David Miller's 19 hour from 1500 feet. So please think about that one. 19 article, "its deployment could have a significant effect 20 I lived in this area. I've been in this area 20 on future maritime operations by surface and subsurface 21 probably on and off ten years. I'm a U.S. citizen, 11 and could western naval first forces at a considerable 22 although I don't sound like it, so I'm not a spy or 12 disadvantage."

23 anything. I'm just here doing my job. 23 What I did, and I don't suppose anybody can see 14 I noticed that the San Diego fires occurred, I 14 it from here, is I went to the web this afternoon, and I 25 think it was around about the 24th of October last year. !5 pulled off a map of the nuclear power stations in the Page 115 Page 117 1 When I came out from work and I looked up at the sky 48 1 U.S. And, of course, all these guys are going to have 2 hours later, I was amazed to see that the sky was dark 2 the same problem, waste storage on site. And on the West 3 over nearly 60 percent of the sky. I, and think some of 3 Coast, there are five -- I think four or five running 4 you realized, from L A . up to here, overhead and down 4 down the West Coast. There are three or four, 5 another 10,20 degrees was a thick, black layer. That 5 San Antonio, Baton Rouge, Tampa running through the Gulf.

6 was produced by matter which was ejected from a hot fire 6 And there are something like nine or ten going up through 7 and went upwards and across in the air and came here. In 7 the Northeast, including, of course, Washington, New 8 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, it had probably traveled 250 miles. 8 York, Providence, South Carolina, Miami.

9 I would like you gentlemen please to consider 9 It seems to me that all the information is out 10 that when the cavitating torpedo hits your dirty bomb 0 there in public. And what we have is we have one of the 11 collection, which the containers of which were presumably 1 most significantly valuable and easy-to-strike targets 12 not designed to be impacted by something that's a nearly 2 which would virtually cripple, if not destroy, America's I3 nuclear force, that no matter what comes down from 1500 3 ability to defend itself in an act of war. And you guys 14 feet at 230 miles an hour, usually -- because if anybody 4 are sitting there telling us that it's a great idea if 5 plays billiards around here, or pool, or whatever you 5 you put a dirty bomb with a weak cavitating that isn't

.6 guys call this silly game you have with too many red 6 designed for how many high-explosive artillery shells 7 balls -- what goes down, comes up, because of the laws of 7 before it breaks type of specificatjon, and you are 8 momentum. So if anything comes down that fast, and as 8 putting them all over the coast ofthe United States.

9 you've seen with sort of astroids-crashing-into-the-earth 9 Now, as a relatively new citizen of the States,

!O movies, and all that stuff, it comes down, boom, and 10 I'm not a nine-generation Californian. I'm a

!1 everything gets thrown up. The ejectile, I think it's .1 first-generation immigrant. I'm a U.S. citizen. I've

!2 called. So that's that dot connected. .2 been here 25 years, But I signed up to defend this

!3 What happens there is if you have a hit of a 3 country. I love this country. I love the Constitution 14 nuclear power station and it merely hit the stored 4 and what it stands for, and I aim to protect it. So my

!5 material, that material could be ejected, would be up in 5 input to you tonight is to say, "Here is the information.

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 11 Page i2(

1 Here are the dots. Here is the obvious connection. If I 1 stuff them full of it and you can tow them to a safe 2 can make it, everybody out there in the world can make 2 place where nothing could possibly get at them. But if 3 it." We are not at peace. We are at war. We are at war 3 you leave it where it is, then this country is at an 4 with Iraq now. We've made nasty, nasty noises to Syria, 4 unbelievable risk, and you are in the forefront of making 5 North Korea. We are not that happy with China. We likc 5 it happen.

6 Pakistan, which means India doesn't love us that much. 6 And that's all I have to say tonight.

7 We've got problems in the Far East. 7 (Applause.)

8 You tell me why anybody in those circumstances 8 MR. CAMERON: I'm glad that the people from our 9 would want to put the United States at such a risk that 9 Nuclear Security & Incident Response were here to listen 10 we could possibly have dirty bombs going off merely by 10 to that particular scenario, that I know I have never 11 enemy action in the easiest place to hit them, and we 11 heard before. But I want to give Skip Young an 12 would lose probably like 200 miles inland of the entire 12 opportunity to tell all of you about what the NRC is 13 United States around the coastline. I would then be a 13 doing in relationship to security. It's a different 14 citizen of the United Midwestern States of America, and . 14 approach than the one you suggested.

15 don't like that idea. 15 But Skip, can you talk to us a little bit. And 16 What we need at your level, you can go back and 16 if anybody else wants to say anything on this subject, 17 you can say, "There is a guy here that said this, and he 17 let's go to you, because I think it's important to hear 18 said it in public, and it might look bad if we don't do 18 from the NRC on this issue.

19 something about it." So you can go to the people who 19. Skip, this is Skip Young.

20 didn't come this evening, who are really, really 10 MR. YOUNG: You can get the red plates out 21 important and make some of these decisions. And just to 11 right now. It's very difficult to respond to your 22 give you an idea of where you could be, let me read you a 12 comments or the scenario you presented, but let me give 23 statement from the Israel Air Force official website. 13 you some of the functions that are done in my office to 24 You all remember 91 1. You remember the fog of war, 14 explain what we are doing to address some of those.

25 couldn't do a thing about it. Right. !5 It's not a simple solution, and there is many Page 115 Page 121 1 This is on the Israeli Air Force website. It 1 groups in the Division of Nuclear Security that deal with 2 states it proudly. It's been there for many, many years. 2 it. We, first of all, have a group of intelligence 3 It says, "February the 2 1st, 1973: Due to a navigation 3 agents or analysts that look at the material that's 4 error, a civilian Libyan Boeing 707 finds itself deep in 4 generated by other organizations, such as the CIA, FBI, 5 Israeli airspace over the Sinai Desert. Israeli phantoms 5 and that type of thing. That information is given to us 6 are scrambled, but the Libyan pilot does not comply with 6 so that we can determine what I want to call the threat 7 their instructions and ignores their warning shots." And 7 that's out there.

8 then comes the killer, and no politician that I've ever 8 I don't disagree with what you are saying about 9 met will ever repeat this to you in this country. 9 the weapon that the Soviets are trying to design over 10 "Taking into account the possibility that the plane is 10 there. My comment coming back is, What is the 11 headed towards Tel Aviv on a suicide mission, the I1 availability of that weapon to a terrorist? So the first 12 phantoms shoot it down; 105 people on board are killed. ,2 thing you have to do is you have to assess what is the 13 And that is still today on the Israeli Air Force Official 3 likelihood that an individual or a terrorist group could 14 website. There is the logo. 4 actually use that type of weapon. There is a lot of 15 Gentleman, the opportunity is yours. You can 5 subjectivity into that, and everyone will disagree where 16 take this information. You can say, "We are doing a 6 do you draw the line. Some people will say you should

.7 very, very silly thing for this country, and we are in a 7 protect against everything. The agency has decided w e

.8 position to start the ball rolling to do something about 8 have to decide where the right%ne is. I am not an

.9 it." 9 intel agent, so I am not going to talk about that area.

!O And the answers to what you can do, you can do !O W e have a group that does that.

!1 one of two things. You can move this temporary material, !1 W e do have a group of engineers that are doing

!2 temporarily 200 miles inland where it cannot possibly be !2 what are called "Vulnerability Analysis." After 91 1, the

!3 hit, and it can be defended by the conventional weapons 13 chairman at the time challenged the staff and directed

!4 of this country, or you can call out a bunch of the !4 staff to go and do a thorough review of the security

!5 redundant nuclear submarines that we have and you can !5 programs that we have in place. Most people would call 31 (Pages 118 to 121)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 12; Page 12 1 it a top-to-bottom review. And what we are doing is -- 1 MR. CAMPER: I would just add to what Skip was 2 the term that I'll throw out is VA's, Vulnerability 2 saying. Two things: One, in terms of security, I 3 Analysis. For each type of licensee that we have 3 mentioned earlier that the application that Diablo 4 licensed, the Division of Nuclear Security is going back 4 submitted to us, they upgraded a number of things in 5 and doing a Vulnerability Analysis against those type of 5 seismic. They are also were required, as part of that 6 facilities. Facilities I think you would be interested 6 process, to upgrade their security plan, which they did 7 here would be the power plants and your dry cask storage 7 do. That's any time we move to a dry cask storage, we 8 type facilities. 8 look at security plans in current terms.

9 And what are we looking at? What are included 9 The second point, Skip did touch on, that is 10 in the VA's? We are looking at -- we are doing an 10 this issue of we have issued a number of additional 11 engineering model, if you took a large aircraft you 11 requirements since 9 11. And we issued those to dry cask 12 crashed it into a power facility or you crashed it into a 12 storage as well. For example, when Diablo Canyon moves 13 dry cask storage facility. We've also looked at small 13 toward actually moving the fuel, 15 months prior to that, 14 aircrafts laden with explosives. My comment there is it 14 they will receive an order from us that will contain 15 is a small aircraft, so there is a limit to the amount of 15 additional compensatory measures of a security nature.

16 explosives that you can stuff in an aircraft and allow 16 And the only thing I would mention that Skip 17 the thing to fly, and we're looking at that. 17 didn't mention, in addition to the ongoing vulnerability 18 We're also looking at waterborne activities 18 assessments that we are doing, that are looking at 19 along the coast. We are looking at what has happened to 19 full-size commercial aircraft crashing into the storage 20 the insider, the people that are inside the plants that 20 casks, as well as other terrorist scenarios, which we 21 actually would have information, so you have to consider 21 can't say in detail because of the safeguard and security 22 someone who is inside the plant, which is known as an 22 nature of that stuff, but as we speak right now, the 23 insider, that could assist the terrorists or be one of 13 National Academy of science is conducting an independent 24 the terrorists. We are also looking at that activities. 24 assessment, as requested by Congress, of the security and 25 We're also looking at what's know as an external assault 15 safety of spent nuclear fuel, both in wet storage in Page 123 Page 125 1 to the facility. And we're also looking at waterborne 1 pools as well as in dry storage.

2 and truck bombs. That's what the VA's are including. 2 And this study was requested by certain members 3 That takes time. What the staff did 3 of Congress because Congressman Hobson and Congressman 4 immediately is we issued advisories and orders to put in 4 Rogers, in particular, had heard all these various 5 place enhanced security measures, which were trying to 5 opinions. They had heard opinions from us; they had 6 address some of the things like you pointed out on the 6 heard opinions from concerned citizens; they had heard a 7 Israeli home page there. There is a lot of work that we 7 diversity of opinions. And what they wanted to do was 8 are doing. I'll be the first to stand up here and say we 8 have an independent group with an appropriate scientific 9 don't have all the answers, and we haven't completed all 9 pedigree. And the National Academy of Science often is LO of the reviews, and that type of thing. There is a lot IO used to do independent studies, look at this issue, and I1 of work still going on. And this is still an ongoing 11 yes, we will provide a secure report to Congress sometime 12 process, because when you do your threat analysis, what 12 during June, and then there will be a 13 the threat was yesterday, may not be the threat tomorrow. 13 publically-available version of that report available in 14 And we are looking at all kinds of weapon 14 approximately six months.

15 threats. I don't want to comment on that particular 15 Our agency, along with Department of Homeland 16 threat scenario, but we're looking at all types of threat 16 Security, was requested by Congress to fund that study, 17 scenarios. We have a group of people that do that and .7 which we did do and are doing. So another independent 18 look at the realism, the ability. We deal with other 8 group is looking at this issue, as Gel1 by an outside 19 Federal agencies to develop time lines to determine how 9 group, the National Academy of Science.

!O long it would take someone to actually do this type of !O MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Larry.

!1 thing. That's what we are doing in response to 91 1. !I Anything that needs to be added?

!2 It's just an overview. !2 MR. GWYNN: I would only add that the specific

!3 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Skip. Let's hear from !3 information that we were given about this new weapon

!4 Larry. This is Larry Camper. Larry, if you can add !4 system, the first I've heard of it -- that I don't know

!5 something. !5 much about weapons -- we certainly will take that back to 32 (Pages 122 to 125)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

-- I_ .____.~ __I PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 12 Page 121 1 our Office of Nuclear Security & Incident Response to 1 plants vulnerable to a disaster that could effect an area 2 make sure that they are fully aware of that information 2 the size of New Jersey." Okay. So back comes the 3 and that it has been considered as a part of the 3 response from the nuclear industry, I assume, or various 4 Vulnerability Analysis. 4 proponents of nuclear power, "You can't make such a broad 5 MR. CAMERON: And we are talking specifically 5 generalization. You have to look at each location 6 about information that this gentleman told us. 6 separately, because they are all a little bit different."

7 Okay. Ira, you wanted to ask a question, 7 Now that's one side of the nuclear establishment.

8 right? 8 On the other side, I understand, in Washington 9 MR. WINN: Well, that was part of the deal was 9 under the present administration, there are engineers and 10 that w e were going to limit each person's remark to ten IO physicists who are working on developing a prototype 11 minutes. And since you didn't go for that, I feel 11 nuclear power plant for the future that would then be 12 released from that obligation. 12 assessed, licensed, and put out for bid, so that once 13 My name is Ira Winn; 1-r-a, W-i-n-n. And I've 13 it's assessed and licensed, any other company can come 14 been a citizen of San Luis Obispo County for 93 years. 14 along and put the same dam model plant on their site 15 It sure feels like 9 3 years. 15 without having to go through public review, and all this 16 At any rate, my first question to the panel is 16 other thing.

17 this: You've talked about visual inspections following 17 And I am thinking, "Isn't this a Iittle bit 18 the earthquake and going over everything very carefully. 18 like running upstairs and downstairs at the same time?"

19 But that wouldn't reveal internal piping cracks, 19 And my question is, Does the right hand of the nuclear 20 weakening of wells and joints or seams inside the steam 20 establishment, or the NRC, speak to the left hand?

21 generators. So when I am done, I would like you to 21 Those are my two questions.

22 respond to that. How do you go about proving that if 22 Now, I had a couple of comments, and I'll try 23 another earthquake hits, the material that hits i s not so 23 to keep them brief in view of the time factor. I feel 24 weakened that it might collapse or some dire happening 24 that in matters of public health and safety, the 25 would develop? 25 citizenry has to maintain a skeptical stance. There is Page 127 Page 129 1 Now, while I was sitting here, I was reflecting 1 too much risk involved for us here. There is too much 2 on your alarm procedures. You know, whether it's green 2 risk for anyone who lives near a nuclear power plant or 3 or yellow or red, and why it failed, and whether it is 3 in a tornado zone, as some of you said. But the 4 five percent or not. And the only analogy I can really 4 difference is that in nuclear power, you are dealing with 5 think of is like the 15-year-old girl who tells her mom, 5 genetic damage that can carry to further generations.

6 who is very worried about her afterschool behavior, that 6 That's not true with other forms of accident, be they 7 for 99 percent of her time over the last year, she has 7 automobiles or tomadoes or earthquakes. No one is 8 not been pregnant. 8 genetically damaged by those events, and they cannot pass 9 And I think that what happens is that we tend 9 the possibility of that damage on to future generations.

10 to assume that because we file reports and we have all of IO As a long-time reader of the Bulletin, The I1 this administrative stuff in place, that the test is very II Atomic Scientist, it becomes -- I already said that. I'm I2 small sometimes. Sometimes it's human error. Sometimes 12 sorry.

13 mechanical error. Sometimes it's just fate. 13 It becomes almost impossible for scientists 14 Now, it seems to me, I was reading in the 14 outside the nuclear industry establishment, and its 15 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist recently, not exactly a 15 privileged contractors, to gain access to data that would 16 novel kind of a read, but sometimes they have some 16 provide a clear and definitive view of the relationships 17 interesting articles. And the physicist, Dr. Frank 17 between nuclear power and cancer.

I8 Hempel, at Princeton University, who also is a professor 18 Every industry has its share of dangers and 19 of public affairs, and a man named, Gordon Thompson, whom 19 accidents. And one of the problems that we have to face 20 I hadn't heard of before, he is with the Institute for 20 is that the history of nuclear power, going back to the 21 Resources and Security Studies in Cambridge, 21 old AC -- I know you changed your name because AC got a 22 Massachusetts, came up with the following conclusion 22 very bad reputation. I know about the Rasmussen report 23 after they studied this plan of putting depleted fuel 23 and how that was phonied up. I know about the BEIR 24 into storage, external to the reactor. 24 report, which is now, by some reports, is trying to be 25 And they said that "fuel pools make nuclear 25 subverted by the nuclear establishment, which will try to 33 (Pages 126to 129)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 13( Page 132 1 claim that ionizing low-level -- ionizing radiation does 1 would see it manifested initially would be in the support 2 not have a cumulative effect. Hans Morgan, if he were 2 structures. So we did an inspection, walked down those 3 around now, would fight you bitterly on that; also a 3 important piping systems looking for indications, the 4 nuclear physicist. 4 first indications that we would see. We didn't see any.

5 I know that distinguished scientists, John 5 Notwithstanding that, there is also the 6 Gotham, for example, biophysicist at UC San Francisco, 6 required in-service inspection program that's conducted.

7 and Arthur Tamplin, and a host of others, who disagreed 7 The pipes are inspected routinely as part of the ASME, 8 with the nuclear establishment, were barred from data, 8 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, requirements 9 barred from contracts. There is a whole history of this. 9 for in-service inspection. Those inspections are done to 10 In other words, the minute you come out -- I wrote an 10 monitor wear and potential cracking mechanisms that are 11 article in the local paper, and bam, out comes this blast 11 known, such as stress-corrosion cracking. It's a 12 from Diablo Canyon, using all kinds of ridiculous and 12 phenomenon that is known. And so that was done during 13 far-flung, phony-science arguments. 13 this last outage, and there were no indications of damage 14 I mean, this is not the way you are going to 14 or cracks or anything resulting from the earthquake.

15 convince this public here. You are certainly not going 15 MR. WINN: And my question related to invisible 16 to convince me at all with this kind of bluster and bluff 16 cracking. In other words, that cannot be looked at from 17 and camouflage and smoke screen. It doesn't work. It 17 the outside.

18 rebounds against you. The best thing you could do is 18 MR. CAMERON: Let's just get you quickly on 19 open yourself up to public scrutiny. 19 record. Invisible cracking, can you go to that, Joe?

20 And I would like to end by saying that if the 20 MR. TAPIA: If you don't see any -- we are 21 industry really wishes to gain public trust, it would be 21 talking from the earthquake, okay. If you don't see any 22 better served by opening up medical data -- no names need 22 indication of damage to the support structure, you 23 to be given -- on workers at Diablo and other nuclear 23 wouldn't expect that there would be damage in the piping 24 power plants since their opening, and these are the 24 system itself. Okay.

25 people who have experienced cancer, which is not just 25 MR. WINN: No, I don't agree. The seems that Page 131 Page 133 1 restricted to them as part of the general population. 1 can crack, and you wouldn't know it. You can do that 2 These results from the nuclear power plants 2 with any kind of a structure.

3 could then be plotted on a countrywide grid or countywide 3 MR. TAPIA: The design of the system is very 4 grid and tied to an overlying baseline health study. 4 robust, and I mean the pipe. The weak link in the 5 Then we could end the game once and for all of "My quoted 5 system, which includes the supports is the support 6 study is better than your quoted study." 6 attachment to the wall. So if there is going to be any 7 The NRC stance, under the present 7 damage manifest itself in the piping system, you are 8 administration in Washington, is to make it harder and 8 going to see it at the weakest link, which is the support 9 harder for scientists and citizens to question the 9 attachment to the wall, so we look there first. Not 10 nuclear line. That worries me a lot. Where secrecy LO seeing any, it is logical to conclude that there isn't I1 rules, anything deceptive is possible. And the history 11 any damage in the pipe.

I2 of science is filled with so-called fail-safe conclusions 12 AUDIENCE: You don't do any type of X-rays?

I3 that failed, as well as gross and harmful deceptions. 13 MR. TAPIA: We do the in-service inspection 14 In conclusion, I quote an old Greek motto, 14 routine. Ultrasonic testing is what's clone to detect 15 "Whom the gods destroyed, they first make mad." 15 cracking. X-rays will not show cracks, and that is done 16 Thank you. 16 during each outage. There are -- there is an inspection 17 (Applause.) 17 plan that's submitted to us. There are certain samples 18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ira. And I want to go 18 that are made, and there are idpections that are done 19 to the first question. Thank you for the advice that you 19 for the purpose of identifying cracking or wear or that 20 gave tous. 20 sort of thing. And that was during this last outage.

21 MR. TAPIA: 1'11 speak to the concern about 21 But we don't expect to see any damage resulting from the 22 potential damage to piping systems from the earthquake. 22 earthquake, because of the inspection, and also because 23 The design of piping systems is such that the weakest 23 of the level of motion that was felt in the building, it 24 link is the support system. So if there were to be 24 was very, very small. The input ground motion was quite 25 stresses imposed on the piping system, the place you 25 small, compared to what those systems are designed for.

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 134 Page 13(

1 MR. CAMERON: And Joe, is this the type of 1 I think for everyone's benefit. The process that we use 2 information -- Joe and David were -- and Terry did the 2 follows something called the "LNT," the "Linear 3 inspection report that Bill Jones talked about? Is this 3 Nonthreshold" model. What that says is that there is no 4 the type of thing that is in the report? 4 level at which there is not some effect from radiation.

5 MR. PROULX: Yes. 5 That's the conservative model. And what we have done is 6 MR. CAMERON: I hope that this has clarified 6 we have taken effects that we see at higher dosages o f 7 some things for you. And thank you, Joe, for doing that. 7 radiation, effects we've observed, for example, in the 8 I think that was helpful. 8 Marshallese Islanders, the victims of Nagasaki and 9 We are going to go to this gentleman, and then 9 Hiroshima, and we extrapolate back and we say that there 10 this gentleman, and then I believe you wanted to say 10 is no level which there is not some consequence from 11 something. 11 radiation. And that's what our regulations are based 12 MR. SATORIUS: Before you do, there was one 12 upon.

13 other question that the gentleman had that I can address 13 Now, we know from a scientific information 14 up here. 14 that, in fact, the consequences of the effects and the 15 MR. CAMERON: I'm sorry, Mark. And that's the 15 behavior is different at low-levels of radiation. But be 16 left handtright hand. 16 that as it may, we assume a very conservative model, the 17 MR. SATORIUS: I was going to ask him what he 17 Linear Nonthreshold model. And arguably, it is 18 meant by that, but I was going to answer one of his other 18 conservative. But we think that is what you should do 19 questions. Your other question had to do with the levels 19 when establishing regulations.

20 of radiation, especially low levels of radiation and what 20 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Mark.

21 the effect of that is upon the body. And you are exactly 21 And go ahead, Pat.

22 right, there has been a significant amount of debate 22 MR. GWYNN: I would like to add, because you 23 among scientists and health physicists on what those 23 asked a question, a couple of questions, and I'll try to 24 effects are and at what level they become damaging. 24 sort them out.

25 And the agency has taken a positive action as a 25 You talked about two scholars on the East coast Page 135 Page 137 1 result of that. We've enacted a rule called the ALARA 1 Who had raised questions about fuel storage. And that's 2 rule. ALARA is one of these silly acronyms that we have 2 exactly this Alvarez study that Mr. Camper was talking 3 that stands for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." Did I 3 about earlier. That is being reviewed by an independent 4 get that right? 4 third party, the National Academy of Sciences, because 5 And what that means is that licensees are 5 our professionals and those professionals have differing 6 required to enact a program that we inspect as part of 6 opinions. We believe that either form is safe, but the 7 our baseline inspection program, that they reduce the 7 National Academy of Science is looking at that differing 8 dose to all of their workers, to all of the people that 8 view. And if, in fact, that independent body comes back 9 work in the facility to as low as can reasonably be 9 and says, "Mr. NRC, we think you are wrong," then 10 achieved. And we are the determiners of what's low 10 obviously, the NRC is going to be whatever is appropriate 11 enough; not them, we are. And we inspect that, and we I1 to address that safety concern. So I wanted to just make 12 have inspection findings. 12 sure that it was clear.

13 So we realize that there is a real question. 13 Also, you raised a comment about the licensing 14 And as you have low levels of dosage, and the further 14 process for new reactors. And that's something that the 15 lower you drive that, the further you drive it away from 15 agency changed quite some time ago. It's never been 16 health affects. So I would say that the NRC has enacted 16 exercised. That new licensing process provides a 17 regulations that deal with that. 7 process.

18 And the left handlright hand, I'm not sure I 18 You may recall that they sfarted construction 19 understood what you meant. 9 at Diablo Canyon before the agency ever finished the 20 MR. CAMPER: I did want to point out real quick !O licensing review of the safety of the facility. The new 21 that you are right, there is a great deal of science and !I process provides that not only will the design be fully 22 studies going on today about the effects of low-level !2 reviewed and licensed with opportunity for public comment 23 radiation. There is a great difference of opinion !3 and hearing, that a site where a reactor might be built 24 amongst scientists and health physicists. !4 has to be reviewed and approved for a reactor site, but 25 What we do, though, and you may know this, but !5 the marriage of the reactor design and the reactor site 35 (Pages 134 to 137)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 13f Page 14C 1 has to be reviewed and approved with an opportunity for 1 long time, so I go back 45 years on this.

2 public comment before any ground can be broken to being 2 I was in the army 45 years ago as a captain in 3 the construcfion of a nuclear power plant. 3 the chemical corps. The chemical corps, our favorite 4 So that really, I think, provides three 4 weapon in the chemical corp was this 4.2 mortar, which I 5 opportunities for public involvement. The local 5 can show you here. I've got specs on this, if anybody 6 community would certainly be involved in the decision on 6 wants it. It's a weapon developed in the '20s to deliver 7 whether or not there was going to be a site in their 7 gas, but they found out how effective it was for infantry 8 community and on whether or not the design could be 8 use, so it became an infantry weapon in World War I1 and 9 married to that site. And all of those opportunities 9 throughout the Korean War.

10 would be exhausted before a plant would ever being 10 And the reason it's so effective is it has a 11 construction in the United States. So that's that new 11 2 1/2 mile radius. It only weighs 300 pounds, so six 12 process that you were talking about. 12 people can carry it anyway. It was so effective that 13 MR. CAMERON: One final comment from Girija 13 they used it on boats. It was very light. You could use 14 Shukla. Go ahead. 14 it on ships. They used it in the island hopping campaign 15 MR. SHUKLA: Early on, every nuclear power 15 against the Japanese in World War 11. They mounted them 16 plant was custom designed, but later on the vendors found 16 on the landing craft so that they could take over when 17 out that if you have the standardized design, it would be 17 the artillery on the ships couldn't provide support, 18 more economical, so they have made some standard design. 18 because the troops were too close, you could fire these 19 Everybody, Westinghouse, General Electric, and all these 19 things off.

20 vendors. And NRC does approve a generic design. But 20 So they are a very effective weapon and so 21 there is no such thing that you can just take that design 21 diverse and so forth, all kinds of ammunition is 22 from the shelf and build a nuclear power plant anywhere 22 developed for these things, like thermite shells. They 23 you want. It has to go through a full review, full 23 can bum under water. Phosphorus shells and so forth.

24 hearing process. It only changes, as Mr. Gwynn said, 24 Now, I could get any of these weapons. I can go to a gun 25 that we have combined the construction license and 25 fair, those gun fairs they have all over the state and Page 139 Page 141 1 operating license together, is called, "Combined 1 country, and locate somebody who can get me antique 2 Operating License; that we have to license the utility 2 weapons of this sort.

3 at the same time when we license that design for them, at 3 So I'd like to go through a little scenario, if 4 the same time when we license the site. So it's a better 4 I was a terrorist and I wanted to be low-tech about it, 5 process for the public than for them. So rest assured 5 not the high-tech torpedoes, of what might happen here.

6 there is no such thing that you can just buy a plan from 6 But the "here" is the water, all the waste in the water, 7 somewhere and build it anywhere else. 7 unprotected in water tanks.

8 MR. CAMERON: Thanks. 8 I could drive to Montana de Oro, at the end of 9 We are going to go to this gentleman, this 9 Montero de Oro State Park. There is never anybody there.

LO gentleman, and then go to you, and then to Mrs. Groot. 10 There's a little rest room. I could unload my six guys L1 MR. HAGGARD: I'm Ken Haggard, local architect. 11 without equipment. If anybody is there, I would tell L2 That's Haggard, H-a-g-g-a-r-d, like Merle. 12 them we're photographing wildlife or something. We could 13 Thank you for coming and listening to us. And 13 walk a mile, stay in the park and still hit the thing.

14 I would like to first start with a little disagreement 14 At the same time, we could have somebody go up L5 with my friend, Dr. Krejsa, whom I've known for years. I 15 this public road, Perfumo Canyon, cut a barbed wire L6 think a lot of things we've hashed over a long time. But 16 fence, go on this road and be off the property and still L7 I think the thing that has changed the most is 17 hit it, or put it on the boats like they did in Okinawa.

L8 defensible, the question of defense. And so I would like 18 And probably, if I was a really clever terrorist or guy I9 to pick up the person before last in terms of the defense 19 who wanted to do this, we could do all four of these at

!O thing. 20 once and synchronize this thing.

!1 And I would like for run a little scenario from 21 --

This thing can produce deliver 40 rounds in

!2 my experience just to illustrate that it's not a 22 two minutes. So with four of them, we could do 160

!3 high-tech. It's not just a defense against a high-tech 23 rounds in two minutes before the troops got taken out.

!4 thing, like that 250 miles per hour torpedo, and so 14 It's a pretty low-tech operation. It's using an antique

!5 forth. I've been here a long time and following this a 25 World War I1 weapon, but let's look at it from a military 36 (Pages 138 to 141)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

_I_

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 142 Page 14r 1 viewpoint. If I was an "access of evil" type character, 1 it would be found that you couldn't defend these things, 2 which I'm not, but if I was, what would be the advantage 2 then would be the recommendation be given to close the 3 of this? Well, we mentioned the dirty bomb thing, so 3 thing and move the waste?

4 we've got a dirty bomb. We don't have to develop the 4 MR. YOUNG: I can't answer that question, but 5 dirty bomb. The U.S. provides it for us. Big effect if 5 it would go to the commissioners. And the commissioners 6 we are successful. Huge economic disruption. 6 would have to decide -- you know, the charter of this 7 But the main one from a military viewpoint is 7 agency is basically to protect public health and safety.

8 you've got Vandenberg Air Force base sitting down here, 8 From my perspective, if we found that -- even if it was 9 which is half of the military missile testing in the 9 the safety or security question where there wasn't proper 10 United States. The Predator weapon that was used in Iraq 10 protection of the public health and safety, 1 think from 11 and Afganistan, a lot of them are controlled from there. 11 the staffs recommendation would be to go up there, you 12 We could knock that out, maybe with twelve people, maybe 12 either have to correct the situation or you have to go 13 not. But it sure beats crashing yourself into a big 13 through the process of stopping that activity or 14 building. Your possibility is way beyond that. Big 14 correcting that activity. That's my opinion. We have 15 morale boost. 15 some managers here that can give you a better answer to 16 So symbolically, it's the ultimate irony. It's 16 that.

17 like Jujitsu, turning your opponent's strength on 17 MR. CAMERON: Or as you implied, the hardening 18 himself. With all these disadvantages, it seems 18 of the target too.

19 absolutely wrong to soften the target, if I can use a 19 MR. HAGGARD: Yeah. That's Dr. Thompson's 20 military term. PG&E and NRC is going along on this waste 20 proposal. N o waste. Nothing in ponds. Everything in 21 storage thing. We're softening the target. We should be 21 hardened storage. And then those are bunkered and really 22 hardening the target. I don't know about shipping it out 22 hardened up.

23 of there, but at least defending that waste, because this 23 MR. YOUNG: I think what the answer is if you 24 essentially is a dirty bomb, as the guy mentioned. 24 look what the Germans are doing, actually the way they 25 So now you are doing those studies, and the 25 are doing the waste, my office is looking at what the Page 143 Page 145 1 National Academy of Science is, but if -- my question, I 1 Germans are doing, because the Germans actually put their 2 guess, is, if it is determined that these things are 2 dry cask storage in what I want to call "hardened 3 indefensible, all the earthquake and all the other things 3 facilities," in other words where it's actually in a 4 we can argue about, and we have for 25 years now. If it 4 building, inside. The casks are actually inside a 5 is determined to be indefensible, is the political will, 5 building.

6 then, to close the plant, remove the waste and so forth, 6 MR. CAMERON: And we have to get you on the 7 because there is a lot of options besides these two? We 7 record too. But you think the question why don't we look 8 are bracketing the possibilities here from a very 8 at that before we --

9 low-tech thing to a very high-tech thing, but they all 9 MR. GWYNN: Two points, I want to make sure we 10 deal with defensibility of this thing. 10 tried to answer about when -- do w e have any sense for 11 MR. CAMERON: I just would echo what Pat Gwynn I1 schedule? When will these studies be finished? When 12 said before is that that type of information will be 12 will the commission make their decisions? Do we have any 13 something that be will be taken back. 13 sense of that?

14 And Larry Camper, and we'll go to Skip Young 14 MR. YOUNG: The office is actually is doing the 15 first on that. Go ahead, Skip. 15 ones for dry cask storage or the spent fuel project.

16 MR. YOUNG: I can't get into specifics, but I L6 MR. CAMERON: Larry Camper.

17 will say that we are looking at all kinds of weapons 17 MR. CAMPER: The ongoing vulnerability 18 sweets. That's all I will say. If we, in our 18 assessments, I can't tell you an e2act date, but I can 19 vulnerability studies, come out and find, basically, 19 tell you this. The target has been for the studies to be 20 there is inadequacies there, we will look at that and !O completed in the summer. And for the results, the 21 either require the licensees to put what I want to call !1 commission has been kept aware of the outcome of those 22 enhanced security measures in place to address that !2 studies in real-time as we learn information. And as we 23 shortfall. !3 learn information from our contractors, we have been 24 MR. HAGGARD: But even this if it's found !4 having ongoing communications with the commissioners.

2s indefensible -- I mean, isn't there the possibility that !5 As soon as the Vulnerability Assessments are 37 (Pages 142 to 145)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

- ~~

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 146 Page 148 1 completed, they will g o to the commission, and the 1 be. We just don't know yet because they're not complete.

2 commission will then determine if further mitigative 2 MR. CAMERON: Thank you for that.

3 measures are in order. But I do want to comment about 3 MR. GWYNN: And just to be clear for the 4 this issue of putting the dry casks storage into 4 gentleman's last question, you heard Mr. Camper say that 5 buildings, for example, as the Germans have done, or 5 the commission itself will make decisions, so there is 6 putting berms around these things. 6 nobody here in this room that can answer your question 7 T h e National Academy of Science, which is 7 about what will the decision be. We don't know.

8 conducting this independent study, recently went to 8 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.

9 Germany and was looking at those facilities. But I want 9 Let's go this gentleman. And we'll go to you 10 to point out that while at first glance, the idea of 10 and then over here.

11 putting a building around a dry cask storage facility may 11 MR. MARA: My name is Michael Mara, M-a-r-a.

12 seem like a good idea, understand when you do that, it 12 I've been a county resident since 1977, and 13 also causes problems. There are consequences, 13 there is a lot of us that have been fighting against 14 undesirable consequences from enclosing those things. 14 this, struggling with this for a long time. And there I5 UNIDENTIFIED: Like what? 15 are a lot of us who are very angry, and we are very weary 16 M R . CAMPER: Like the pooling of aviation fuel, 16 of this. We've been trying to get PG&E and the NRC and I7 for example. All I am saying to you is this: It is 17 the AEC, as it was, to keep its promises to give us the 18 readily understandable to reach the conclusion upon first 18 assurances that we're looking for, to give us the 19 glance that if I put a berm around this, or if I put a 19 safeguards that we've been -- that we feel is due. And 20 building around it, it's a good thing. But I am going to 10 it's just not happening. And it's got a lot of us really

!1 tell you that for everything you do, there is a cause and 11 sort of at our wits end with this entire process and with

!2 effect, everything. 12 this entire system.

!3 MR. CAMERON: And I think, Larry, isn't it 13 However, to try to leave the emotion out of it,

!4 true -- isn't it true, Larry, that the County 14 I look at you guys, and I think you, I am sure you guys

!5 Environmental report, one of their recommendations on 15 have a solid faith in your point of view and your systems Page 147 Page 149 1 security issues and design was that the design be such 1 and your technology. Understandably, you likely have the 2 that jet fuel would not accumulate? 2 best info available in many cases, but I know from 3 MR. CAMPER: Yeah. I think there were three 3 personal experience that nature has a way of sabotaging 4 mitigative measures that were suggested. There was this 4 the best-laid plans of mice and men.

5 idea of fire suppression system. There is a no-fly zone. 5 The assumption that this system, that these 6 And I think the third was this idea of not having fuel 6 systems that function within this plant can be fully 7 pooling, and this type of thing, And those are good 7 controlled, that science, technology and computerized 8 points. All good ideas. 8 equipment can deal with an eventuality, I've seen the 9 And what I am really saying to you is that 9 folly of this. I worked in it for 15 years, managed IO while -- in the final analysis, we do not know what will 10 networks for corporations, and we thought we had these 11 come out of the Vulnerability Assessments. They are 11 computers all worked out and everything was tine, and the 2 ongoing. But I can tell you this without getting into 12 bugs will come in when you least expect them. And

,3 details. The Vulnerability Assessments that we have been 13 obviously, when you are running a corporate network, it's

.4 conducting, and are conducting right now, are far more 14 nowhere near as much at stake as a situation such as 5 severe than the idea of hurling a bazooka into this thing 15 nuclear power plant control and containment system.

6 from a long distance away. I mean, we're talking some 16 But science itself is an interesting animal.

7 egregious attack scenarios and terrorist scenarios. We 17 To use an analogy that everyone is probably familiar 8 are trying very hard to use worst-case scenarios as part 18 with, for hundreds of years, thotsands of years, people 9 of this Vulnerability Assessment. 19 ate butter. They thought it was a wonderful thing. Got

!O The VA, when it is completed -- we hope to get !O to a point where all of a sudden we decided butter is bad

!1 that done this summer -- it will go to the commission. !1 for you and margarine is what we need to eat. And this

!2 The commission will then decide if further mitigated !2 was cutting-edge science at the time. And that went or

!3 measures are in order. In other words, do we need to do !3 a little while, and then science decided, "No. Margarine

!4 other things, like berms, for example, or buildings !4 is actually somewhat toxic for you, and we could go back

!5 around them, or whatever those mitigative measures might !5 to butter. " So now, we all eat a little bit of butter, 38 (Pages 146 to 149)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 15( Page 152 1 and that's fine again. 1 realIy does come in contact with the rotary device, we're 2 Science keeps changing. It's not a fixed 2 just out of luck. Unless you guys are planning on 3 certainty. It's not a situation that can be controlled. 3 sending in helicopters for us, are we supposed to swim 4 You know, he mentioned about the 7.2 earthquake is 4 for it? The entire couple hundred thousand residents of 5 guaranteed the strongest earthquake we can have. There 5 this county are supposed to try and get on 101 and drive 6 is no way on this earth that a scientist can say that and 6 south. I mean, you know, just get on the freeway on a 7 be absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that 7 weekend and see what it would be like if you had a panic 8 that is absolutely what can happen. He can feel that 8 situation. Just see what it is now and imagine what it 9 way. He can believe this, and that's fine. He is paid 9 would be like if you had a panic situation. We can't 10 to believe this, but it just doesn't work that way. 10 evacuate. There is no way to evacuate.

11 Man's irrational faith in science and 11 Until you guys can come up with a valid, 12 technology comes back to bite us on the ass. There is no 12 functional evacuation system that will really get us out 13 fail-safe technology. It does not exist. There is 13 of harms way, in the case of a serious accident, this 14 always somewhere a bug that can get into the machine. 14 isn't workable for us. This is not a workable situation.

15 And so assuming that something might go at some point, gc 15 So I would like to know what is your plan for evacuation?

16 right at the plant, whether through a seismic anomaly, 16 Are you going to build a 12-lane highway directly from 17 human error, terrorism, technological failure, you 17 here to Bakersfield, so that we all can leave? What is 18 gentlemen risk very little in a situation like this. A 18 your plan for this? How does this work?

19 reprimand perhaps; an unsatisfactory performance review. 19 MR. CAMERON: Can we give a little bit of the

!O Maybe, at worst, scorn from your colleagues. 20 framework for what the emergency planning requirements

!1 In direct contrast, we risk all. Should 21 are? I don't mean necessarily specifically for Diablo.

!2 something go wrong, we risk our health, our children's 22 MR. SATORIUS: I will -- we don't have anyone

!3 health. In the worst-case scenario, our lives, our 23 for EP, but I will sure take your question. And my

!4 homes, our livelihood. Due to what is at risk for us, we 24 answer to you is that we test, in conjunction with

!5 aren't going to go away. We will fight endlessly within 25 County, and in some cases city, depending on the location Page 15 1 Page 153 1 every means possible to get our concerns addressed, to 1 of the facility, but county, city, state, Federal, FEMA, 2 get our questions answered, to get PG&E and the NRC to 2 and NRC. And we run scenarios and drills within the 3 live up to its promises and commitments, or else until 3 county emergency operations facility other a periodic 4 this nuclear generation station and waste dump is closed 4 basis.

5 safely and permanently, one or the other, we are not 5 We did it in 2002 with Diablo Canyon. And 6 going to quit. We take this very, very seriously. At a 6 those scenarios are posed, just as you say, the difficult 7 point that maybe you can or cannot understand, or you can 7 evacuation scenarios. So we have requirements that these 8 imagine you understand. But we are not going to just 8 be tested on a periodic basis. Our region right now is 9 walk away from this. 9 performing one of these drills with the River Bend 0 I find it interesting that none of you live 10 station in Louisiana. So that would be the answer that I 1 near nuclear power plants. Perhaps you know something 11 can provide you.

.2 that we don't? Maybe that's not a good idea. 12 MR. MARA: Well, so, you are running some L3 One thing that bothers me -- and those are 13 drills. What I am talking about just try driving around 14 comments. A question in a situation -- accident, 14 this county when there were tourists around here and try 15 earthquake, terrorist attack, something occurs to Diablo 15 getting anywhere. In a panic situation, it's going to be

,6 canyon -- I would like to know what are the plans to 16 a mess. I mean, we are not going to be able to leave, 17 effectively evacuate this area. If you've spent any time 17 and that's not acceptable to us, to be stuck here, say, 18 here, 101 now is getting to where consistently we have 18 in a worst-case scenario with that thing, there has been 19 stop-and-go traffic between San Luis Obispo and Pismo 19 a breach in the containment, there has been a breach in

!O Beach area. The first time I saw this a year or so ago, 20 the dry cask, and that thing is belching clouds of

!1 I thought there was a wreck or I thought that CalTrans 21 radioactive plume, and we are stuck here in traffic.

!2 had closed a lane, or something. I couldn't understand. 22 That is not acceptable to us. And until that situation

!3 It's just traffic. This is just on a given day. This 23 is changed, we are not going to let this go. We are not

!4 isn't even necessarily even a Memorial Day weekend. 24 going to give up on fighting this.

!5 If the situation ever happens where (inaudible) 25 You know, I had a real peculiar --

39 (Pages 150 to 153)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 154 Page 156 1 MR. GWYNN: Just briefly, to add to what Mark 1 to m e and says, "I've got some fuel rods for you. And I 2 said, we do have people who specialize in emergency 2 went, "Excuse me?" And he says, "I've got fuel rods 3 planning. We can't answer your question. We may be able 3 coming in," and he was dead serious. And I said, "Are 4 to bring them with us the next time that we come. I hope 4 you serious?" And he says, "Oh, yeah."

5 so. And with respect to the specific emergency plan for 5 I mentioned this to the PG&E guys, and 6 off-site, emergency planning for nuclear power plants is 6 instantly they snapped to attention. I knew he was dead 7 a partnership between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7 serious. I wondered at the time, is this legal, to 8 the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State and 8 transport these in an unmarked 30-foot truck? Is that 9 the local officials who have responsibility for emergency 9 safe? Is that the standard policy that the NRC has for IO management in the local community. The NRC actually is IO transporting nuclear fuel rods? This is a real-life 11 directly responsible for the on-site, the -- 11 experience. I saw it. This is not some conjecture or 12 MR. MARA: The safety of the plant, I 12 third-party story or something.

13 understand. 13 MR. CAMERON: Do we have any -- I don't know --

14 MR. GWYNN: -- the controlled area, and then we 14 Larry or someone else who can just briefly talk about the 15 coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency 15 transportation?

16 and others who are working with the county officials in 16 MR. MARA: There is no markings whatsoever on L7 the State for the off-site. So the evaluation plans are 17 the truck that I recall.

I8 generated by the local community. 18 MR. CAMERON: Do you want to talk to that a 19 MR. MARA: It's a joint effort, I understand. 19 little bit?

10 MR. GWYNN: That's correct. And so if you have 20 MR. CAMPER: I can't comment on the scenario

!1 information about conditions in the county that you think 21 that you are describing. I can only tell that you

!2 have changed that would cause questions to be raised by 22 transportation of fuel rods, transportation of materials

!3 the validity of those plans, then I think that it would 23 have to be transported in packages that meet certain

!4 be valuable if you can provide that to us in some detail 24 specifications. Those packages have to have been

!5 and talk to one of our inspectors after the meeting. 25 reviewed and approved. There are entities which are Page 155 Page 157 1 MR. CAMERON: Is this available -- it's Mike? 1 authorized and there are DOT regulations that oversee 2 MR. MARA: Michael. 2 this as well. So I can only tell you that your scenario 3 MR. CAMERON: Are the plans available for the 3 seems strange to me. I can't comment on your particular 4 public to look at if someone wants to? 4 scenario.

5 Are you interested in -- have you seen the 5 MR. MARA: I was there. It seemed strange to 6 plan? Do you know what's in the plan? 6 me at the time.

7 MR. MARA: I have looked at it a long time ago. 7 MR. CAMPER: I'm saying I can't comment on your 8 I haven't looked at it recently. 8 particular scenario.

9 MR. CAMERON: Maybe we can take an action item 9 MR. MARA: I'm thinking, shouidn't there be 10 to get back to people if they want to see what the plan LO like a "hazardous materials" sign on the truck or 1 is. And you have a couple more things to tell us. 11 something? Or "Keep the hell away. Nuclear fuel rods."

2 MR. MARA: There was one. 1 had an interesting 12 Something.

3 experience about 20 years ago. I ran a service 13 MR. CAMPER: The transport of all radioactive 4 department in Computerland of San Luis Obispo, and PG&E 14 materials is subject to regulations by us or DOT. There 5 purchased 300 computers from us. We were the delivering I5 are placarding requirements. There are packages that 6 store. So the truck delivery came to our store with a 16 they can be shipped in requirements. It's not simply 7 truckload of computers, and I accompanied him out to the I7 putting in the back of a FedEx truck and showing up 8 plant sat there and supervised him unloading them on the 18 somewhere.

9 dock. And then he took off. The signature wasn't ready 19 MR. MARA: No. It wasn't a FedEx truck. It

!O to leave. I was standing there with a lab coat on. And 20 was a delivery truck. I didn't look at the actual

!1 a guy pulled up in a little 30-foot bobtail truck, a 21 containers. The truck might have been filled with led

!2 delivery truck that delivered bread in or roof tiles or 12 with one fuel rod in. I don't know. But the truck was

!3 anything else. 13 completely unmarked.

!4 And the PG&E guys were kind of lounging around, 24 In closing, I appreciate you guys coming out

!5 you know, goofing off and stuff. And this guy walks up 15 here. And you guys say at some point you would like to 40 (Pages 154 to 157)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

-. _ -- ~ -

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 151 Page 16C 1 -- whatever, that you'll accommodate us. My comment is 1 there is a depository to transport the radioactive waste 2 if you guys want to cut down on your trips out here and 2 away from here, does it need to be removed from the dry 3 save the taxpayers some money, I offer you a simple 3 casks and put into another type of container for 4 solution -- shut Diablo down. 4 shipment? Thank you for listening.

5 Thank you. 5 MR. CAMERON: Okay, Marilyn, thank you.

6 MS. BROWN: I promise this won't take long, and 6 And can we answer the question about you have 7 it may be anticlimactic because I'm going back to 7 dry cask storage, when it goes to be transported 8 grandchildren. 8 somewhere, what's the story?

9 My name is Marilyn Brown. I've lived in 9 Larry, are you going to do this for us?

10 San Luis Obispo County for 32 years. During that time, I 10 MR. CAMPER: The simple answer to your question 11 raised my family, and I operated my business. I would 11 is yes. When the spent nuclear fuel is removed from this 12 like to introduce my grandchildren to you. This is J.J., 12 site, or from any of the nuclear power facilities, it 13 the athlete. He is ten. This is Zoe, the dancer. She 13 will be transported -- it can only go to the national 14 is six. This is Emily, the musician. She plays trumpet, 14 repository, assuming for the sake of discussion it's 15 and she is going to be running for president when she is 15 Yucca Mountain. But the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 16 35. She tells me that. And this is Avery. She is 9, 16 requires that the spent nuclear fuel can be shipped only 17 and she has always wanted to be a chef. 17 in shipping containers that have been approved by the 18 Two of them live here with me near the Diablo 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So yes, it will be a 19 Nuclear Plant, and two live in Washington state, near the 19 special package to transport.

20 Hanford plant. We are a two-nuclear-reactor family. How 20 MS. BROWN: It has to be taken out of the dry 21 did we get so lucky. 21 casks and put into another type of container?

22 My reason for being here this evening is to 22 MR. CAMPER: It goes out of the spent fuel pool 23 implore you to use every scintilla of caution and 23 into a cask or container that's approved, reviewed and 24 conscience when you regulate the nuclear industry. The 24 approved by us. And when it's removed from the dry cask 25 decisions you make are far-reaching and effect us all. I 25 storage and taken to the repository, it will also be Page 159 Page 16 1 1 realize that economics and politics have bearing on 1 transported in a package that has been reviewed and 2 decisions, but please let safety be number one in your 2 approved.

3 priorities. Even if you have taken all measures to deal 3 MS. BROWN: But the very act of taking that out 4 with terrorism, either foreign or domestic, or an act of 4 of one container and putting it into another, that opens 5 insanity, or simply a technological failure, we are on 5 a whole other bag of problems, doesn't it? I mean, how 6 shaky ground here. 6 is this performed? By people? By machine?

I The earthquake we had on December 22,2003, 7 MR. CAMPER: It's performed by people working 8 should have been a wake-up call. I lost my business 8 for the power plant using equipment that's designed to 9 location in Paso Robles after 22 years. That was 9 move the spent fuel rods out of the spent fuel pool into 10 replaceable. Our children and grandchildren are not. I 10 the canister and into the cask. And similarly when it 11 have a calendar here of the everyday nuclear accidents 1 1 comes out, it will be done by using special equipment to 12 that have occurred all over the world. These are 12 do that.

13 documented since the first atomic bomb was used. It is 13 MS. BROWN: What about glassification?

14 14 pages in length, and there are many U.S.A. incidents 14 MR. CAMPER: I'm sorry. What about what?

15 of technological failures, coupled with human error. 15 MS. BROWN: Glassification of the nuclear 16 These incidents risk public health and the environment. 16 waste. They are trying that at the Hanford plant, I 17 One that stands out to me is the April 20, 17 believe.

18 1973, incident, where thousands of cubic feet of 18 MR. CAMPER: Oh, vitfiification. Putting like 19 radioactive waste flowed out of the Hanford nuclear 19 in glass cylinders?

20 weapons complex. It contaminated the Columbia River. My 20 MS.BROWN: Yes.

21 daughter has a Cherry farm on the Columbia. And although 21 MR. CAMPER: Well, the spent nuclear fuel 22 this incident occurred years ago, the half-life of 22 storage system that we're talking about here does not 23 radioactive elements is a sneeze in a tornado. 23 involve vitrification. It involves placing the spent 24 There must be a limit put on how much waste is 14 fuel rods into a canister that is welded, that is filled 25 allowed here. Also, I would like to ask, if and when 25 with inert gas, and then is placed into an overpack and 41 (Pages 158 to 161)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 162 Page 16 1 put onto the pad. Similarly, when it comes out, it will 1 something else in the next cask?

2 go into a canister that is designed for transportation. 2 And I, as everybody else here is, am assuming 3 Now, increasingly, the industry is moving toward what is 3 that basically it's not going to be in Yucca Mountain by 4 called DPC's, Dual Purpose Canisters, that can be used 4 that time. No. It's going to be in Yucca by the Sea; 5 for transport. But the entire thing does require a 5 namely Diablo. That's what we're going to have, Yucca by 6 particular type of package that's been reviewed and 6 the Sea.

7 approved. 7 Okay, next point. So there is a new procedure 8 MS. BROWN: The reason I ask that is because I 8 for the approval of new plants. What I would like to 9 was thinking because of all the problems that there are 9 know, Is there also a new procedure for approval of dry 10 with the dry cask storage, if there has been any research 10 cask storage to insure that this site and this method of 11 into another whole way of doing it, dealing with the 11 storage are a proper marriage? I would like to hear an 12 nuclear waste that might be less problematic. 12 answer to that. And perhaps your answer should be that 13 MR. GWYNN: Larry, just for clarification, our 13 in light of that, the an approval already given for the 14 resident inspector indicates that the casks that are 14 dry cask storage at Diablo needs to be reevaluated.

15 proposed to be used at Diablo Canyon are Dual Purpose 15 Thank you.

16 Casks, which means that they don't have to be unloaded. 16 MR.CAMERON: Thank you, Henriette.

17 They can be shipped directly. There are other designs. 17 And Larry, I think you are on, on this one, in 18 MR. CAMERON: Did you get that, Marilyn? 18 terms of what is the listening process. Would you 19 MR. CAMPER: Increasingly, the trend has been 19 characterize it as new or streamlined in any way? Can 20 for the industry to move toward Dual Purpose Casks. 20 you just give Henriette and the audience a little bit of 21 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank. 21 information on that?

!2 Henriette. 22 MR. CAMPER: The process for the licensing of 23 MS. GROOT: Yes. My name still is Henriette 23 the ISFSI, or if you want to call it the dangerous waste, 24 Groot. I have a couple of comments to make here, 24 first of all, the waste has to go into a cask or into a

!5 basically on safety issues. Not different from anybody 25 canister and into a cask that has been reviewed and Page 163 Page 165 1 else, actually. 1 approved. That package, that package is evaluated 2 First of all, let's call a spade a spade. When 2 against a number of things. I mean, we look at thermal 3 I got my Ph.D. in psychology from UCLA, my dissertation 3 analysis, structural analysis, criticality, severe 4 was on verbal behavior. And language is very important 4 accidents. For example, one of the accidents that we 5 in structuring our behavior. And when we come to safety 5 evaluate against is it has to be able to withstand a 6 issues, language is doubly important. So let's call a 6 $4,000 pound automobile being hurled at it at 126 miles 7 spade a spade? ISFSI, Independent Spent Fuel Storage 7 an hour, as an example. So the pack evaluation itself 8 Installation, does that really tell people how dangerous 8 undergoes an evaluation.

9 that stuff is? Hell no. Let's call it by its true 9 We issue what's called a Certificate of 0 name -- highly radioactive hazardous nuclear waste. IO Compliance for it. Okay. And that Certificate of 1 Somebody earlier showed you the signs that really should I1 Compliance goes through a public rulemaking process where 2 be attached to these casks, to this whole project. 12 we now have published the fact that this particular cask 3 If you tell a truck driver, "I am going to load 13 is now available.

4 your truck with some spent waste, with some spent fuel," 14 In the case of Diablo, these nuclear power 5 would he know how dangerous that stuff is? Of course 15 plants can move to dry storage by one or two ways: They 6 not. So let's call it by its proper name. Let's have 16 can move through a general license, which is authorized 7 the courage to at least tell people what it is. That's 17 in the regulations if they use an approved cask. In the 8 the first point I wanted to make. .8 case of Diablo, they opted to go kor a site-specific 9 The next one, those casks, now I understand .9 license. That was their decision. And as a result of

!O they are basically going to be licensed for a 20-year !O that, they subjected themselves to the hearing process,

!1 period, and they might be good for another 20 years. And !I and there were some comments earlier tonight about 12 my question is, what happens after that? Is PG&E going !2 certain contentions that were filed in the hearing 13 to go in there and say, "Well, oh, this cask now needs !3 process.

!4 replacing"? Who is going to do that work? Has anyone !4 The license was issued under Part 72. Okay.

!5 studied how you are going to then put the stuff in !5 Now, the license is issued for 20 years. You are 42 (Pages 162 to 165)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

-. --- __I- I _

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 166 Page 168 1 correct. But the commission is on record as saying that 1 MR. CAMERON: And just one clarification, 2 dry cask storage is suitable for at least a hundred years 2 though, Larry, is even though Congress determined that 3 without causing any environmental consequences. It did 3 Yucca Mountain was a potential site, the Department of 4 that in 1990 when it revisited the Waste Competence 4 Energy still has to meet the regulatory requirements of 5 Decision. 5 our agency and get a license.

6 Now, what is the Waste Competence Decision? 6 MR. CAMPER: Well, there are two things. One 7 That is a process that is used where the United States 7 is, that's absolutely right, Chip. The Department of 8 and other countries align themselves with the 8 Energy, as part of the requirements of the Act, is to 9 International Atomic Energy Agency and say, "This is the 9 prepare and submit to our agency an application to build 10 process and the regulatory approach we will use to 10 and then to operate high-level waste repository. The 11 regulate nuclear waste." So we issued a license for 20 11 Department of Energy is now preparing that application 12 years. It can be renewed. We have our first renewal 12 and is on schedule to submit it to us in December.

13 under review right now. 13 The second thing, and it's a point that I 14 And the thing that we look at, even though the 14 mentioned earlier, and that is, let's assume for sake of 15 commission has pointed out that it's safe without viable i5 discussion that Yucca Mountain is built, Yucca Mountain 16 consequences for 100 years, 30 years beyond the operation 16 becomes operational, for the sake of discussion. The 17 of the power plant itself, including renewal, the reason i7 movement of the spent nuclear fuel from these various 18 we do it for 20 years is it gives us a chance to look at 18 independent installations has to be carried out in a 19 things like materials degradation. Is there additional I9 package, a transportation package, that is been reviewed 20 data that we didn't have before? Do we want to impose 10 and approved bring the NRC as well. Those are 21 any additional maintenance conditions on the licensee? 11 requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

22 So the 20-year renewal is an opportunity to do another 12 MS. GROOT: The transportation would be a 23 evaluation, even though they are safer than that. Dry 13 nightmare in itself. Do any of you gentleman really 24 cask storage has been in place and used now for many 14 believe that Yucca Mountain will happen? Really?

25 years, especially in Europe. Longer in Europe than it is 15 MR. CAMERON: I don't think people are going to Page 167 Page 169 1 in the United States. 1 be able answer that now.

2 MS. GROOT: Yeah. Nevertheless, what happens 2 MS. GROOT: It's not a fair question.

3 after a hundred years? You and I won't be here. 3 MR. CAMERON: We have a few more people, 4 Somebody will have to worry about that. 4 including you, who are next. We are getting on to five 5 MR. CAMPER: Well, I know that earlier tonight 5 hours. And we are going to adjourn -- we're going to get 6 when it was pointed out that this approach -- put the red 6 the people that we have. And I want Pat to say a few 7 plates up -- when this approach was pointed out as being 7 words before we close. The NRC staff is going to be here 8 temporary, the policy that the Congress of the United 8 after the formal part of the meeting is adjourned to talk 9 States passed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, not the 9 with you about anything. So let's go to you, and then to IO Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the Congress of the IO you, and then you have a couple questions back there, and 11 United States said, among other things, in the Nuclear 11 try to get you in.

12 Waste Police Act, that dry storage, the capacity to store 12 G o ahead.

13 nuclear fuel on site was an important part of that Act 13 MS. SEELEY: Thank you for coming, and thanks 14 and the process this country will follow until we develop 14 for staying so late. My name is Linda Seeley, I5 a permanent geological repository. 15 S-e-e-I-e-y. I live in San Luis Obispo, and I've lived 16 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is on record 16 here for 22 years.

17 in saying that storage in pools and dry storage both are 17 I have questions for you, and I would like you 18 safe and secure. The commission has also said that the I8 to answer them as I ask them. There are just a few.

19 ultimate solution to high-level waste is the ultimate ,9 Number one, Why is there no no-fly zone over nuclear 10 disposition of a high-level waste repository. Right now !O plants in this country?

11 the Congress has determined that that is Yucca Mountain. !1 MR. CAMERON: Who wants to take that one?

12 The Department of Energy is working toward that !2 Girija or Skip?

13 objective. So yes, we and the Congress and the Nuclear !3 MR. SHUKLA: You are right that there are no 14 Waste Policy Act envisions this dry cask storage approach !4 permanent no-fly zones over the power plant. But as our 15 as a temporary mechanism. !5 other members have said, we have a intelligence community 43 (Pages 166 to 169)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 17( Page 17:

1 to warn us on those things. And FAA would create a 1 that is by the Orange County Airport. And there is no 2 no-fly zone in a hurry over Diablo Canyon. You should 2 no-fly zone over nuclear power plants. And those spent 3 rest assured. 3 fuel assemblies can withstand the impact of a 4,000 pound 4 MS. SEELEY: It's not just Diablo Canyon. It's 4 car going 300 miles an hour. Well, how big a Boeing 747 5 all nuclear power plants in this country, and none of 5 or a Hummer? 6,000 pounds, right?

6 them have no-fly zones. Why? 6 We are worried. We live here. You don't. We 7 MR. SHUKLA: There was an incident a couple 7 have children and grandchildren. This is a constant 8 years ago after 91 1 where when we got the intelligence 8 everyday worry for us. You -- I don't think you even 9 that something was going to happen at Three Mile Island, 9 understand. You talk in these grand terms about -- your 10 and we had a no-fly zone within seconds. 10 word that you use is "we are looking at things." We are 11 MS. SEELEY: However, if you recall 91 1, that 11 looking at things too, and we are looking at the fact 12 happened without -- well, there was warning, but they 12 that we live in a world that is not safe, as safe as it 13 were not able to prevent it. Remember? 13 used to be. Why won't the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 14 MR. SHUKLA: We are smarter now. 14 why have you refused to look at the issue of terrorism?

15 MR. CAMERON: Can you give the mike to Skip. 15 Why? That is a good question.

16 We will get some more input on that particular question 16 MR. CAMERON: We have to clarify -- we have to 17 for you. 17 respond to that.

18 MR. YOUNG: The issue of no-fly zones over 18 MS. SEELEY: Right.

19 commercial plants is a complicated problem because it 19 MR.YOUNG: We are looking at terrorism.

20 involves other industries. Like if you put a no-fly zone 20 MS.SEELEY: You have refused to look at -- to 11 over Diablo Canyon, it would shut down your local 21 hold public hearings on the issue of terrorism. You 12 airport, so there are certain things that the staff are 22 refused. Why? Why do you do these things to us? Why do 13 looking at. We have the capability of putting in a 23 you make us distrust you and think that you lie to us all 14 no-fly zone over a specific power plant if we need to, if 24 the time? Why do you do this to us? We don't deserve 15 we have intelligence that says there is an imminent 25 it. And you are abusing the sanctity of our lives, and I Page 171 Page 173 1 threat to this facility. 1 am very angry.

2 We are working with TSA and FAA to try to 2 MR. GWYNN: And I appreciate what you just 3 address what I want to call the Federal response to using 3 said. I understand, I think, the source of your concern.

4 an aircraft as a weapon. The first defense that the 4 And you need to understand that the Federal government 5 Federal government is looking at, and we haven't finished 5 has responsibility here. We have, in addition to the 6 looking at it, is to insure that the terrorist doesn't 6 security measures that are at these sites, we have clear 7 get the use of the aircraft to use as a weapon. That's 7 agreements with the Federal Aviation Administration.

8 the first line of defense. 8 They have a notice that's been issued for every nuclear 9 The second line of defense is for these 9 power plant in the country that says, "Airmen, you will 10 facilities, as part of the orders we issue to them, we LO not trespass across these spaces." So even though it's 11 require for them to come up with what I want to call 11 not a no-fly zone, it's a notice to airmen.

12 "mitigating strategies." If a plane would crash into 12 So people who are licensed pilots who want to 13 this facility, they have to have in place or have gone 13 keep their license will pay attention to that. If there I4 through the thought process of saying, "If this happened, 14 is a credible threat, a credible threat against a I5 what would they do and how would they safely render the I S specific nuclear power plant, or even a group of nuclear

,6 plant?" 16 power plants in the United States, we have an arrangement 17 We are doing the vulnerability studies. And I 7 with the FAA to immediately initiate a no-fly zone across 18 once we finish those, we will feed that information back 18 those plants that are potentially gffected by that

!9 to the utilities to say that will either assess things we 19 threat. We also have agreements with the North American

!O need to do more or we need to do less. But it has got to 10 Air Defense Command, with the Northern Command of the

!1 be a Federal-communities response when you start looking 11 United States Army to provide whatever resources are

!2 at putting no-fly zones over certain portions of the 12 necessary to assist local authorities, the FBI and

!3 country. 13 others, in defending the facility. So there are things

!4 MS.SEELEY: There is a no-fly zone over !4 in place that are there to provide some level of

!5 Disneyland. There is a no-fly zone over Disneyland, and !5 assurance to you that these plants are safer and that 44 (Pages 170 to 173)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

-. . - ..______- ~

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 17> Page 17C 1 they are being defended. 1 D-i-P-e-r-i.

2 The additional studies are being done to see if 2 I've got lots of questions, but I don't think I 3 there are any changes that need to be made. I personally 3 want your answers because I've been listening all night, 4 have been involved in participating in exercises where 4 and I've probably spent the last 25 years dealing with 5 we've talked directly with the pilots in airplanes who 5 listening to the same kinds of answers over and over 6 are following aberrant-behaving aircraft to make sure 6 again. I feel like I am sitting talking in front of the 7 that they stay away from nuclear facilities in the United 7 good-old-boys club, and I don't think that you make your 8 States. So we are practicing that, just in case we ever 8 living by trying to protect us. You make your living by 9 need to use it. 9 trying to defend nuclear power and nuclear waste that 10 But the principal source of security is with 10 you've created with the industry. And you can shake your 11 the Transportation Security Administration for aircraft 11 head and say no, but you guys are the pawns for the 12 safety, to make sure that the people who get on airplanes 12 higher-ups who are making the decisions. And you've 13 are not bad people. 13 justified your jobs for all these years of creating 14 MR. CAMERON: Larry, do you want to add to 14 waste. And there is some very serious, serious 15 that? 15 ramifications that could happen with the waste that's 16 MR. CAMPER: Two quick comments. You are 16 been created from this industry.

17 right, we don't live here like you do, and we understand 17 And I hope that some of you guys will really 18 that. And we understand where you are coming from. But 18 think about the jobs that you have and think about it, 19 we have all made careers out of trying to protect public 19 because you probably have brilliant minds, and they 20 health and safety. We take your concerns very seriously. 20 probably could have been used in other ways of doing 21 Every day we go to work, and in many cases because of 21 something good for the planet, instead of being locked 22 things that go on, like after 91 1, it was 2417. We take 22 into an industry that's trying to destroy our planet and 13 your concerns very seriously. So please understand, that 23 the life on it. There is a lot of waste that you 14 while we may not live here and will never feel quite the 24 created. It makes me think your mothers never taught you 25 way you do, believe me, this is what we do, and we are 25 to clean up after yourselves; that you guys still Page 17: Page 177 1 very serious about it. 1 continue to justify making it.

2 I mentioned, in the course of explaining the 2 There is lots of questions I have about the 3 licensing process for ISFSI, that severe accidents, such 3 seismology studies. There is lots of questions I have 4 as car, a 4,000-pound car at 126 miles an hour, was an 4 about the dry casks, but your patent answers of how to do 5 example of severe accident. You are totally right that a 5 it all rely on false assumptions. And your assumptions 6 large, modern-day commercial aircraft is something 6 are things that you consider reasonable and logical. For 7 totally different. In our ongoing vulnerability 7 instance, when you said that after the earthquake you 8 assessments, we are looking at that very issue. And when 8 guys went and looked at the wells and whatever, the 9 I say "looking," what I mean is we, along with our 9 stress points, and so you figured that there was no 10 contractor, are conducting sophisticated scientific LO damage done. Well, there has already been damaged done 11 studies as to what would be the consequences, if any, of I1 to the tubes. There is lots of degradation that's 12 an impact into one of these dry cask storage systems, in 12 already happening.

13 dry cask storage in transportation. And we are also 13 So you say the damage hasn't been done by the 14 looking at other serious terrorist threats. 14 earthquake, but if you are really logical, you would know 15 So it is on our scope. We are looking at it. 15 that since there is already done and there is already 16 And at the same time we are doing it, the whole idea of 16 tube degradation, anything that shakes it, whether it 17 dry cask storage or spent nuclear fuel storage, wet and 17 shakes it horizontal or vertically, is going to create 18 dry, is being looked at by the National Academy of 18 more damage. So there is a lot df false pretenses there 19 Science. So there is a great deal of work, good 19 that you are assuming, and you are taking a lot of 20 scientific work going on in this area. We are not !O people's lives into your hands when you make these

!1 oblivious to your concerns. !1 assumptions.

22 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thank you, Larry. !2 And I am really sorry that David Oatley left.

13 Do you want to use this, or do you want to come !3 I'm glad Missy is still here, and I think Jeff is still 24 up there? !4 here. And you guys defend PG&E. We have an industry 25 MS.DIPERI: My name is Kathy DiPeri, !5 here that went bankrupt, that pulled an Enron on us in 45 (Pages 174 to 177)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 171 Page 18 1 this community, and still is cutting corners to try to 1 light-water reactor that is built in the United States 2 make up its financial losses, and we are supposed to 2 cannot be used to make any form of a weapon, not a 3 trust them, and we are supposed to trust you that allow 3 nuclear weapon. It's not possible.

4 them to continue to do what they are doing. It's absurd, 4 MR. CAMERON: If you want to talk further about 5 and our community can see right through that. So it's 5 this after the meeting is over, but that is being offered 6 like we don't need your placating answers. Great, you 6 as a true statement.

7 are doing studies on what's going to happen in terrorism. 7 Yes, sir, you had a couple of questions.

8 What good is a study when something actually happens? We 8 Dr. SINGER: Very briefly.

9 don't need a study to tell us that something could 9 Hi. My name is Dr. Nathan Singer; N-a-t-h-a-n, IO happen. IO S-i-n-g-e-r. The hour is getting late. I'm not going to 11 What we need is something to be done with the 11 be long. Most of my questions have already been put 12 waste and something -- and we need you to stop making 12 forth by other people.

13 more waste. The minute they start putting the waste, the 13 You brought up the issue regarding the sirens 14 spent fuel rods in the dry casks, that's just leaving the 14 earlier this evening. And it just brought home a huge I5 spent fuel pools open for PG&E to make more crap for us I5 problem that we are having. I thoughts the crisis we 16 that's going to last longer and longer. 16 experienced on 91 1 would have woken this country up. We 17 So really, what you guys need to do is look 17 are no longer at peace. We are a country at war, and we 18 into your souls and think about how you're going to stop 18 have many nations around the world eager to see us 19 making the crap, because we don't really want it in our 19 sustain damage. The reactor at Diablo Canyon is in a 10 community, and no one else wants it in their community. 20 very vulnerable position being right on the coastline.

11 And you are going to cause hazardous conditions trying to 21 If the sirens get a green mark for working -- for 12 move it anywhere. And the only reason nuclear power 22 functioning 95 percent of the time, but yet during that

!3 needs to continue to be made is because they need the 23 one critical moment that we needed it, which was during

!4 nuclear waste for bombs. We don't need it for energy. 24 an earthquake, they malfunctioned, that means that they

!5 There is wind energy. There is solar, thermal. There is 25 malfunctioned 100 percent of the time. That was the only Page 179 Page 18 1 1 a lot of things that have already been proven to be 1 time we ever needed them, and yet they blew it. So why 2 efficient. And we don't really need our lights in 2 are they getting three years to install solar batteries 3 exchange for nuclear waste. 3 or battery backup systems, when we could need it tomorrow 4 So I think you guys all need to -- the way I 4 and it won't be there? We are now no better prepared 5 see it is that you guys are the ones who will be 5 than we are on December 22nd when the system failed.

6 criminally responsible when something happens. If the 6 MR. CAMERON: And would you like a comment from 7 plant was really safe, then what was the necessity of the 7 us on that?

8 Price Anderson Act? Why is there an Act that says no 8 Dr. SINGER: I would like an answer, sure.

9 power plant can be insured? Why can't w e sue your asses 9 MR. CAMERON: Go ahead, Bill.

0 if something happens? You know, and the way I would see 10 MR.JONES: The sirens on December 22nd were 1 it, David Oatley, the vice president of the company, I1 not needed, were not required. The plant was in a safe 2 would be in jail for criminal activity, because he would 12 condition. The plant was operating. There was no damage 3 be the one held responsible. Missy Hospins or Jeff Lewis 13 to the facility. So to say that the sirens were actually 4 would be the ones who would be responsible, criminally 14 required on December 22nd is not a factual statement.

5 responsible for telling the lies over and over again that 15 The plant was designed to be able to handle an 6 the power plant is safe when, in fact, it is just you 16 earthquake significantly greater than what it actually 7 guys' assumption. So I think you guys need to look into 17 saw. The plant, based on the inspections that we 8 your conscience and really think about what your lives 18 performed, the in-service inspecti6ns that were 9 are really all about. .9 performed, the in-service testing that was performed, the

!O (Applause.) !O immediate reviews that we performed that Mr. Tapia talked

I MR. CAMERON: Okay. I think we have one !I about, all give us assurance that the plant was not

2 comment up here about the statement about nuclear power !2 damaged.

3 for bombs. !3 Now, I understand that the 56 of 131 sirens 4 MR. GWYNN: Just to b e accurate, the material !4 were not available for about a five-hour period, but that 5 that's generated in a nuclear power reactor or !5 is a period where the plant was safe and the earthquake 46 (Pages 178 to 181)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 18: Page 18' 1 obviously clued people in that there is a need to talk to 1 give a decision on the licensing of a private fuel 2 the emergency broadcast system, but not because the plant 2 storage sometime next year.

3 was in an unsafe condition or that you needed to consider 3 MR. CAMERON: Larry.

4 any kind of evacuation or anything like that. So I would 4 MR. CAMPER: I would only add to what Pat said 5 point to the fact that the plant operated as expected, it 5 that you asked the question, "Is there no alternative to 6 was within its design, and the sirens during that period 6 dry storage?" If you look at it, what are the options?

7 were not required to be actuated. 7 One is reprocessing. Decisions were made in this country 8 And you've got to remember that there are other 8 several years ago that we would not do reprocessing of 9 means available to notify those people in those areas 9 nuclear fuel. That option was gone, for now; although, 10 when those sirens are not available, and that's important 10 it was reinstated during a subsequent administration. By 11 because that's part of the emergency plan that is I1 that point, the momentum had been lost for reprocessing 12 practiced every two years on an evaluation and yearly as 12 of nuclear fuel. It was not a viable option today, at 13 part of a drill. 13 least under the present conditions.

14 MR. GWYNN: I would like to add to what Bill 14 Restacking the spent fuel pools, making a 15 said, just repeating what I said earlier that we've heard I5 tighter configuration. There has been some earlier 16 what you said about sirens. We had experience with power 16 comments about that tonight. Many of the power plants 17 outage in the Northeast agencies looking with current 17 have, in fact, done that, but they do not have an 18 technology, should we be requiring any changes in this 18 infinite capacity. At some point, you have to do 19 area. And I hope that perhaps next time we come out, we 19 something with the build-up of the fuel. At this point 20 can bring one of our EP specialists with us and we can 20 in time, that something is dry storage. The movement is 21 talk about this in a little more detail. !I toward dry storage at the nuclear power plants 22 MR. CAMERON: Doctor, do you have another !2 themselves.

23 question? !3 As Pat points out, we are currently looking at 24 Dr. SINGER: Yes. With regards to spent !4 an application to operate a private fuel storage facility 25 nuclear fuel and storing it on site, aren't there any !5 in Utah. It's a consortium of utilities that want to do Page 183 Page 18:

1 other options? I mean, we are looking at Yucca Mountain 1 that. We are currently undergoing and conducting an 2 as being the ultimate repository. How far down the road 2 analysis of an aircraft crash into that facility. We 3 is that realistically? 3 hope to be positioned to complete the staff work by the 4 MR. GWYNN: Larry may want to say something. I 4 end of the year and make some recommendations to the 5 want to just throw out that there have been proposals for 5 commission for consideration early next year.

6 what are called away-from-reactor independent spent fuel 6 MR. CAMERON: All right. Thank you, Larry.

7 storage installations. There is one that's proposed to 7 Thank you, Doctor.

8 be licensed in the state of Utah, in the state of Utah. 8 I am going to turn it over to Pat again as our 9 It's a relatively large facility. Essentially, you 9 senior official to say a few words to adjourn the 10 would, instead of keeping the casks at the reactor site, 0 meeting.

11 you would transport these Dual Purpose Casks to that 1 MS. BECKER: Sorry, Chip. I have three more 12 private fuel storage installation in Utah. They would be 2 pages of questions left over from the responses that were 13 held there until such time as a geologic repository was 3 nonresponsive.

14 available, and then they would be transported to the 4 MR. CAMERON: Rochelle, I'm sorry.

15 repository. 5 MS. BECKER: I don't want to do this either.

16 Whether or not private fuel storage is going to 6 MR.CAMERON: You can submit those questions to 17 be licensed by the agency, I don't know. That review is 7 us and we will answer them, but we really can't go on for 18 still in progress, but that is one possibility that there 8 another hour, two hours with that And so we are going 19 could be an away-from-reactor independent spent fuel 9 to have to try to figure out a different way to try to 20 storage that's put into operation sometime in the 10 get you answers to those questions. And --

21 foreseeable future. :I MS. BECKER: Well, these are three and a half 22 Dr. SINGER: But we don't have a foreseeable 12 months which I waited for these answers, which are 23 date? :3 nonresponsive. And I don't want to stay here any later 24 MR. GWYNN: No. But I can tell you that the 14 than you guys do, but three and a half months is a long 25 current schedule for that licensing review would probably ,5 time to wait. If I let these out of my hands and don't 47 (Pages 182 to 185)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 18C Page 18, 1 ask them publicly so the public can hear what these 1 Does the systematic inspection include sonic testing, 2 questions are that are nonresponsive on this camera and 2 ultrasonic testing, any other type of testing that is 3 the transcript can refer to it, then it's lost. 3 different than just looking at things?

4 MR. GWYNN: We can attach those questions to 4 My next question, What actions would the NRC 5 the transcript. 5 initiate in the likelihood that Diablo Canyon is not 6 MS. BECKER: Can I show them to the camera too 6 designed to withstand ground acceleration from a 7-point 7 so the people can read them? 7 magnitude thrust or vertical earthquake?

8 MR. CAMERON: We are not going to be able to 8 The NRC's response, "If new information is 9 have a real productive dialogue with you. 9 discovered that calls into question the seismic adequacy 10 MS. BECKER: I agree. 10 of Diablo Canyon, the NRC will make a prompt 11 MR. CAMERON: If you can -- they're going to be 11 determination as to whether or not to allow the facility 12 attached to the transcript if you can get us a copy. 12 to continue to operate." Prompt was not the case when 13 MS. BECKER: I'll get it to you tomorrow. 13 the Hosgri Fault was discovered. Neither PG&E, nor the 14 MR. CAMERON: If you want to get this on the 14 NRC took immediate action. It was the community 15 record, okay, and you can do this fairly quickly, then 15 activists who found this Shell Oil geologist's report and 16 why don't you do it. But we are not going to have an 16 brought it to the attention of the NRC and PG&E. Did the I7 opportunity to try and have a dialogue with you on these 17 NRC take this information seriously and bring in experts I8 questions. What we are going to be able to do is try to 18 who agreed with the discovery to independently verify the 19 respond to those questions the same way that we are 19 seriousness of this new seismic information? No, they 20 responding to these action items. 20 did not. Community residents had to raise money and hire 11 MS.BECKER: Okay. Can I read these questions 21 consultants to dispute PG&E and the NRC consultants. The 12 now? !2 final result was Diablo Canyon was retrofitted, 13 MR.CAMERON: Why don't you do that, and it 13 backwards.

!4 will be on the record, and we'll know. !4 If the NRC could list instances of prompt 15 Is that okay with you guys? 15 action taken without public outcry, we are fairly certain Page 187 Page 185 1 Go ahead, Rochelle. 1 that this list would be small. Public trust is woefully 2 MS. BECKER: I could have done this quicker 2 lacking in the NRC. And that doesn't mean necessarily 3 earlier when I was less tired. 3 you guys, because you aren't the decisionmakers, but it 4 These are questions that would have gone to 4 is lacking in the NRC. And the NRC does not appear to 5 Mr. Bagchi and/or Mr. Imbro, I'm assuming, from your 5 really care that the public does not believe that they 6 structural engineers and your mechanical engineers. 6 are protecting their public health and safety of nuclear 7 This is the question I ask: Is it possible to 7 facilities. One meeting with public input on format does 8 assure that there was no damage or stress to the plant 8 not create trust, especially in light of the NRC's 9 that occurred during either quake? I actually asked if 9 history and current rulemaking, which further limit 0 it was possible to assure with absolute certainty that IO public input.

1 there was no damage. 1 Third question: Would reracking the 2 I believe my question referred to both the 2 radioactive pools again cause any additional sloshing?

3 October and December earthquakes, and PG&E's testimony 13 The NRC's response was, "Any expansion of spent 4 filed at the PUC case that there are, quote, "several 4 fuel storage in the existing spent fuel pools would 5 thousand cracks in the steam generators." And I wondered 5 require a complete seismic evaluation of the spent fuel 6 how you would know if there were thousand and two cracks 6 racks and the pool structure to ensure the current 7 in the steam generators from the earthquake. 7 seismic design is maintained."

8 The NRC's response was, quote, "Implementation 8 Evidently, the NRC does 2ot require complete 9 of this inspection program, a systematic inspection to 9 seismic evaluation of an expanded high-level radioactive 10 plant systems, components and supports in accordance with !O waste dump in an earthquake active coastal zone. Again,

!I Section 1 1 of the ASME Code will serve to further confirm !1 we remind you that the Mothers for Peace and the Sierra 12 that earthquake -- that the earthquake caused no !2 Club raised the issue of new seismic data and contentions 13 incipient damage." 13 addressing the expanded radioactive waste dump almost two 14 Does this mean you have determined the outcome 14 years ago. We question the NRC's sincerity in its

!5 of your systematic inspection before it's been completed? 15 statement that it's required to do complete seismic 48 (Pages 186 to 189)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 9,2004 Page 19( Page 19:

1 evaluations on reracking of spent fuel pools. From our 1 Don't worry about it.

2 past experience, the public often must raise money to 2 MR. CAMERON: But we will respond. Okay.

3 hire attorneys to force the NRC to follow its own 3 And before I turn it to Pat, I just want to 4 requirements. 4 thank everyone for being here. But I want to thank 5 Is it possible that the damage or stress can 5 Carolynn for doing an incredible job.

6 only be identified if pipe wells underwent X-rays or 6 I also have to thank our cable people. You 7 other screening that is not apparent to the naked eye? 7 know, it's was just great.

8 NRC's response, "No." Does the NRC mean that sonic only 8 And Pat?

9 and/or X-rays never reveal damage or stress not found in 9 MR. GWYNN: To those of you who remain, I want 10 a systematic inspection? If yes, please explain. If no, 10 to thank you for bearing with us. This has been a long 11 why are X-rays or sonic tests not being required? 11 evening. I know that it's kind of tough to add this to 12 Does the NRC need to revise its analysis to 12 your regular day, but I found it to be an extremely 13 take into account the recent earthquake on December 22, 13 useful dialogue. You've brought a number of issues to 14 2003? If yes, why, and how will this be accomplished? 14 us. Unfortunately, some of them came across so quickly 15 If no, why not? 15 that it wasn't possible for us, I think, to answer every 16 How did the NRC or PG&E previous study address 16 question that was asked. We will answer the questions 17 compressional thrust earthquakes? Please provide a list 17 that were asked. That is our process.

18 of all studies that have addressed the possibility of 18 Once the transcript is completed and provided 19 thrust earthquakes and cite where this information can be 19 to us, our people will review the transcript. We will 20 easily found. 20 come back, and just as we did for the last meeting, we 21 In your summary -- 1'11 skip that. 21 will make our responses available promptly through the 22 The NRC's answers to these questions will be 22 website. We will issue them to the service list, and we 23 reviewed by a variety of seismic experts in the state of 23 will come back to talk with you again at an appropriate 24 California. In the meantime, a very important question 24 time.

25 must be asked of the NRC experts brought to this town 25 I also want to thank AGP and the SLO Span Page 191 Page 193 1 hall meeting. Knowing that one of the major topics of 1 people for making this available to the community for 2 concern is seismic adequacy of Diablo, in light of the 2 those people who couldn't be here tonight to participate 3 recent earthquake information, do you really believe that 3 in a meeting. There will be a number of opportunities 4 you have all the qualifications in-house to exhaustively 4 for them to see and hear for themselves the proceeding 5 review this information? If Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant 5 that we had here this evening. And we will again to work 6 and high-level radioactive waste facility have not been 6 with SLO Span, the public bulletin board process, to give 7 adequately designed to withstand a thrust vertical ground 7 notice to meetings and things of that nature.

8 acceleration, either on the Hosgri or nearby faults, will 8 So again, thank you for coming this evening.

9 this community be again forced to raise tens of thousands 9 And we will make ourselves available to people after the 10 of dollars to sue the NRC to do its job? 10 meeting, if anybody wants to come up and talk to us 11 Everyone involved in finding answers to seismic I 1 one-on-one.

12 question is guessing. Some of it is educated guessing, 12 Thank you.

13 but it is speculative all the same. It is important for 13 (Hearing concluded at 11:40 p.m.)

14 all of us to remember when it comes to earthquakes, human 14 15 speculation, no matter how educated, is still 15 16 speculation, and it is Mother Nature who really calls the 16 17 shots. 17 18 I apologize to the court reporter for that 18 19 slurring, but it was the best I could do. 19 20 MR. CAMERON: And Rochelle, I sincerely, and I 10 21 think I speak for the rest of the NRC staff, thank you 11 22 for all the time you took to prepare those questions and 12 23 to try to get the answers to things that concern you. So 13 24 thank you for that, and I'm sorry we got so late on this. 14 25 MS. BECKER: We all knew it would be late. 15 49 (Pages 190 to 193)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

PUBLIC MEETING NUCLIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 194 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE L

3 _--

4 5 I, CAROLYNN ELAINE SPERE, A 6 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE 7 OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

8 THAT SAID PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN BEFORE 9 ME AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN SET FORTH AND WAS 10 TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN SHORTHAND AND THEREFORE REDUCED 11 TO COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION.

12 THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, THE 13 FOREGOING PROCEEDING IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT 14 TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN.

15 DATED AT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, 16 THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2004.

17 18 CAROLYNN ELAINE SPERE 19 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 20 '

21 22 23 50 (Page 194)

McDANIEL REPORTING (805) 544-3363

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2

3 4

5 I, CAROLYNN ELAINE SPERE, A 6 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE 7 OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

a THAT SAID PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN BEFORE 9 ME AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN SET FORTH AND WAS 10 TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN SHORTHAND AND THEREFORE REDUCED 11 TO COMPUTERIZED TRANSCRIPTION.

12 THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, THE 13 FOREGOING PROCEEDING IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT 14 TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN.

15 DATED AT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, 16 THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2004.

17 n

ia 19 CERTIFIED' SHORTHAND REPORTER 20 21 22 23 24 25 194 MCDANIEL SHORTHAND REPORTERS

PO 164 Pismo B each, Ca 93448 www.mothersforpeace.org (805) 773-3881 STATEMENT TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JUNE 9,2004 On Feb 4,2004 several county residents asked questions on seismic concerns and waited 3 ?4months for a response which contained either partial answers or non-answers. We would like to try to clarifl many questions and receive full responses tonight.

Mr. Jones is quoted in our local paper as stating We are going to stay as late as they need us to. And make sure we have all the individuals there to answer all [the]

questions. I personally found this statement puzzling.

For over 30 years this community has been waiting for answers to our safety concerns. If you are really here to listen to our voices as homeowners, businesses owners, parents and grandparents and not just as the NRC you might actually hear us. You might actually admit that a nuclear power plant and high-level radioactive waste dump does not belong on our earthquake active coast.

The Mothers for Pease remind you that virtually everyone in this room lives in a county which experienced a 6.5 M earthquake last December. The loss is still being felt. And I can assure you that the first thing in the minds of this community when the quake hit was-has there been a radioactive release at Diablo? Is Diablo safe? This quake made international news. Why, because there is a nuclear plant on our coast.

No one believes the Diablo nuclear plant is truly safe. No one believes that the potential for an accident, earthquake, terrorist attack, or act of malice and insanity does not exist.

The NRC and PG&E speak in terms of probabilistic risks; we ask that instead you consider the risk to our children and grandchildren whose future is in your hands.

With risk in mind, these are follow up questions which resulted from the NRCs partial, evasive or non-answers in its Additional Responses dated May 28,2004.

Questions to Dr. Li reparding seismic investipation issues:

Was it you Dr. Li who provided answers to scientific seismic questions? If not, who?

t

1. A question was asked if a survey of the transition zone has been done in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to see if there are any faults that are right next to the shore.

The NRCs response was as follows:

The area referenced as the transition zone has been surveyed as part of the long-term seismic program.. .(skipping on) The long-term seismic program has resulted in the identification of five active faults with significant earthquake potential, all are newly recognized or newly determined to be active. (The NRCs answer later states the identification was prior to 1991)

Is the information on which the NRC is basing its decision to license an expanded high-level radioactive waste dump on our coast really 13 years old? This question was not answered by Mr. Cluff, PG&Es expert or the NRC staff. In fact, Mr. Gwynn stated Well we do not have a staff geologist with us tonight. Of course we have a number of seismologists, both on staff and under contract to the agency.. .And for this reason, what I would like to do is take the record, go back to the office, have them look at what you said. And then, perhaps we can provide a written response at a later date.. . However, the NRC response of May 28,2004 did not answer this very direct and clear question.

It is our understanding that the methods PG&E mentions in their Long-term Seismic Final Report are not adequate to determine if there is a similar fault to the one that broke Dec. 22ndjust offshore of this nuclear plant. The only way to do this is what oil companies refer to as a transition zone seismic survey. We understand that this is the only way to see the subsurface structure below the coast. Looking at purely offshore and onshore seismic and geology cannot give information on the near offshore region.

For the NRC to refuse to order this survey and ignore the possibility of faults right next to the shore adjacent to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and recently license nuclear waste dump is irresponsible. Refusal defies the NRCs mandate to protect public health and safety. During the licensing phase for the Diablo nuclear plantzost estimates for retrofits fiom lack of independent NRC oversight cost ratepayers $2.2 billion dollars according to a CPUC report. Ratepayers across the nation are growing tired of being forced to pay for NRCs incompetence in adequately monitoring nuclear facilities.

These surveys may be expensive but our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren are priceless and a near-shore survey must be required. We would like to know if the NRC will require PG&E to commission an independent transition zone seismic study and we like to know tonight.

2. The next question. What actions are the NRC taking to ensure there are not previously undetected thrust faults near and underneath the plant?

The NRCs response was as follows:

The long-term seismic program updates on the geology, seismology, and tectonics associated with Diablo Canyon continue to support the conclusion that there are no undetected thrust faults near and underneath the plant.

Is the NRC still referring to the 13 year old study?

The NRCs response continues:

A recent Preliminary Report on the December 22,2003, M 6.5 San Simeon.. .

Earthquake discusses the probable origin of the San Simeon Earthquake as a blind thrust fault. The NRC plans to review the integration of this report into the long-term seismic program at a later date.

Has the NRC looked into the possibility that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant is built on top of a geologic fold that is caused by a fault that has never been addressed by the NRC? We know from the recent San Simeon earthquake that the fold belt is seismically active. The fold under the Diablo nuclear plant exists-it is on surface geologic maps.

How did this fold form? By faults like the one that jolted our county on Dec 22nd,the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, the 1984 Coalinga earthquake. All these moderate to large earthquakes occurred on unknown faults because none of the faults reach the surface. The folds are evidence that the faults exists.

The NRC licensed an expanded high-level radioactive waste dump on our coast in March of this year knowing full well that new seismic information questions the validity of seismic design at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.

What was your hurry? The radioactive fuel pools will not be full until 2006; the USGS is gathering data and analyzing it as we speak.

The Mothers for Peace raised the issue of new seismic data in our contentions before the ASLB in 2002 and our request for hearing was denied not on the merits, but because we were in the wrong forum. We were told to file Petition to reopen the original licensing proceeding to discuss new seismic information.

Is the NRC seriously continuing to tell this community that we must raise the money to file yet another Petition? We are growing tired of forcing the NRC to uphold its mandate to protect public health and safety. It is YOUR job to consider and independently review new data on the earthquake design adequacy of a nuclear plant and 3

radioactive waste dump in our seismically active coastal zone before making a bigger radioactive mess.

3. Has the NRC instituted or commissioned an independent study to determine if the ground motion on the Hosgri is thrust or reverse motion, which, according to some geologists, could result in greater ground motion?

NRC response:

The NRC concluded that the ground motion at the site should be evaluated for an earthquake on the Hosgri fault that is 2/3 strike-slip and 1/3 reverse-slip. This the NRC conclusion give greater weight to the ground motion associated with strike-slip component of motion for the design of Diablo Canyon.

Is the NRC again referring to a 13 year old study? It appears that on the question of vertical vs. horizontal movement on faults in the vicinity of the Hosgri, the NRC and PG&E position remains that 2/3 of the motion is horizontal. We have heard that the USGS is reevaluating their position and the Hosgri is likely to have as much vertical as horizontal movement. We have also heard this will increase the accelerations likely from the design earthquake.

What independent review of USGS information has the NRC done to uphold its position in support of the 2/3 horizontal and 1/3 vertical vs. ?4vertical and /z horizontal since 1991?

Where is the paperwork to assure an independent review has taken or is taking place on this issue?

On the question of near-field accelerations (which does not appear to be covered in any NRC or PG&E reports) evidence from directly over the fault that broke Dec 22nd is that vertical accelerations exceeded lg. Our understanding is what happens in this case is that rocks and most everything else tends to fly off the ground and the resulting recontact with the ground is often severe. To our knowledge neither the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant nor the recently licensed expanded onsite high-level radioactive storage dump is designed for high vertical accelerations, especially none that exceed gravity.

Ouestions for Mr. Bagchi and Mr. Imbro regardinp seismic structural issues Now to the questions I specifically asked of you on February 4,2004

1. Is it possible to assure that there was no damage or stress to the plant that occurred during either quake? I actually asked if it was possible to assure the public with E

absolute certainty there was no damage or stress. I believe my question referred to both the Oct and Dec 2003 earthquakes and PG&Es testimony filed at the CPUC that are several thousand cracks in Diablos steam generators.

NRC response:

. ..Implementation of this inspection program [a systematic inspection of plant systems, components, and supports in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code1 will serve to further confirm that the earthquake caused no incipient damage.

Does this mean you have determined the outcome of your systematic inspection before it has been completed? Does the systematic inspection include sonic testing and/or x-rays of miles of pipes and thousands of welds? If not, why not?

2. Next question. What actions would the NRC initiate in the likelihood that the Diablo Canyon plant is not designed to withstand ground acceleration from a 7.5 magnitude thrust or vertical earthquake?

NRCs response:

If new information is discovered that calls into question the seismic adequacy of Diablo Canyon, the NRC will make a prompt determination as to whether or not to allow the facility to continue to operate.

Prompt was not the case when the Hosgri fault was discovered. Neither PG&E nor the NRC took immediate action. It was community activists who found the Shell Oil report and brought it to the attention of the NRC and PG&E.

Did the NRC take this information seriously and bring in experts who agreed with this discovery to independently verify the seriousness of this new seismic information? No they did not. Community residents had to raise money and hire consultants to dispute PG&E and NRC consultants. The final result was Diablo Canyon nuclear plant was retrofitted.. .backwards.

If the NRC could list instances of its prompt action taken without public outcry, we are fairly certain this list would me small. Public trust is woefully lacking in the NRC and the problem is the NRC does not appear to really care that the public does not believe they are protecting public health and safety of nuclear facilities. One meeting with public input on format does not create trust, especially in light of the NRCs history and current rulemakings which further limit public input.

3. Would re-racking the radioactive fuel pools-again-cause any additional sloshing in the pools?

NRC response:

._C i

Any expansion of spent fuel storage in the existing spent fuel pool would require a complete seismic evaluation of the spent fuel racks and the pool structure to ensure that the current seismic design is maintained.

Evidently the NRC does not require a complete seismic evaluation of expanded high-level radioactive wastes dumps in earthquake active coastal zones. Again we remind you that the Mothers for Peace and the Sierra Club raised the issue of new seismic data in its contentions addressing an expanded nuclear dump almost 2 years ago.

We question the NRCs sincerity in its statement it is required to do complete seismic evaluations on re-racking of spent fuel pools. From our past experience the public often must raise money to hire attorneys to force the NRC to follow its own requirements.

4. Is it possible that damage or stress can only be identified if the pipe wells underwent x-rays or other screening that is not apparent to the naked eye?

NRC response:

No.. ..

Does the NRC mean that sonic tests and/or x-rays never reveal damage or stress not found in a systematic inspection? If yes, please explain. If no, why are x-rays or sonic tests not being required?

5. Does the NRC need to revise its analysis to take into account the recent earthquake on Dec 22,2003?

a. If yes, why and how will this be accomplished?

b. If no, why not:

C. Wow did the NRC or PG&E previous study address compressional/thrust earthquakes?

d. Please provide a list of all studies that have addressed the possibility of thrust earthquakes and cite where this information can be easily found.

Summary of NRC Independent Inspection Activities Which NRC expert on the panel provided the statement?

The NRC staff concluded that, based on there being no damage and the near identical designs of both units containment buildings, an inspection of the Unit 1 containment building could be deferred until the Unit 1 refueling outage scheduled to begin in March 2004.

How often do you actually look at damage from earthquakes? My parents home was completely destroyed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The homes behind, next door and across the street suffered little damage. This is a very common occurrence in earthquake situations, but apparently one the NRC does not believe applies to nuclear facilities.

The NRCs answers to these questions will be reviewed by a variety of seismic experts in the state of California. In the meantime, a very important question must be asked of the NRC experts brought to this Town Hall meeting. Knowing that one of the major topics of concern is the seismic adequacy of Diablo Canyon in light of recent earthquake information, do you believe you have the qualifications to exhaustedly review this information?

If the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant and high-level radioactive waste facility have not been adequately designed to withstand thrusthertical ground acceleration either on the Hosgri or other nearby faults, will this community be again forced to raise tens-of-thousands of dollars to sue the NRC to do its job?

Everyone involved in finding answers to seismic questions is guessing. Some of it is educated guessing, but it is speculative all the same. It is important for all of us to remember when it comes to earthquakes human speculation-no matter how educated-is still speculation. It is Mother Nature who really calls the shots.

Biographical information on the NRC experts reviewing seismic information resulting from the recent Dec 22,2003 San Simeon earthquake.

Gene lmbro is the Chief of the Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Mr. Imbro has held this position for the last 6 years. Mr. Imbro joined the AEC/NRC in 1974. Mr. Imbro has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering &om Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and a M. S.

in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. Mr. Imbro is a Licensed Professional Engineer in New York State.

Goutam Bagchi is a senior level advisor at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He has been involved in the design, construction, and inspection of numerous nuclear power plant structures, systems and components for over 35 years.

He has masters degrees in Mechanical Engineering, and Structural Engineering. He is a member of the ASME and EERI, and a Fellow of the ASCE. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.

Yong Li is a geophysicist at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He graduated from The University of Memphis in 1995 with a Ph.D. in geophysics. Since then, he worked for Impact Forecasting and Air-worldwide Inc. in modeling earthquakes and their collateral hazards. He was also involved in post-earthquake investigations, such as Jiji earthquake in Taiwan and Nisqually earthquake in Seattle. He joined the NRC in 2002, working on regulatory guides and seismic related issues.

NRC -- 6/9/04 Iwant to share with you the information on this eye-catching green sheet that came in my recent water bill from the City of SLO.

Given that the process of producing electricity with nuclear fuel and the waste left over are potentially very dangerous to plants, animals, earth and water, and humans for an unforeseeable future; And given our recent traumatic reminder that this is an area riddled with earthquake faults; Also given the heightened concern since September 11, 2001 in our country necessitating protective measures weve never even considered before; And also given that the Diablo Canyon site is going to be the repository for waste for the foreseeable future;

- - - Then it naturally follows that - - - YOU - the NRC - has an awesome amount of responsibility for ensuring safe operation and storage at this site for an unforeseeable length of time.

But back to my green sheet. It brings more here and now this county and those living here now - concerns into view. The residents of this county have been assured for years that the County Office of Emergency Services holds drills and is well equipped for any emergency or disaster that comes along.

This is a sheet advertising a Community Emergency Response Team training class being given by the SLO City Fire Department. The WHY is what especially caught my attention. Let me read it to you - -- ----

This piece of information and the fact that a preponderance of the sirens proved to be non-functioning at the time of the earthquake only further underscore for me that:

- - YOU the NRC - has an awesome amount of responsibility for ensuring safe operation and storage at this site for not only an unforeseeable length of time but for right now - at this time - in this county.

Evening Classes: 5:30-9:30 p.m. and Saturday Class: 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

WHAT IF.

You dialed 9-14 and there was a busy tone?

OR. .. . . . . ..

There wasnt any dial tone at all?

/ F A MAJOR DISASTER OCCURRED IN SAN LUIS OBISPO RIGHT NOW, WOULD YOU KNOW HOW TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELFAND ASSIST OTHERS?

The San Luis Obispo City Fire Department wants to assist you in being prepared by inviting you to the next Community Emergency Response Team training class WHY: In the event of a large-scale disaster, the normal Emergency Response Agencies that serve you will be overwhelmed and they might not be able to assist you for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (its simply, a supply and demand issue).

WHAT: CERT is a 20-hour hands-on course that teaches individuals to be better prepared in the event of a major disaster, to form into effective neighvorhood teams to assist others. In the CERT training class you will learn about how and when to turn off your Utilities; Firefighting skills; Medical skills; Hazardous Materials & Terrorism awareness; light Search and Rescue techniques; and most importantly, youll learn SELF RELIANCE.

WHERE: City of SLO Fire Station # I , 2160 Santa Barbara St., SLO WHEN: Four evening classes and one Saturday morning class. The evening ciass dates are: April 2 7 t h , May 4th, May I l t h , May 1 8 t h , and Saturday morning, May 2 2 n d .

COST: There is a $40 materials fee that provides you with a student manual and a CERT bag that includes a helmet, gloves, vest, goggles, etc.

Since ifs not a maffer of 7tbut more a matter of when,join the over 475 graduates of the program to better prepare yourself To Reserve your space, send your check, payable to: City of SLO, Mail to: CERT, 2160 Santa Barbara St., SLO, CA 93401 TODAY!

PRE-REGISTRATION IS A MUST (First Come, First Serve) if you have any questions, call for CERT info. 783-7777; Viv at 781-7382 or Cindy at 783-7773

At the Millstone Reactor (n Connecticutjthe utility is using horizontal dry cask storage 3 involves loading a steel canister with 32 fuel rod assemblies under water in a spent fuel 6_----

pool, placing a cap on the canister, and replacing the water inside with helium. The canister is then slowly transported to a bunker, where it is hydraulically inserted into the bunker and capped with concrete.

To ensure integrity, Dominion would add three extra feet of concrete to the top of each 18-by-20-by-8.5-foot bunker and two-feet thick concrete doors. The concrete is not prone to corrosion which would normally affect metal dry cask storage cylinders.

We ask why a more secure cask system has not been l j d d for Diablo Canyo& .

?I2 The likelihood of a permanent and safe nuclear waste facility grows dimmer even to proponents. Earlier this month Energy Secretary Spenser Abraham warned congressional leaders that A proposed massive reduction in fiscal year 2005 fimding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would create an indefinite delay in its projected 2010 opening. However, if money were the only problem at Yucca Mtn. it would have been opened long ago This administration has no problems with deficits.

91..

Si, Le This community deserves honest answers and not continued unmet promises. If high-level radioactive waste is never to leave our vulnerable and seismically active coastal zone, we must k a a s m d have the safest storage site technologically feasible. We must have definitive answers to seismic questions and we must have defense-in-depth.

c

FFG Statement to PGE and NRC June 9,2004 My name is Ivan Jasenovic I am here speaking to you on be half The Federal Frequency Group which I have been working with for the past several months.

I am A San Luis Obispo County resident of 24 years and for the last 12 years I have been the owner of a networking and communications consulting Company that has partnered with FFG.

Since Sept 1la ,2001, we at the Federal Frequency Group have taken great interest and concern in assessing what protecting critical infrastructures means and especially what it means to us here on the central coast. The fallout from even the most isolated terrorist attack an o can have devastating impacts on our community, surrounding areas and the environment.

Think Tanks and Research Companies (1 .) have compiled studies on the potential impacts and likelihood of terrorism. These studies have shown that even non-industrial and low population areas can be viable targets when there is the presence of critical infrastructures such as Nuclear Power Plants and Telecommunications. (Both In SLO)

Economic, physical, and emotional impacts of these types of attacks on vulnerable communities, far out weigh the monetary costs of enhanced local security, emergency response and communications systems. Real-Time systems will help to assess, monitor, and protect fiom any potential threats. Effective planning, management, and decision-making require utilizing key real time information and communications in order for first responders and other emergency response teams to effectively mitigate terrorist attacks and for that matter any emergency, both manmade and natural disasters.

The Federal Frequency Group has been studying these issues of Terrorism by Air, Land and Sea attack as it relates to Nuclear Power Plants and Chemical Facilities.

Federal Frequency Group is developing a system that tracks, assesses and notifies appropriate agencies in real-time as emergency events are developing. This allows those agencies to respond to those actions and emergencies using a communications backbone that provides real-time communication between sensing equipment and response teams (emergency and/or military). This includes inter-agency communication of response teams to multiple simultaneous events. The Homeland Security Act provides for streamlined decision making, and we at FFG can supply the systems to make full use of it

- by making sure the right people, have the right information, at the right time, in order to make the right decisions in an effort prevent and mitigate disasters.

We at FFG would like to present PGE with these tools and services - and would like to set up a presentation, so that we may demonstrate how the FFG Security Platform can

enhance your current security systems to help mitigate these types of actions and threats utilizing the new state of the art technologies.

So I am here to night to request time slot during your closed door session tomorrow to present what our systems are capable of and how they can help you.

A Near Miss at Nuclear Plant No-Fly Zone Covered up for Months A large military aircraft came within a few hundred feet of Scotland's oldest and most vulnerable nuclear plant in a near-miss incident which has been covered up for more than four months.

The Minister of Defence disclosed that the no-fly zones over three other nuclear plants had been breached five times in the past three years. One breach was at the Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian, one at Dungeness in Kent and three at Berkeley in Gloucestershire.

After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11,2001, the government doubled the restricted area for aircraft around nuclear installations to a radius of two nautical miles (2.3 miles). The aim was to reduce the risk of planes crashing into reactors and radioactive waste stores.

But politicians and environmentalists fear otherwise. 3Theconsequences, should a crash occur, would be an unimaginable catastrophe,2said the Welsh Labour MP Llew Smith, who has been researching nuclear near misses.

This was categorically denied by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and the government.

However, sources told the Sunday Herald yesterday that the report had just confused the location of the incident, mistaking Chapelcross for its sister nuclear station, Calder Hall.

British Energy, the private company that runs the Torness nuclear power station, refused to comment. In November 1999 a burning RAF Tornado crashed into the sea less than half a mile from Torness, its two pilots having safely ejected over land.'

My question for the NRC is why a No Fly Zone does not exist at US nuclear facilities?

Are American lives less important than British lives?

1 By Rob Edwards,

150 Cornerstone Ln.

Good Eveni ny, My name is Sam Casalina and I live in the downwind path from Diablo Canyon. I'm a certified Health Physicist and Industrial Hygienist having been trained at the Berkeley Lawrence Radiation Laboratory and Livermore Lab with 3 t s of experience in having to slog throught radionuclide-contaminated ground and floors at the Nevada Proving grounds and Pacific atomic bomb test sites. I 've owned and operated a company which dealt in the control of toxic substances in workdace and environ-ment-for nearly forty years, MY doctoral degree is based upon the 3 grantc atents for the eaceful use of radionuclide!

P To become really aware of wha the nature of ! he material that we are being asked to store in our community, everyone should experience the attempt to what is benignly referred to as decontamination, or "decon."

To get your cardio rate up, along with your heart up-in-your-throat feeling,try scrubbing part of yourself, or a piece of equipment con-taminated by the deadliest substances ever made by humankind. Often, after repeated scrubbings, suited-up in supposedly protective clothing anda suffocating respirgtor, a check with your radiation detection meter still gives you an off-scale, or still high reading.Is this what'? facing The Atomic Energy Act o f 1954 allowed for civilian use o rnutrear OF co n y.

mat-erials,and I was asked by the Rad Lab if -I wanted to go to work for the newly-formed Inspection Division for complime as their first Health Physicist. I enjoyed the work interacting with the licensees, and answer-ing public concerns. A t no time were we told to ignore these public sus-picions, because our mandate was to protect. the people's health, safety, and property from any releases of a licensee's radioactive material,

_I ww I I I C r I L m~ +%tm.To my dismay I soon found that some licensees regularly lied to us. To this day, I sometimes think that the inspection of their records and activities by the NRC should also include a polygraph test of key personnel and the company owners.

As an example, consider the recent near-catastrophic corrosion failure at the Davis-Besse nuclear powerplant near Toledo, Ohio. The NRC press release whined that they were lied to. Welcome to the real world, folks.

To my former colleagues at the NRC, I would respectfully remind them of one thing: the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is your licensee--they are not your fraternity brothers.

Neither in the federal Atomic Energy Acts or California's assumption of non-fissionable material, does the language in these laws specifically confer SOLE authority and SOLE responsibility for nuclear plants to the federal government. Their "authority" was never meant to be authoritariar Never meant to be exclusionary of states, county or potential victims' rights. The word often used by the feds and the legal people is "Preempt.

We are preempted from having an important part of the decision-making process that will affect our lives, our families, our future generations, and this wonderful havenwe call the Central Coast. But the word "preempt' comes directly from the Latin ""Praemere": it means pre-paid, bought beforehand, or "bought and paid for." We're Americans! No government entity or corporation bought and paid for our right to control our destin)

We citizens paid for that right with the blood of our loved ones and buddies in combat. We compliance officers were told that the Atomic Energ!

Acts were to be a partnership with states, local agencies,and the, public which was what these laws were all about protecting.

How important is public input? Let me tell you one experience that will answer that question. In mid-1958, while still serving with the AEC, soon to be renamed the NRC, a public's concern averted a nuclear disaster, And it happened like this. My compliance office received a call from a a worried town counsel member in the town of Grass Valley, California.

Grass Valley is located about 150 miles North-East of the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the town's residents had suspicions that a local com-pany licensed to store radioactive waste was ignoring possibly leaking drums at their rural storage site. Their greatest concern was that if this radioactive liquid (some of which was relatively high level) drib-bled into the creek just below the site, the contaminated water would poison the area's aquifer. Moreover, the creek runs into the Yuba River which supplies at least three downstream cmnties. This licensee had been given a low priority inspection frequency and had not been visited.

I hurriedly went to the licensee's site and found that dozens of the stee drums had corroded from the acidic solutions of industrial and medical isotopes. I called my Division Director, Dick Smith, who concurred that the licensee must berm and contain the spills, transfer the waste to another licensee capable of ensuring its safe containment and decontam-inate the site. The Grass Valley waste handler's license was revoked.

This is proof that the exclusion of the public's concerns is self-defeat-ing because the ultimate goal of all safety regulations is to protect t h e

public. Those charged with ensuring the compliance of licensees and licensee/corporate big-wigs seldom live on the front lines where the action is.

Today's DOE and NRC are not doing the j o b envisioned by most of us who believe that public safeey is everybody's business, and as members and shareholders in this democracy, we have THE RIGHT AND OBLIGATION to ensure our safety and that of future generations. Fortunately, last week's senate hearing on the shortcomings in the DOE and NRC confirmed that belief. More and more members of congress are becoming outraged and deeply concerned that the Department o f Energy has not really start-ed to clean up tens-of-millions of gallons o f high level radioactive waste at our national facilities. These include Savannah River, Oak Ridge Hanford Oregon and other sites. $250 million dollars was authorized and funded for site cleanup y3ars ago with none o f the money spent.

Our congressional committee members should consider a1 1 of these sites, including the same high lzvel radioactive waste piling up at power plants and let's not forget Diablo Canyon's goodies. , They should speed up efforts to remove this high level nuclear material to a safe repository.

As to PG&E's.waste storage scheme, the potential catastrophic risk is too high when you factor in the six highly complex steps necessary to trans-fer Diablo's used fuel from the water pools to the final storage site.

01' Timers in this business have a saying: "The more you mess with deadly stuff, the more likely you gonna =dead."

But getting back to this seemingly authoritarian need by the feds and their licensees to cut us potential victims out of the decision loop.

In an effort to trace this exclusionary mindset, I went back to early legislation which allowed civilian use of radioisotopes (like in medicine for diagnoses and treatment), The electric utilities were allowed the use of fissionable materials. In this first AEC (now NRC) Table of Organ-ization, we see that general industrial, medical and learning institutions' use and licensure is under the "Division of Military Applications."

But,the sites which had produced the atom bombs, and were now furiously developing hydrogen bombs and nuclear reactors for naval submarines was under the "Division of Industrial Development." ( ! ) Que pasa?

SO, the genesis for the nuclear boiling water reactor was the shadowy, world of atomic secrets.

This mentality was largely eased as states assumed and Shared responsi-bility for the licensing and surveillance o f isotope users when congress Passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Eight years later, Calijornia

signed a joint and reciprocal agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission This meant, and the Agreement states, that there was to be a sharing of data information between all parties. Throughout the whole contract, there is the spirit and wording reflecting a joint State-Federal partnership.

Even though the AEC was allowed to retainxontrol and administer nuclear electric generation plants, there is nothing exclusionary in in this, or subsequent bills, which limits the state's, counties', or anyone else from questioning any licensee's operation with regard to safety.

Here is a copy of the original AEC-California agreement Bill No.29 dated March 13, 1962. It says, and the feds agreed that: READ This was pretty clear to all of us: "You show us yours, we'll show you ours.

I left the AEC in late 1959 to offer compliance consulting services, which went well One of my first clients was the great labor union o f mostly utility workers, Local 1245 IBEW. The Business Manager for this union was a wonderful human being whos spirit and effortsfor the public good went far beyond the substantial gains he and his staff fought for and won for the PG&E workers. H i s name was Ron Weakley.

When the farm workers were getting sick by being forced into just-sprayed fields to pick the crops. Ron Weakley sent me to Sacramento to meet with Cesar Chavez and his sister to gather data to support a safe no work period after a pesticide application to a e;-op..

When many politicians and some big Building Trade unions clammered for extensive fallout shelter construction for every backyard at the height o f the cold war, my union client sent me to a "Survive the Bomb and Don't Worry" political rally in Los Angeles to join Robert Ryan, Steve Allen and many other actors. Our position was: "You can build all of of the bomb shelters you want, but what kind of world would we come out to after a devastating exchange of nuclear missiles with the Soviet Union?

"We had better concentrate on finding a peaceful solution."

Needless to say, this did not make me very popular with some labor people and I was promptly labled a "peace-nik."

California convened an Advisory Committee on Radiological Health.

Its members included representatives of industry, which was PG&E, medicine and I represented organized labor. In looklng back at my reports to Mr. Weakley, I repeatedly wrote of the PG&E reps' stalling and foot-drag-gingon any topic cbn our agenda concerning improving or enforcing radiation safety procedures. Thea'r attitude seemed to be that safety was the

i:

company's business and not open for discussion. Another puzzling tactic was when they would just sit and write furiously throughout the whole meeting, but nothing to say themselves.

Today, nuclear powerplants are a terrorist's delight for three reasons:

First, if obtained, used fuel can be reprocessed by readily available centrifuge technology. This can be made into bomb and weapons grade fissionable material. Mock terrorist incursions into our atomic weapons labs has been easily accomplished. What is unique at Diablo Canyon?

Second, fuel rods and even pieces can bring high prices in the open market as shown by the recent theft o f Russian fuel rods, and their thwarted sale for $250,000 at a Pakistani border checkpoint. This mater-ial can be reprocessed , or simply used in making dirty bombs.

Finally, there are a number of unquantifiable factors at Diablo that make it, in my estimation, an unacceptable risk.

There might well be a seismic threat to the Diablo site of presently immeasurable magnitude. Huge used fuel storage casks lined up in an open line-of-sight might be concluded by terrorists, disgruntled employ-ees or control freak types as a perfect way to deliver lethal amounts of radioactive garbage to the Los Angeles Basin via our prevailing South-South-West coastal winds. This "air mail" delivery method could not be cheaper, nor more devastating.

O.K. Final questions for our friends from the Commission:

What algorithim or risk formulations, did PG&E submit, and the NRC approve which made the Diablo Canyon used fuel on-site storage plan an acceptable risk. None of the algorithim formulas in my files used for toxics ranging from how to abate a million square feet of friable asbestos, to pesticides or to aerospace manufacturing toxins could possibly give a green light to such a problem-ridden project as the one discussed here tonight.

Next, How many FEMA, NRC or other emergency response workers could be mustered quickly to evacuate heavily contaminated county residents to decon centers. Where are these centers to be sited? Where would people showing signs of radiation-induced damage turn for help? Hospitals?

Medical treatment centers? Where are they, and are they equipped to treat thousands o f people?

If you're in the flower of youryouth, or the twilight of your years, as am I, no one should have to worry about the things being brought out here tonight Is "Bucks above bodies" the only legacy we can leave our future generations?

, J ij i

m P

o z 3

2 I b!

i" I

c I .

An act to add Article 16 (commencing with Section 25875) to Chapter 7.6, Division 20 o f the Health and Safety Code, relating t o the ratification o f the agreement between the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the State of California.

The-people of the State of California do enact as follows:

1 SECTION 1. Article 16 (commencing with Section 25875) is 2 added to Chapter 7.6, Division 20 of t h e Health a n d S a f e t y

-1 3 Code, to r e a d :

i 4 5 Article 16. Agreement between the United States Atomic i 6 E n e r g y Conmission a n d the S t a t e of California I 7 8 25875. The Legislature of t h e S t a t e of California hereby 9 ratifies a n d approves t h a t certain agreement designated as t h e 10 Agreement between the United States Atomie E n e r g y Com-11 mission a n d the State of California f o r Discontinuance of 12 Certain Cornmission Regulatory A u t h o r i t y a n d Responsibility

- 13 within ,the S t a t e P u r s u a n t to Section 274 of the Atomic En-14 ergy A c t of 1954, as Amended, which was approved b y t h e 15 . Chairman of the Atomic E n e r g y Commission on the n i n t h d a y

. . . 16 17 of March 1962, under authority of Section 274 of the Atomic E n e r g y Act of 1954, a s amended (Public Law 86-373), a n d 1 18 19 b y t h e Governor of California on t h e 1 2 t h day of March 1962, u n d e r authority of a n d i n conformity with Section 25830,

- LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST 4 A B . 29,as introduced, Rumford (Pub.H.) . Atomic energy.

Adds Art. 16 (commencing with See. 25875), Ch. 7.6, Div. 20, H. & S.C.

Ratifies agreement between the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the State of California for discontinuance of certain commission rznlatory authority dnd responsibility within the State.

To become operative on the 91st day after the adjournment of the first extraor-dinary session of the 1962 California Legislature or on September 1, 1962, whichever is later.

0 I

17 form a i r i t i c a l mass. 17 Article VI 18 18 19 - Article I1 19 The Commission will use its best efforts to keep the S t a t e 20 informed of proposed changes i n its rules a n d regulations, a n d not provide for discontinuance of any 21 licensing, inspection, a n d enforcement policies a n d criteria ority a n d t h e Commission shall retain authority a n d re- 22 a n d to obtain t h e comments a n d asskkince of the State thereon.

23 sponsibility'with respect to regulation of: 23 21 A. The construction a n d operation of a n y production or -. 24 Article VI1 25 utilization facility; 25 26 B. The export from o r import into t h e United States of by- 26 The Coqmission a n d the S t a t e agree that it is desirable 27 product, source, or special nuclear material, or of a n y produc- 27 t o provide for reciprocal recognition of licenses for t h e ma-28 tion or utilization facility ; 28 terials listed in Article . I licensed b y - t h e other p a r t y or by 29 C. The disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, 29 a n y agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the 30 o r special nuclear waste materials as defined in regulations or 30 State agree to use their best efforts to develop appropriate 3 1 orders of the Commissioi~; 31 rules, regulations, a n d procedures by which such reciprocity 32 D. The disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special 32 will be accorded.

33 nuclear material as the Commission from time to time de- 33 Article VI11 34 termines by regulation o r o r d e r should, because of the hazards 34 35 or potential hazards thereof, not be so disposed of without a 35 The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable 36 license from the 36 notice a n d opportunity f o r hearing to t h e State, or upon re-37 quest of t h e Governor of the State, m a y terminate or suspend 38 this Agreement a n d reassert the licensing and regulatory 39 authority vested i n it under t h e Act if the Commission finds he Commission may from 40 t h a t such termination or suspension is required to protect order, require t h a t t h e 41 the public health a n d safety.

of 'any equipment, de- 42 44 taining soui'ce, byprod-uct, or special nucleai material shall not transfer possession 1 1 4 43 4

Article IX 45 or control of such product except pursuant to a license or a n 45 This Agreement, upon ratification by law of the State, shall 46 exemption from licensing issued by t h e Commissioh. 46 become effective on t h e ninety-first d a y after the adjournment 47 47 of t h e First Extraordinary Session of -the 1962 California 48 Article IV 4& Legislature or on September 1, 1962, whichever is later, a n d 49 49 shall remain in effect unless) and until such time as it is 50 TIiis Agreement shall-not affect the authority of the Com- 50 terminated pursuant to Article VIII.

51 mission under Subsection 161 b. or i. of the Act t o issue rules, 0 0

Thomas J. Becker Statement summary 9JuneO4 before NRC Security Nuclear facilities pose an inviting target for either domestic terrorists (like the murderers who carried out the Oklahoma City Bombing) or foreign terrorists. Whereas the reactors present a hardened reinforced steel and concrete structure, the spent fuel pools are a soft target.

Criminals could use a helicopter to deliver an explosive device much smaller than the bomb that destroyed the Oklahoma Federal Building. That would create the ultimate radioactive Dirty Bomb. Such and explosion would displace the borated water and cause an enormous radioactive release and Contamination over a wide geographic area.

The NRC has allowed PG&E to store the deadly radioactive spent fuel rods in more concentrated racks than the pools were originally designed for, thus magnifying the destructive effects of the damage from a dirty bomb or loss of borated water from an earthquake.

To better protect the public from such a horrific radioactive contamination, the NRC, at a minimum, should require a bomb resistant bunker type structure be built to shield the pools which store radioactive spent fuel rods along with a no fly zone enforced by on site military. The public needs military protection here from PG&Es weapon of mass destruction.

How can the NRC claim that ever closer racking of radioactive fuel rods past the design limits could possibly be in the public interest. Certainly the NRC has accommodated the corporate greed of this recently bankrupt utility to the detriment of public safety.

Radioactive Waste Disposal Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactors were licensed in the 80s with the understanding that the Federal Government would fund and build a safe repository for all the deadly radioactive isotopes left over as waste from these reactors. As the NRC is well aware there is no permanent high-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Best estimates conclude such a hypothetical waste dump is still decades away. Various experts debate whether any such a repository can even contain some of these deadly radioactive isotopes for the tens-of-thousands of years required. Since there is no safe place for the tons of high-level radioactive waste already accumulated, Stop allowing even more to be generated.

How will our Grandchildren and Their Grandchildren View this current controversy?

The NRCs decisions will impact future generations for tens of thousands of years. My Grandchildren and everyone elses grandchildren will need to be isolated from the deadly radioactive isotopes generated daily by nuclear reactors. Will your own descendants fondly remember you for allowing this deadly material to threaten them and all their future generations.

Will history condemn us for permitting such crimes against all of our own future generations?

Will you be despised by your own progeny for your present collusion with the industry you are charged to regulate. Is protection of your own descendants not more important than short term profits for this recently bankrupt Corporate Juggernaut? Will history list your actions along with those who gave small pox infected blankets to the native Americans?