ML20030B157
| ML20030B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre, HI-STORM 100  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2020 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Allen W | |
| References | |
| NRC-0777, OEDO-19-00454 | |
| Download: ML20030B157 (36) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Meeting: Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption Docket Number: OEDO-19-00454 Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 Work Order No.: NRC-0777 Pages 1-37
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
PETITION REVIEW BOARD
+ + + + +
DISCUSSION WITH PETITIONER SEEKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
[SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 (SONGS) 2.206 PETITION OEDO-19-00454]
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 2019
+ + + + +
The Petition Review Board met in the TWFN 7-D-30, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, at 1:00 p.m., Kevin Williams, Chair, presiding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 PRESENT KEVIN WILLIAMS, Chair, PRB, NRC ANDREA KOCK, NRC DAN DOYLE, NRC CHRIS ALLEN, NRC JON WOODFIELD, NRC MARLAYNA DOELL, NRC PERRY BUCKBERG, NRC ROB CARPENTER, NRC SOPHIE HOLIDAY, NRC STEPHANIE ANDERSON, NRC LATIF HAMDAN, NRC RICHARD CHANG, NRC ANDREW HON, NRC JAMES RUBENSTONE, NRC ZAHIRA CRUZ, NRC ALSO PRESENT AL BATES, Southern California Edison MARK MORGAN, Southern California Edison DERRICK BRYCE, Southern California Edison WILLIAM WIEGEL III, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 WILLIAM WIEGEL, JR., Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption TORGAN JOHNSON, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption DONNA GILMORE, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption SUE GARCIA, San Diego Gas & Electric ALLEN TRIAL, San Diego Gas & Electric 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 1:00 p.m.
2 MR. ALLEN: Mr. Weigel?
3 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, sir.
4 MR. ALLEN: I just wanted to ask a 5 question as a point of going forward. The name of 6 your organization is Oceansiders Against San Onofre 7 Corruption. As we go through the introductions and 8 the preliminary statements, do you have any objections 9 to being referred to simply as Oceansiders?
10 MR. WIEGEL: No, that's fine.
11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. If there's no 13 objections then, we'll go ahead and get started with 14 the meeting then. So I'd like to thank everybody for 15 attending this meeting. The purpose of today's 16 meeting is to provide the petitioner, Oceansiders 17 Against San Onofre Corruption, also known as 18 Oceansiders, an opportunity to address the Petition 19 Review Board, or PRB, regarding their petition to stop 20 spent fuel loading activities at SONGS and to relocate 21 the spent fuel to a less densely-populated area not on 22 a military installation.
23 My name is Chris Allen. I'm a project 24 manager in the Division of Fuel Management in the 25 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 also the petition manager for this petition.
2 The PRB Chairman is Kevin Williams, Deputy 3 Director in the Division of Material Safety and 4 Security, State and Tribal Programs, in the Office of 5 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. This is a 6 Category 1 meeting. The public is invited to observe 7 this meeting and will have one or more opportunities 8 to communicate with the NRC after the business portion 9 but before the meeting is adjourned.
10 I'd ask that you please silence your cell 11 phones at this time, as not to interrupt the meeting 12 or any of its speakers. There is a sign-up sheet 13 around the room, and I'll ask everybody in attendance 14 in the room to please fill that out.
15 As part of the Petition Review Board's 16 review of this petition, Oceansiders has requested 17 this opportunity to address the PRB. This meeting was 18 scheduled to begin at 1:00 Eastern time and, after 19 introductory remarks, we'll allow Oceansiders 35 20 minutes to address the Board. The meeting is being 21 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 22 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 23 become a supplement to the petition. Since this 24 transcript will also be made publicly available, no 25 sensitive or proprietary information should be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 presented.
2 I'd like to open the meeting with 3 introductions. As I stated, the PRB Chair is Kevin 4 Williams, and we'll go around the rest of the room in 5 this direction, please.
6 MR. WOODFIELD: Okay. My name is Jon 7 Woodfield. I'm an inspector in NMSS, the Division of 8 Fuel Management, the Inspections Oversight Branch.
9 MR. BUCKBERG: I'm Perry Buckberg. I'm 10 the Agency 2.206 Petition Process Coordinator.
11 MR. CARPENTER: Robert Carpenter, NRC, 12 Office of General Counsel.
13 MS. HOLIDAY: Sophie Holiday, Office of 14 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Enforcement 15 Coordinator.
16 MR. DOYLE: I'm Dan Doyle. I'm the Acting 17 Chief of Storage, Transportation, and Licensing 18 Branch, Division of Fuel Management, NMSS.
19 MR. RUBENSTONE: My name is James 20 Rubenstone. I'm the Chief of Material Control and 21 Accounting Branch in the Division of Fuel Management 22 in NMSS.
23 MR. CHANG: Richard Chang, NMSS, Reactor 24 Decommissioning Branch.
25 MR. ALLEN: Would NRC personnel on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 phone please introduce yourselves?
2 OPERATIONS OFFICER: Headquarters 3 Operations Officer, NRC.
4 MS. KOCK: This is Andrea Kock. I'm the 5 Director of the Division of Fuel Management at the 6 NRC.
7 MS. ANDERSON: Stephanie Anderson, Health 8 Physicist, NRC, Region IV office.
9 MS. CRUZ: Zahira Cruz, Project Manager, 10 Reactor Decommissioning, NRC.
11 MS. DOELL: This is Marlayna Doell. I'm 12 also a project manager in Reactor Decommissioning for 13 the NRC.
14 MR. HAMDAN: Latif Hamdan, Division of 15 Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 16 Safeguards. I'm also the 2.206 petition coordinator 17 for the office.
18 MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much. Are 19 there any representatives of the licensee on the 20 phone?
21 MR. BATES: Yes. This is Al Bates, 22 Regulatory Manager, representing Southern California 23 Edison. Here with me is Mark Morgan from our 24 Regulatory Affairs Department and Derrick Bryce, our 25 legal counsel.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much.
2 Oceansiders, would you please introduce yourselves for 3 the record?
4 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, this is William Wiegel, 5 III, Oceansiders Against San Onofre Corruption.
6 MR. WIEGEL: I'm William Wiegel, Jr.
7 MR. JOHNSON: Torgan Johnson.
8 MS. GILMORE: Donna Gilmore, San Onofre 9 Safety also.
10 MR. ALLEN: Although it's not required for 11 members of the public to introduce yourself, are there 12 any members of the public on the phone that would like 13 to introduce themselves at this time? Hearing none.
14 I want to emphasize that we each need to 15 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 16 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 17 you do have something that you would like to say, 18 please state your name for the record.
19 For those dialing into the meeting, please 20 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 21 background noise or distractions. If you don't have a 22 mute button, you can mute your phone by pressing the 23 keys *6, and if you would like to speak you can unmute 24 the phone by pressing *6.
25 At this time, I will turn it over to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 PRB Chairman, Kevin Williams.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: Welcome to this meeting 3 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Oceansiders 4 Against San Onofre Corruption. From here on, I will 5 reference them as Oceansiders.
6 I'd like to first share some background on 7 NRC's process. Section 2.206 of Title X of the Code 8 of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 9 which is the primary mechanism for the public to 10 request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 11 process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC 12 --
13 MR. WIEGEL: Sorry to interrupt, but we 14 are having a hard time hearing the gentleman speaking.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to move over.
16 Can you hear me better now?
17 MR. WIEGEL: Yes, that is better.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. For the sake of 19 argument, I'll start over. Welcome to this meeting 20 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Oceansiders 21 Against San Onofre Corruption. Hereafter, I will 22 refer to them as Oceansiders.
23 I'd like to first share some background on 24 our process. Section 2.206 of Title X of the Code of 25 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 which is the primary mechanism for the public to 2 request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 3 process. This process permits anyone to petition the 4 NRC to take enforcement type action related to NRC 5 licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 6 results of its evaluation, the NRC could modify, 7 suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any 8 other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a 9 problem.
10 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 11 of a 2.206 petition request is in Management Directive 12 8.11, which is publicly available. The purpose of 13 today's meeting is to give Oceansiders an opportunity 14 to provide any additional explanation and support for 15 the petition after having received the PRB's initial 16 assessment.
17 This public meeting is not a hearing, nor 18 is it an opportunity for Oceansiders or other members 19 of the public to question or examine the PRB on the 20 merits or the issues presented in the petition 21 request. Oceansiders will have 35 minutes for their 22 presentation. The NRC staff in attendance may ask 23 clarifying questions in order to better understand 24 Oceansiders' presentation and to reach a reasoned 25 decision on whether or not to accept Oceansiders' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 request for review under the 2.206 process.
2 No decisions regarding the merits of this 3 petition will be made at this meeting. The meeting 4 will be transcribed, and the transcript will be made 5 publicly available.
6 Following this meeting, the PRB will 7 consider the supplemental information presented during 8 the meeting together with the original application in 9 making its final recommendation on whether to accept 10 the petition for review. Oceansiders will be informed 11 of the final recommendation.
12 I would like to summarize the scope of the 13 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 14 date. On August 3rd, 2019, Oceansiders submitted to 15 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding concerns 16 about spent fuel loading activities at SONGS.
17 Specifically, Oceansiders requested that the NRC issue 18 an immediate cease and desist to Southern California 19 Edison and require the permit holder procure safer 20 storage in thick-walled, easily transportable 21 canisters, and relocate them to a temporary storage 22 site further away from densely-populated areas and not 23 on a military installation.
24 On December 20th, 2019, the petition 25 manager contacted Oceansiders to inform them of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 PRB's initial assessment that the petition does not 2 meet Management Directive 8.11, Section 3.c.1 criteria 3 for a petition evaluation because NRC staff has 4 continued to carefully regulate the licensee's spent 5 fuel loading activities at SONGS, including the review 6 of the fuel storage facility design; inspections 7 encompassing the physical facility, as well as the 8 licensee's operational performance; and appropriate 9 enforcement actions.
10 Regarding Oceansiders' concern about the 11 environmental impacts of the spent fuel loading 12 activities, NRC staff concluded that these activities 13 are bounded by previously-issued generic environmental 14 impact statements and did not find any deviations from 15 previously-issued environmental statements for SONGS.
16 The petition manager also offered 17 Oceansiders an opportunity to address the PRB to 18 clarify or supplement the petition in response to this 19 assessment, and Oceansiders accepted the invitation.
20 As a reminder for the phone participants, please 21 identify yourself if you make any remarks, as this 22 will help us in the preparation of the meeting 23 transcript that will be made publicly available.
24 Thank you.
25 At this time, I will turn it over to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 Oceansiders to allow you they opportunity to provide 2 any information you believe the PRB should consider as 3 part of this petition. You have 35 minutes for your 4 presentation.
5 MR. WIEGEL: Thank you for that. This is 6 William Wiegel, III, and I would like to begin with 7 addressing the response dated December 20th, 2019.
8 The first paragraph about response identifies that, 9 based on the PRB's initial assessment, it appeared 10 that all of the issues raised in our petition have 11 already been the subject of NRC staff review and did 12 not raise concerns with the NRC staff not considered 13 and resolved or not appropriately addressed in the 14 2.206 process. Accordingly, the preliminary decision 15 was not to accept the petition.
16 The first item we wish to present as the 17 petitioner, a petitioner request for the documentation 18 that the NRC had conducted third-party verified ASME-19 compliant investigations into the field conditions of 20 the Holtec canisters in response to an admission by 21 Dr. Chris Singh at the 1/19/19 NRC pre-decisional 22 enforcement conference webinar where Dr. Singh 23 admitted on record to, quote, manufacturing 24 incompetence, end quote, of Holtec equipment currently 25 in use at the site. This admission directly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 invalidates all Holtec warranties and claims of safety 2 and directly calls into question whether the canisters 3 installed actually conformed to the certificate of 4 compliance and technical specifications that are 5 referenced further in the NRC's response where they 6 state, as a result of NRC staff remains confident that 7 the reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the 8 public's health and safety is maintained for as long 9 as fuel is stored in accordance with the requirements 10 of the SONGS license, the certificate of compliance 11 for the Holtec systems, and other typical 12 requirements. We have a situation where there's a 13 direct contradiction to the certificate of compliance, 14 as admitted to by Holtec's own employee, Dr. Chris 15 Singh, where he admitted to the manufacturing 16 incompetence and states there is no information 17 available to the public showing any investigation into 18 the manufacturing incompetence claims stated by Dr.
19 Singh. Therefore, we have no way to see if the steel 20 was manufactured to the adequate standards required 21 under this permit.
22 In order for this admission of the non-23 compliance with the certificate of compliance and 24 technical specifications, the NRC has a legal 25 responsibility to hold them to the burden of proof by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 means of third-party verified ASME compliant test 2 results documenting the steel they manufactured and 3 subsequent use of the canisters that meets these 4 requirements in the certificate of compliance. Until 5 such time as an independent ASME-certified third-party 6 testing laboratory can be procured by the licensee to 7 verify the condition of the manufactured steel used to 8 build the canisters under this permit, the NRC will be 9 unable to meet its Directive 8.11-02 objective that 10 state to ensure the public health and safety through 11 the prompt and thorough evaluation of any potential 12 problem addressed by the petition filed under the CFR 13 2.206 process and immediately place a cease and desist 14 on the project until that can be secured.
15 The second issue we would like to bring up 16 is the response that the NRC staff has continued to 17 carefully regulate the licensee's decommissioning 18 activities at SONGS including review of the fuel 19 storage facility design inspections and appropriate 20 enforcement actions. Specifically, the NRC performed 21 a thorough review of UMAX independent spent fuel 22 storage installation designs at the time the entity 23 approved in 2017 through public rulemaking. In 24 addition, NRC staff from Headquarters Region IV 25 continuously performs oversight to ensure the storage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 of spent nuclear fuel does not pose a threat to public 2 health and safety. The NRC inspections of 3 decommissioning activities are documented and 4 inspection reports are publicly available.
5 Inspections at SONGS is specifically considered events 6 described in the petition regarding licensee's fuel 7 loading operations, potential scratching of the fuel 8 canisters, and training of SDG&E employees at NRC's 9 response include a detailed assessment of the 10 significant events, specific enforcement actions, and 11 subsequent consideration of corrective actions.
12 However, this statement directly contradicts the 13 following statement made by employees at the 1/24/19 14 webinar in which Scott Morris addressed the process to 15 determine what punitive actions, if any, were going to 16 be taken against Edison, who stated management failed 17 to recognize the complexity and risk associated with 18 long-duration fuel transfer campaign while using a 19 relatively new system design. Morris then posed a 20 question to Southern California Edison of how do you 21 justify that if you get caught, and Edison admitted 22 that it was guilty of poor planning, a lack of senior 23 management, and oversight. As previously stated, any 24 assertion of their ability to move forward without 25 further incident is not credible and presents a clear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 threat to public safety.
2 PRB's statements directly contradict the 3 assessment made by the regional administrator and the 4 assumption of trust for Southern California Edison and 5 its contractors to self-correct and police are not 6 only therefore flagrantly irresponsible and directly 7 violates NRC's own mission statements. For example, 8 the NRC putting more trust in the licensee while 9 ignoring its own personnel acts with overseeing the 10 safety of the project is evident in an article 11 published by the LA Times in which a federal inspector 12 found many of the waste filled cans had been scraped 13 and scratched when they were lowered into the interim 14 storage facility. That article is referenced for the 15 Board to review in detail.
16 For the sake of time, I'm going to move 17 forward into the third item where, again, the NRC 18 states that they remain confident with a reasonable 19 assurance of adequate protection of the public health 20 and safety is maintained for as long as the fuel is 21 stored in accordance with the requirements of the 22 SONGS licensee's certificate of compliance for the 23 Holtec system and other applicable requirements. The 24 agency is committed to ensuring the continuation of 25 its ongoing regulatory oversight at the facility, as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 reflected in the NRC's rigorous review of the fuel 2 storage design at SONGS, together with its well-3 documented inspection and enforcement of the 4 activities.
5 As previously stated, Holtec has admitted 6 it is in breach of the certificate of compliance.
7 Additionally, this Southern California Edison document 8 titled SONGS HI-STORM MPC visual assessment report is 9 recently released after being obtained by a FOIA 10 request which exposes Southern California Edison 11 conducted a visual assessment that was not a formal 12 inspection or an activity qualified to ASME Sections 7 13 and/or 16 or, I'm sorry, 11. 3, 5, and 11. Pardon 14 me.
15 In spite of this fact, the conclusions 16 section stated the scope of the visual assessment is 17 considered adequate. Therefore, even with incidental 18 contact during downloading operations, the SONGS HI-19 STORM MPCs remain in compliance with all applicable 20 ASME boiler and pressure vessel code requirements.
21 This inspection was not done to ASME qualifications, 22 and the margin of error in the report could put the 23 SONGS HI-STORM MPC standard of .175 inches of 24 available margin for localized losses of shell 25 thickness out of compliance with all applicable ASME NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 boiler and pressure vessel code requirements.
2 We hereby request the NRC call for an 3 immediate cease and desist order for the project until 4 such time as an independent third-party ASME Section 5 3, 5, and 11 test occurs and confirms that the SONGS 6 Hi-STORM MPC standards for .175 inches of available 7 margin for localized losses of shell thickness is 8 complied with. The NRC's acceptance of these non-ASME 9 sections for an otherwise qualified visual inspection 10 report as satisfactory downloading operations of the 11 canister is a violation of their mission statement and 12 warrants an immediate cease and desist be issued.
13 Regarding item number four, in the 14 response regarding the concern about the siting of the 15 facility and environmental impacts, the final 16 paragraph, you also requested that the NRC relocate 17 spent fuel away from military bases. Staff has 18 concluded that, pursuant to MD Section 2.A.2, the 19 request is not appropriate for the 2.206 process 20 because it's outside the NRC's jurisdiction. Public 21 law 88-82 referenced in the decision vests its 22 authority in the Secretary of Navy to determine the 23 appropriateness of granting an easement for the 24 purpose of siting a nuclear power plant, including all 25 of its purposes. Therefore, the NRC lacks the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 jurisdiction to take the specific action the 2 petitioner requests.
3 We hereby request documentation from the 4 NRC that shows correspondence from the Secretary of 5 Navy where approval was granted for the licensee to 6 place an unsecured ISFSI on a military installation 7 with no engineering or protective consideration in its 8 ballistic impact or other potential enemy attacks. If 9 no documentation can be produced, we hereby request 10 the NRC conduct an immediate full factual hearing to 11 document whether the Navy considers the ISFSI 12 adequately hardened to withstand enemy attacks in a 13 time of war since military bases are legitimate 14 targets under the Laws of War. The NRC has 15 demonstrated the clear rightness of the need for the 16 Secretary of Navy to have jurisdiction over the 17 appropriateness of this location but has not showed 18 its due diligence in securing more approval for the 19 safety element of the approval process. Therefore, 20 until such times as written approval has been procured 21 from the Secretary of the Navy, an immediate cease and 22 desist must be placed on the project due to elevated 23 threat levels from active conflict areas, both 24 international and domestically. Failure to do so will 25 document complicity by the NRC in what amounts to a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 potential weapon of mass destruction being 2 intentionally or unintentionally developed for enemy 3 use against the United States in a time of declared or 4 undeclared war on an active military installation.
5 In addition this, we would also like to 6 redirect attention to concerns of jurisdiction brought 7 up by W.L. Whittenberg, Assistant Chief of Staff, the 8 Marine Corps installation base, and the letter of 9 Joseph Street of the Coastal Commission where he 10 stated, for a SONGS site, the instrument at issue is 11 the easement in which the federal agency retains even 12 more rights to access the site subject to the easement 13 than it does with a lease to be addressed by the 14 Federal District Court in Manchester. The Navy and 15 United States Marine Corps understand the Commission's 16 reliance on the California Coastal Commission versus 17 Granite Rock Company case to assert jurisdiction under 18 the California Coastal Act over this federal property.
19 The federal property in the Granite Rock, though, was 20 under the proprietorial jurisdiction where state law 21 generally applies. The SONGS site, on the other hand, 22 is under exclusive federal jurisdiction where the 23 state generally does not apply. Thus, it is the Navy 24 and the United States Marine Corps' position that the 25 Commission only has jurisdiction over the SONGS site NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 through the different key provisions of the Federal 2 Coastal Zone Management Act; and, therefore, the Navy 3 and the United States Marine Corps object to the 4 Commission requiring or issuing a coastal development 5 permit under the California Coastal Act, the proposed 6 action at hand, or for any other proposed action at 7 the SONGS site.
8 Until such time that the NRC had procured 9 a letter of authorization, they are actually acting in 10 direct opposition of these statements by W.L.
11 Whittenberg that were given to the Coastal Commission 12 in collaboration with the approval of this permit.
13 MR. WIEGEL: This is William Wiegel, Jr.,
14 and I have 20 years experience as a judge advocate in 15 the Air Force. I'm very concerned about the fact that 16 the NRC used a blanket environmental impact statement 17 to cover the largest nuclear waste dump privately run 18 in the nation, which is on a military installation.
19 There are no other nuclear power plants on military 20 installations in the United States, and I have seen no 21 documentation regarding any analysis on the part of 22 the NRC to provide authorization for public policy 23 that would allow for a nuclear waste dump, and, in 24 this case, it's one which contains enough radioactive 25 cesium-137 to be equivalent to over a hundred NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 Chernobyls or 700 nuclear missiles, take your pick, 2 and to allow that on a military installation.
3 And one of the things that needs to be 4 addressed is the fact that military installations have 5 a different unique status under international law 6 regarding the laws of war. And if you put something 7 on a military installation, it's likely to get hit by 8 your enemy in a time of war. And no one can say how 9 long that material is going to be at San Onofre, but 10 no one can say that we won't be at war within the next 11 40 years or 50 years or however long it stays out 12 there.
13 And my concern is that no effort was made 14 to separately engineer that facility so that it would 15 be hardened. If you know anything about the military, 16 you know that they're very good at hardening sites to 17 protect them against enemy attack. If you look at how 18 we handle our chemical emissions in this country, we 19 scatter them out in hardened sites where they're not 20 all clustered together. The engineering on this where 21 you utilize, as Lee Brookhart of your own NRC 22 organization said, the ASME standards are not met for 23 pressure vessels. Well, guess what? Missiles provide 24 a lot of concussion and could easily rupture one of 25 those canisters.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 There's been no analysis and no public 2 policy effort to say that a military installation is 3 an appropriate place to put that level of radioactive 4 material, particularly when we have, within 50 miles 5 we have eight and a half million people that live out 6 here. It's unconscionable that the NRC would have 7 done this and done it in the manner that they did.
8 You guys really need to have a full hearing on this 9 particular issue, and I would suggest that you ask the 10 Navy to help bail you out at this point and figure out 11 how to harden that site, build a dome over it or do 12 whatever. Thank you.
13 MS. GILMORE: This is Donna Gilmore.
14 There's no reason for the NRC to give exemption to 15 ASME nuclear pressure vessel standards for storage and 16 transport. There are other systems that have that 17 certification, and we need to protect our military and 18 all our resources, and there's nothing more critical 19 than doing that now. And I hope that you re-evaluate 20 your decision on this. Take a look at the Swiss 21 system if you want to learn what a good design is and 22 explain why you are rejecting ASME N3-certified 23 systems that are in hardened facilities.
24 MR. JOHNSON: This is Torgan Johnson.
25 I've been looking at this ISFSI presented to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 public after the early shutdown of the two reactors.
2 What I notice, along with a number of other people, 3 planners, the first thing was a red flag was the 4 siting of this thing. You couldn't have picked a 5 worse site location-wise just from the environmental 6 and natural hazards risk of this site.
7 The second thing that's come to light was 8 looking at the design of this system. My background 9 is architecture and urban planning, and I would say 10 that, as I've attended all these meetings through the 11 CEP and NRC meetings related to this ISFSI, there's a 12 cumulative number of red flags that the public has 13 identified. And what I see in these discussions about 14 the licensing approval process and then overlooking 15 the safety concerns and waiving safety regulations is 16 that you have a cumulative effect of all of these 17 things now at the site, and maybe the most glaring one 18 was Southern California Edison's address of a near 19 drop event was portrayed as a worker training issue 20 and not a hardware issue. And it parallels very much 21 what we've just seen with the Boeing issue with the 22 737 Max 8 issue. I think there was an immediate 23 response to blame the pilots for what, essentially, 24 was a hardware issue and a software issue.
25 We have the same problem here at San NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 Onofre where workers on site, some of them from the 2 construction industry who had very little training, 3 very little understanding of the risks, and absolutely 4 no procedures in place to be able to deal with an 5 accident, had confronted a near drop of one of these 6 50-ton canisters, not once but twice. In listening to 7 the whistleblower's discussion at a TDP meeting, he 8 said there's absolutely no safety on site. And the 9 safety is both proper training and having the right 10 staff to handle this waste but also to have the right 11 hardware. And I think what we have is we have a 12 system now where, from my perspective, and I've built 13 a lot of big projects, there's so many red flags that 14 have been overlooked or downplayed or just ignored 15 that you now have a string of issues that cumulatively 16 point to an absolutely defective system for which 17 there's no justification for continuing to use the 18 system. I don't understand why Southern California 19 Edison is willing to take these risks. Their judgment 20 has been very poor in the past. My hometown of Malibu 21 was just burned to the ground based on Southern 22 California Edison's judgment on their electric 23 infrastructure and something as small as a re-closer 24 on their electrical grid. If a small re-closer can 25 burn down an entire half of the town of Malibu, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 imagine what 3.6 million pounds of high-level 2 radioactive waste located upwind of 8.5 million people 3 is going to do in defective canisters that can't be 4 inspected, that can't be reopened. We can repackage 5 this waste if there's a problem with it.
6 What I see is Edison stepping into a huge 7 PR disaster. You almost had it on August 8th and 8 again, I believe, on July 22nd of 2018, a huge PR 9 disaster which I don't know how Edison internally is 10 making decisions about risk, but I think that this 11 looks like a massive blunder in the process. Those 12 two near drops are synonymous with the two crashed 737 13 planes. And if there's no way to deal with what 14 almost happened twice, either with a hot cell or now I 15 know Edison is moving forward to deconstruct the spent 16 fuel pools, this is the only two known ways of dealing 17 with what almost happened twice. I think there's no 18 option but to stop the system, reevaluate, bring in 19 third parties. It's in Edison's best interests, and 20 it's in the NRC's best interests to not have an 21 accident. That near drop was just a couple hundred 22 yards from the transportation spine, the backbone of 23 California's transportation system. It's about 200 24 yards from the near drop event. That would have shut 25 off the I-45. It would have backed up all that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 traffic and moved it over to the I-15 for the 2 north/south transportation, shutting off the Amtrak 3 system there, too. Let me just tell you, from a 4 planning perspective, and I've done a lot of 5 transportation planning, you can't move that level of 6 service and expect that to be picked up on the I-15.
7 You've got to shut off the transportation up and down 8 the coast here just from the drop, that one event.
9 Not to mention, there was no procedure for pulling 10 these things back in and how to deal with it when it's 11 dropped and it's damaged.
12 So this is a concerned citizen looking at 13 a system going terribly wrong. It's not a complex 14 issue. It's really a question of is the NRC 15 regulating in a way that it's looking at the 16 cumulative effects of all these things that have been 17 brought to your attention. And if you're Edison's 18 upper management, walking into another public 19 relations and physical disaster created by poor 20 judgment, in our opinion, this is a setup for an 21 accident that nobody wants to experience.
22 So what we're really asking for is that 23 you, the NRC, take this more seriously, combine all 24 the things that we've looked at, from the shims being 25 defective, to the canister damage. They're not only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 damaged when they're dropped into these vaults, 2 they're damaged when they're pulled back out of these 3 vaults. So you're doubling the scratching and damage 4 and the carbon steel, the stainless steel contact, 5 which is the initiation for the damage that we're 6 concerned about.
7 This is a planned disaster, and I would 8 add to the Wiegels' concerns about terrorism. From an 9 architect and planner's perspective, we have error 10 compounded, which the term that comes to mind is 11 errorism, which can be as bad, if not worse, than 12 terrorism because it's condoned by your process of 13 waiving safety regulations, knowingly waiving these 14 regulations that, through technicalities, Edison is 15 allowed to proceed and Holtec is allowed to proceed.
16 I think it's in Holtec's best interest to put the 17 brakes on this system and reevaluate. But it doesn't 18 seem that there's a brake system in this process for 19 the public.
20 I wonder where the NRC's protection of the 21 public comes into play through the regulatory process 22 because really, from what I'm seeing, from reducing 23 emergency planning zones, waiving safety regulations, 24 not applying the ASME pressure vessel N3 requirements 25 to these canisters, that the public is not being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 represented at all. That's really what we're doing is 2 protecting a utility that's putting the region in 3 danger and actually their continued existence in 4 danger. I don't think that they want to have another 5 disaster on their hands. They almost did, and they 6 didn't want to listen.
7 So it's the public's concern cumulatively 8 that you look at all these things individually and you 9 bring in the proper risk analysis to say when you have 10 this many problems it's a red flag and you stop the 11 system. In construction, we stop things for far less 12 defects and problems. We stop these things 13 immediately when we see them on the site. I'm shocked 14 to see the system proceeding, and I'm shocked to see 15 the NRC's unwillingness or inability to stop this 16 system when so many things, as you've heard this 17 morning, have been known for a very long time.
18 MR. WIEGEL: This is William Weigel, III.
19 So we're going to summarize now. So based upon the 20 inspection information presented today, in addition to 21 the previous information that's been presented to the 22 NRC, it is very clear this is an opportunity for the 23 NRC to dispel all of the talk of them being an 24 captured regulatory agency in favor of the licensees 25 and demonstrate to the public that they take their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 mission statement seriously and call out these direct 2 violations of the certificate of compliance, which was 3 one of the criteria issued to us in response as to why 4 this was not going to be heard under the 2.206 5 process. We've given you direct evidence today that 6 it is, in fact, out of compliance until such time as 7 proven otherwise based on the statements from the 8 manufacturer of these vessels themselves. There is no 9 excuse for not taking this up under the 2.206 process.
10 It's unconscionable that that would not move forward 11 for the public hearing to be given to all the 12 concerned citizens and all of the activists that have 13 worked very hard to show all of the examples of 14 illusion and obfuscation from existing laws, removing, 15 exempting. The evidence speaks for itself in this 16 situation, and there's no excuse to not move forward 17 with the 2.206 process given all of this information.
18 This information will make it to the 19 public, and the PR disaster that will result from it 20 can be avoided by just continuing to honor the 21 commitment of protecting the public safety and hear 22 this in the 2.206 process, as it meets the 23 requirements as we've proven with our original and 24 subsequent information presented, including this 25 presentation today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 Again, we appreciate the opportunity to 2 have this conversation with you, but we, again, compel 3 you with everything possible to do the right thing 4 here and to not continue the stereotype of captured 5 regulatory agencies. It can't continue this way if we 6 want to have any hope for the future, and this 7 situation it's hard to even process that it's gotten 8 to this point, considering what's on the line:
9 personal property, public property, and just the flow 10 of goods and services from the southern border to the 11 northern border of the Northwest to the Southern 12 California region.
13 I will now give opportunity to anyone else 14 on our side that's going to make any final comments, 15 and then we will consider this a close to our time.
16 Anyone else? We will go ahead and conclude our 17 presentation at this time and turn it over to the NRC.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank William 19 Wiegel, III, William Wiegel, Jr., Donna Gilmore, and 20 Torgan Johnson for your comments. At this time, does 21 the NRC staff here at Headquarters have any questions 22 for Oceansiders? Are there any questions from the NRC 23 staff that are on the phone? Does the licensee have 24 any questions to Oceansiders?
25 MR. BATES: This is Al Bates from Southern NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 California Edison. We have no questions or comments.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Al. Before I 3 conclude the meeting, members of the public may 4 provide comments regarding the petition and ask 5 questions about the 2.206 petition process. However, 6 as stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting 7 is not to provide an opportunity for Oceansiders or 8 the public to question or examine the PRB regarding 9 the merits of the petition request.
10 Are there any members of the public that 11 have any comments or questions?
12 MR. WIEGEL: I do. I'm a member of the 13 public. My name is Joshua Wiegel. I was just sitting 14 in on this meeting to help record and kind of all this 15 has brought to my attention right now, so I guess my 16 only question or comment would be for the NRC more so 17 than California Edison is any of this evidence that 18 was brought up new to you guys? Because it sounds 19 like there's no comments, there's no questions, and 20 you guys are all aware of all this; is that correct?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Could you 22 repeat your question?
23 MR. WIEGEL: Yes. Again, just as a 24 concerned member of the public and just hearing this 25 for the first time, it sounded like pretty compelling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 information. And with no comment from the NRC and no 2 comment from Southern California Edison, my question 3 would be are you all aware of these things already?
4 Is this not new information?
5 MR. WILLIAMS: So the purpose of this 6 meeting is for Oceansiders to provide any new or 7 additional information that hasn't already been 8 provided to the PRB for its consideration. So we're 9 in listening mode --
10 MR. WIEGEL: Thank you for opening this to 11 the public, and I apologize for getting off topic 12 then. Thank you.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no problem. We welcome 14 any questions there. Is there any other member of the 15 public that would like to make a comment or has a 16 question? So I think my question is for William 17 Wiegel, III. The information that was presented by 18 Oceansiders, do you intend to provide that to the NRC?
19 MR. WIEGEL: We have submitted that 20 information. I submitted that on Monday to Chris 21 Allen via email.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh.
23 MR. WIEGEL: So that information has been 24 presented.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I apologize. I have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 not been able to review it --
2 MR. WIEGEL: No problem.
3 MR. WILLIAMS: -- and see if there's 4 anything new.
5 MR. WIEGEL: No problem at all.
6 MR. WILLIAMS: So for the purpose of this 7 meeting, I'd like to thank Oceansiders Against San 8 Onofre Corruption for taking the time to provide the 9 NRC staff with clarifying information on the petition 10 that you've submitted. Before we close, does the 11 court reporter need any additional information for the 12 meeting transcript?
13 COURT REPORTER: No.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. With that, this 15 meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 16 phone connection. Thank you and enjoy the rest of 17 your day.
18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19 off the record at 1:50 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433