Official Transcript of Proceedings

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board

RE Seabrook Station

Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: teleconference

Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Work Order No.: NRC-2176 Pages 1-40

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers

1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 234-4433
1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

3 + + + + +

4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)

5 CONFERENCE CALL

6 RE

7 SEABROOK STATION

8 + + + + +

9 TUESDAY

10 FEBRUARY 16, 2016

11 + + + + +

12 The conference call was held, Robert

13 Taylor, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board,

14 presiding.

15

16 PETITIONERS

17 PAUL BROWN, Union of Concerned Scientists

18 SANDRA GAVUTIS, C-10 Foundation

19 DEBBIE GRINNELL, C-10 Foundation

20 DAVID LOCHBAUM, Union of Concerned Scientists

21 CHRIS NORD, C-10 Foundation

22 PAT SKIBBEE, C-10 Foundation

23

24

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2

1 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS

2 MICHAEL KING, Acting PRB Chairman, Acting 

3 Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear

4 Reactor Regulation, Division of Safety 

5 Systems

6 LORRAINE BAER, Office of the General Counsel

7 JOHN G. LAMB, Petition Manager for 2.206

8 petition, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

9 Regulation, Division of Operating 

10 Reactor Licensing

11 ROBERT TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of 

12 Safety Systems, Office of Nuclear 

13 Reactor Regulation.

14

15 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF

16 RUSSELL ARRIGHI, Senior Enforcement

17 Specialist, Office of Enforcement

18 DOUG BROADDUS, Office of Nuclear Reactor

19 Regulation, Division of Operating

20 Reactor Licensing

21 DANIEL DOYLE, Acting Chief, Rulemaking Branch,

22 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

23 BRYCE LEHMAN, Technical Reviewer, Office of

24 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of

25 Engineering

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

1 TANYA MENSAH, Agency 2.206 Coordinator, Office

2 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division

3 of Policy and Rulemaking

4

5 NRC REGION I STAFF

6 FRED BOWER, Region I

7 PAUL CATALDO, Region I

8 CHRIS NEWPORT, Region I

9 BILL COOK, Region I

10

11 ALSO PRESENT

12 STEVE HAMRICK, Counsel, NextEra Energy

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 2:00 p.m.

3 MEMBER LAMB: I'd like to thank everyone

4 for attending this conference. My name is John Lamb. 

5 I am the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC,

6 project manager for Seabrook. 

7 We are here today to allow the Petitioner,

8 C-10 Research and Education Foundation, referred to as

9 C-10 from this point forward, to address the Petition

10 Review Board, PRB, regarding the 2.206 Petition dated

11 December 22nd, 2015, Agency-wide Documents Access and

12 Management System, ADAMS, Accession No. ML16006A002,

13 as supplemented by email comments from David Lochbaum

14 of the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, dated

15 February 12th, 2016, ADAMS Accession No. ML16043A486,

16 and email comments from Paul Brown dated February

17 14th, 2016, ADAMS Accession No. ML16047A020, and email

18 comments by C-10 dated February 15th, 2016, ADAMS

19 Accession No. ML16047A021.

20 I am also the petition manager for the

21 petition. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor.

22 As part of the --

23 MS. GAVUTIS: Sandra Gavutis, C-10

24 Foundation.

25 MEMBER LAMB: As part of the PRB's review

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 of this petition C-10 has requested this opportunity

2 to address the PRB. 

3 This meeting is scheduled from 2:00 p.m.

4 to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

5 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC

6 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court

7 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to

8 the petition. The transcript will also be made

9 available to the public. 

10 I would like to open this meeting with

11 introductions. The PRB Chairman is Robert Taylor, and

12 Mike King will be the acting PRB Chairman who will be

13 serving in a developmental capacity under the

14 instruction of Robert Taylor.

15 I would like to start to have the rest of

16 the PRB to introduce themselves as we go around the

17 room. Please be sure to speak clearly and state your

18 name, your position and the office that you work for

19 within the NRC for the record. 

20 I will start off. Once again, I am the

21 NRC project manager for Seabrook, John Lamb.

22 MEMBER BAER: Lorraine Baer, attorney,

23 Office of General Counsel.

24 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Rob Taylor, Deputy

25 Director, Division of Safety Systems, Office of

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 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

2 MEMBER KING: Mike King, Acting Deputy

3 Director, Division of Safety Systems, Office of

4 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

5 MEMBER LAMB: Are there any NRC

6 participants from headquarters on the phone? 

7 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, Office of

8 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and

9 Rulemaking.

10 MR. ARRIGHI: Russell Arrighi, Senior

11 Enforcement Specialist, Office of Enforcement.

12 MR. BROADDUS: Doug Broaddus, Office of

13 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating

14 Reactor Licensing.

15 MR. LEHMAN: Bryce Lehman, Technical

16 Reviewer in the Division of Engineering.

17 MEMBER LAMB: Is anyone else from NRC

18 headquarters on the line?

19 MS. GRINNELL: Debbie Grinnell. Sandra

20 Gavutis. Three other people will call in.

21 MS. GAVUTIS: Thanks, Debbie. I'm here. 

22 MS. SKIBBEE: Pat Skibbee, C-10

23 Foundation.

24 MS. GAVUTIS: Sandra Gavutis, Executive

25 Director, C-10 Foundation.

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 MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum, Union of

2 Concerned Scientists, Director of Nuclear Safety

3 Project.

4 MEMBER LAMB: Are there any other

5 Petitioners on the line?

6 MR. NORD: Chris Nord, C-10 Foundation. 

7 I identified myself before.

8 COURT REPORTER: This is the court

9 reporter. I'm having some difficulty understanding

10 Ms. Grinnell, Mr. Nord and Ms. Skibbee.

11 MEMBER LAMB: Debbie, your phone line is

12 echoing. The court reporter is saying that he can't

13 understand what you guys are saying. 

14 MS. GRINNELL: Trying something else. 

15 Hello?

16 MEMBER LAMB: We can hear you. Steve, who

17 do you have -- for the court reporter, where did you

18 leave off that you couldn't hear?

19 COURT REPORTER: The only part that I was

20 having a hard time hearing was the introductions.

21 MEMBER LAMB: You got Debbie Grinnell?

22 COURT REPORTER: Yes. Yes. 

23 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. So we've got Chris

24 Nord.

25 COURT REPORTER: Here's the thing, I was

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 able to hear their introductions, but when they give

2 a presentation, if they sound like that, I'll probably

3 miss a good amount of it. 

4 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Chris Nord was

5 another one from C-10. Is there a Pat Skibbee?

6 MS. SKIBBEE: Yes, I'm here.

7 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. And a Sandra Gavutis?

8 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, she is here.

9 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. And we have David

10 Lochbaum from the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

11 Is there anyone else from the Petitioners?

12 MS. GRINNELL: We have an expert, Paul

13 Brown, who will be calling in probably very close to

14 2:30.

15 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you. 

16 MR. DOYLE: Hi, this is Dan Doyle. I'm

17 the Acting Chief of the Rulemaking Branch in the

18 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

19 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Are there any NRC

20 participants from the regional office on the phone?

21 MR. COOK: This is Bill Cook from Region

22 I.

23 MR. BOWER: And Fred Bower from Region I.

24 MEMBER LAMB: Anyone else from Region I on

25 the phone?

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 MR. CATALDO: Paul Cataldo, Region I.

2 MR. NEWPORT: Chris Newport from Region I

3 as well. 

4 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you. Are there

5 any representatives for the Licensee on the phone?

6 MR. HAMRICK: Yes, this is Steve Hamrick,

7 counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook.

8 MEMBER LAMB: Okay. Thank you. I would

9 like to emphasize that we each need to speak clearly

10 and loudly to make sure that the court reporter can

11 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you do have

12 something that you would like to say, please first

13 state your name for the record. 

14 For those dialing into the meeting, please

15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any

16 background noise or distractions. If you do not have

17 a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys

18 star, six. To un-mute, press the star key again. 

19 Thank you. 

20 At this time I will turn it over to the

21 Acting PRB Chairman, Mike King, under the instruction

22 of the PRB Chairman, Robert Taylor.

23 MEMBER KING: Excuse me. To un-mute, you

24 have to press star, six again.

25 MEMBER LAMB: Yes.

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 MEMBER KING: I just want to make sure

2 people know that.

3 MEMBER LAMB: Yes. So mute, star, six. 

4 To un-mute, press star, six again.

5 MEMBER KING: Okay. Welcome everybody to

6 this meeting regarding the 2.206 Petition submitted by

7 C-10. I'd like to first share some background on our

8 process. 

9 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of

10 Federal Regulations, 10 CFR, describes the petition

11 process, the primary mechanism for public to request

12 enforcement action by NRC in a public process. This

13 process permits anyone to petition the NRC to take

14 enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or

15 license activities. Depending on the results of its

16 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an

17 NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate

18 enforcement action to resolve a problem. 

19 The NRC Staff Guidance for the disposition

20 of 2.206 petition requests is contained with the

21 Management Directive 8.11, which is available to the

22 public via ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328.

23 The purpose of today's meeting is to give

24 the Petitioner, C-10, an opportunity to provide any

25 additional explanation or support for the petition

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 before the Petition Review Board's initial

2 consideration and recommendation. 

3 This meeting is not a hearing, nor it is

4 an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or

5 examine the Petition Review Board on the merits or the

6 issues presented in the petition request. No

7 decisions regarding the merits of this petition will

8 be made at this meeting. 

9 Following this meeting the Petition Review

10 Board will conduct its internal deliberations. The

11 outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed

12 with the Petitioner. 

13 The Petition Review Board typically

14 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the

15 senior executive service level at the NRC. It has a

16 petition manager and a Petition Review Board

17 coordinator. Other members of the Board are

18 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of

19 the information in the petition request. The members

20 have already introduced themselves.

21 As described in our process the NRC staff

22 may ask clarifying questions in order to better

23 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach

24 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the

25 Petitioner's requests for review under the 2.206

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 process.

2 Now I'd like to summarize the scope of the

3 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to

4 date.

5 On December 22nd, 2015, as supplemented by

6 emails dated February 12th, 14th and 15th, 2016, you

7 submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding

8 Seabrook in which you requested enforcement action. 

9 C-10 requests the NRC issue an order to NextEra

10 requiring immediate implementation and enforcement of

11 American Concrete Institute, ACI, 349.3R evaluation of

12 existing nuclear safety-related concrete structures,

13 and American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM,

14 C856-11, standard practice for petrographic

15 examination of hardened concrete code standards

16 requiring core sampling and petrographic testing for

17 the mechanical properties of tensile strength,

18 Poisson’s ratio, modulus of elasticity and compressive

19 strength, specifically for walls of the containment

20 building and spent fuel pool at Seabrook.

21 As a basis for your request you state that

22 C-10 has studied the alkali-silica reaction, ASR, and

23 C-10 concludes that its presence at Seabrook is

24 inimical to public health and safety. 

25 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities 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 date. On January 8th the petition manager contacted

2 you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer

3 you the opportunity to address the Petition Review

4 Board. 

5 On January 14th of 2016, you requested to

6 address the Petition Review Board by phone prior to an

7 internal meeting to make initial recommendations to

8 accept or reject the petition for review. 

9 On February 12th, 2016, David Lochbaum of

10 Union of Concerned Scientists supplied written

11 comments by email that will be treated as a supplement

12 to the petition. 

13 On February 14th, 2016, Paul Brown, also

14 of Union of Concerned Scientists, supplied written

15 comments by email that will be treated as a supplement

16 to the petition.

17 On February 15th, 2016, C-10 supplied

18 written comments by email that will be treated as a

19 supplement to the petition.

20 As a reminder for the phone participants,

21 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as

22 this will help us in preparation of the meeting

23 transcript that will be made available to the public. 

24 Thank you.

25 I'll turn it over now Debbie Grinnell of

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 C-10 to allow you the opportunity to provide any

2 information you believe the Petition Review Board

3 should consider as part of this petition. You have

4 about 90 minutes for your presentation. 

5 Debbie?

6 MS. GRINNELL: Thank you. We appreciate

7 this opportunity to speak to the Board and we would

8 like to begin with two experts that have created a

9 comment for you today, and we'd like to begin with

10 David Lochbaum.

11 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum with

12 the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you, Debbie,

13 and thank you the NRC staff for this opportunity.

14 I didn't want to read the comments I

15 submitted earlier. As it was stated, it's being added

16 as a supplement to the petition. I just wanted to go

17 over those and answer any clarifying questions the NRC

18 staff may have about those comments. 

19 In looking at whether the actions

20 requested by C-10 were reasonable or not, I looked at

21 what the NRC is applying to plants or applicants

22 seeking license renewal of their plant. NUREG-1801,

23 Revision 2, which is the GALL report issued in

24 December of 2010, mentions ACI 349.3R in a number of

25 places. I didn't list every time that document

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 referred to this ACI standard, but I listed several of

2 them on pages 1 and 2 of my comments. 

3 I also understand that the NRC staff is

4 currently reviewing its license renewal criterion

5 standards. And to see whether those proposed changes

6 might go away from ACI 349.3R, I looked at the draft

7 NUREG-2191, Volume 2, which is currently the work in

8 progress of any proposed changes to the GALL report. 

9 And as the information on pages 2 indicates, the NRC

10 staff continues to rely on ACI 349.3R as a way to

11 properly aging management risk or manage the risk of

12 aging of concrete such as that at Seabrook. So

13 basically by looking at this, it looked pretty clear

14 to us that the NRC staff accepts and endorses ACI

15 349.3R as the means of monitoring for concrete

16 degradation.

17 Also went international to see how the

18 international community is handling the similar issue

19 of concrete degradation and found an IAEA report

20 that's cited on page 3 of my comments where they

21 looked at aging management of concrete structures in

22 nuclear power plants. It came out just last month,

23 January of 2016. Several places in that document the

24 IAEA basically indicates that ACI 349.3R is being used

25 in the United States to guard against undue

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 degradation of concrete at U.S. nuclear power

2 reactors, though it appears the international

3 community thinks we're already at a point that C-10 is

4 seeking, namely to have ACI 349.3R be a requirement,

5 not just a standard on a shelf.

6 I then turned to looking at answering the

7 question of, well, if that's what the NRC endorses, if

8 that's the law of the land, if that's the proper

9 standard to control concrete degradation, why isn't it

10 already applied? And the best answer, or the only

11 answer I found was in NUREG/CR 7153, Volume 4, issued

12 by the NRC in October of 2014, as cited on page 3 of

13 my comments. 

14 I extracted a large paragraph from that

15 document, the last sentence of which seems to be most

16 important. It was underlined for emphasis by us. 

17 Basically it says that because all the construction

18 permits have been issued except for one, by the time

19 this standard came out it was too late in the game to

20 be applied during the initial licensing phase. So

21 therefore, it was a matter of time and not because

22 it's an inappropriate standard or an unreasonable

23 standard, that it's not already applicable at Seabrook

24 and elsewhere. 

25 So therefore, based on that it looked

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 like, well, should the NRC grant the petition

2 submitted by C-10 and require ACI 349.3R and the ASTM

3 standard to Seabrook? And for that my answer to me is

4 in 10 CFR, Section 50.100, Revocation, Suspension,

5 Modification of Licenses, Permits and Approvals for

6 Cause. And it's a lengthy text, but the portions that

7 seemed most relevant to this decision was that

8 basically any condition that's revealed after an

9 original license is issued that would, had it been

10 known at the time, warrant the Commission to refuse to

11 grant a license, permit or approval is fair game for

12 incorporating into the license or making a regulatory

13 requirement. 

14 In this case it's pretty clear that had

15 ACI 349.3R been available before Seabrook was

16 licensed, then it's almost certain that the NRC would

17 have required this applicant or licensee to meet that

18 standard. It doesn't. And therefore the action being

19 sought by C-10 rectifies that defect and imposed an

20 endorsed NRC standard to a standard condition that

21 exists at Seabrook. Based on that it seems like the

22 proper thing for the NRC to do would be to grant C23 10's petition and require these two standards,

24 industry-accepted, NRC-endorsed standards to apply to

25 the concrete at Seabrook.

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 I think the other things that's -- I don't

2 -- it's not in my comments, but it's -- NRC staff is

3 already aware of is that imposing those standards on

4 NextEra at Seabrook would not mean that they'd have to

5 follow every verse and chapter of those two standards. 

6 The applicants, the licensees always have the option

7 of informing the NRC staff of deviations or different

8 ways of achieving the same outcome, and they would

9 have that option. Should the NRC grant the petition

10 and issue the order, the licensee would have the

11 chance of saying we'll do that same thing by a

12 different way. But we think it's proper for the NRC

13 staff to issue an order require that requirement and

14 provide NextEra the option of applying it as is or

15 justifying a suitable alternative.

16 With that I have no other comments or

17 observations. I'd be glad to answer any clarifying

18 questions that the NRC staff may have.

19 MEMBER KING: No questions on this end. 

20 Anybody on the phone?

21 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, we're waiting for Paul

22 Brown to enter to make his comments, but I do want to

23 say on behalf of C-10 that our request has largely

24 been the understanding that we have -- that both the

25 industry and the NRC have had to find a way to find

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 the technical and regulatory basis to deal with the

2 discovery. And ASR is a discovery. And we've spent

3 the last seven years looking very closely at NRC

4 documentation and we found from your department,

5 especially in research, that -- we found that there

6 were many things that we have requested that a lot of

7 NRC staff in different directions have recommended at

8 these be done.

9 Our concern has been that there's been an

10 enormous amount of energy and time and expertise that

11 the NRC has spent in the extension of NRC's license,

12 but our concern, as we live here, concerns their

13 current license. And they've been in violation of

14 their license for seven years. 

15 So we have used the information that we

16 were able to find from experts, from the Union of

17 Concerned Scientists, from experts and many of the NRC

18 staff, and we think that -- we believe that since

19 containment has not been properly studied that this

20 needs to be done and as soon as possible.

21 I am hoping that Paul will be on in a

22 moment, but if he's not, I would like to allow NRC

23 staff to add our comments to this discussion. I think

24 we could start with Pat.

25 MS. SKIBBEE: This is Pat Skibbee, C-10

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 Board. I think one important consideration here is

2 according to our research there are many, many times

3 that NRC information has been cited and confirmed

4 saying that the only way to really ascertain the

5 degree and existence of ASR at the Seabrook Nuclear

6 Power Plant is through core sampling and using the

7 ASTM and ACR standards. So I think we feel that

8 that's a really important thing to do and it's the

9 only way to really ascertain what is going on at the

10 plant.

11 I want to add here that the current

12 situation where NextEra is using not samples from the

13 plant, but using pieces of concrete at their Ferguson,

14 Texas study facility, we do feel is at all

15 appropriate, because I think the only way that you can

16 actually ascertain what's going on at the Seabrook

17 plant is to test core samples that actually come from

18 the Seabrook plant. 

19 And last, these standards are incorporated

20 and made compulsory in NRC regulation. It would seem

21 to me that this can't happen, that the licensees will

22 always have -- not only NextEra, but others; and of

23 course our concern is Seabrook, will always have this

24 option of using what we would consider completely

25 inappropriate testing. It does not really confirm

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 what's actually going on at the specific plants. 

2 This information comes from NRC staff,

3 also from Union of Concerned Scientists, from our own

4 research that without actual petrographic testing of

5 the actual cores from the containment and other

6 vessels at the Seabrook plants, we cannot know what is

7 really going on there. And apparently the only what

8 that can be enforced is for NRC to grant C-10's

9 petition and make these standards compulsory. And

10 that concludes my comments at this time. 

11 MS. GRINNELL: Well, if we haven't heard

12 from Paul at this moment, I would like to ask Chris if

13 he would like to offer comments for C-10.

14 (Telephonic interference.)

15 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. This is the

16 court reporter. Is Chris speaking? I can't hear him.

17 MS. GRINNELL: Yes. Yes, hold a second. 

18 He's just changing his location a little. He'll be

19 back when -- I mean, he's right here. On the line in

20 a sec.

21 MR. NORD: This is Chris Nord, board

22 member for C-10. I just wanted to draw the attention

23 of NRC to --

24 COURT REPORTER: Can you get closer to the

25 phone?

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 MS. GRINNELL: Chris, it's not working. 

2 MR. NORD: Can you hear me now? Can

3 anyone hear me now?

4 COURT REPORTER: Yes, now I can hear you.

5 MR. NORD: Okay. All right. This is

6 Chris Nord, board member of C-10, and I would like to

7 draw the NRC's attention right now to the notion that

8 NextEra, their off-site research test program must

9 represent -- I'm quoting -- the actual in situ

10 conditions of Seabrook's primary containment. And to

11 all of us at C-10 that have looked at this, this seems

12 for all the world like a quick break (phonetic)

13 because it isn't possible to represent the in situ

14 conditions at Seabrook through the use of data

15 gathered from some very remote site. The conditions

16 are much too particular and the ASR has grown over a

17 period of many years where they're propagating ASR

18 over very short periods of time at this remote site in

19 Texas, and we believe that this really is unrealistic. 

20 And from a scientific point of view that

21 seems to be the case. In other words, I think that we

22 will discover that experts like Dr. Brown basically

23 agree with this point of view that it's fine to go

24 ahead and do that kind of testing, but to say that

25 that kind of testing may stand in the place of

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 petrographic analysis in situ at the Seabrook plant is

2 unworkable. We must have in situ testing. So that's

3 one comment.

4 The other comment I want to make is that

5 citizens within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook

6 particularly call upon the Nuclear Regulatory

7 Commission to actually regulate in this matter this

8 issue of alkaline-silica reaction that has come up at

9 Seabrook. It is unprecedented, as we all know, in the

10 nuclear suite in the United States. And many citizens

11 who C-10 represents see that for the Nuclear

12 Regulatory Commission to passively wait for NextEra to

13 conduct tests simply the way they want without

14 imposing some kind of guidance according to some kind

15 of code standards is impractical in many ways and may

16 in fact be unethical when you take into account the

17 NRC's mandate to protect public health and safety. 

18 If what you really want to do is protect

19 the general public from the potentials for severe

20 accidents from a nuclear plant such as Seabrook; and

21 in fact parenthetically I will say this could be

22 happening at other plants around the country, and I

23 believe we don't know whether that's true or not, then

24 you must -- NRC must take a more active position in

25 requiring the use of certain regulatory standards. 

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 And because this is a new issue for NRC, the

2 regulatory standards that we are falling into, as Dave

3 Lochbaum just pointed out, you're using already. 

4 So it's a simple step. But involving that

5 step then as the requirement that petrographic testing

6 be done in in situ at the reactor at Seabrook. And

7 for us those must include the petrographic testing and

8 core sampling specifically for the containment

9 structure and for the spent fuel pool. And I think

10 the reasons why those are important must be obvious to

11 everyone on this call. Those are my comments for the

12 moment. Thank you.

13 MS. GRINNELL: Thank you, Chris. 

14 I don't know if we've had -- Dave, if

15 we've had Paul Brown enter our group. Do you know if

16 he's entered?

17 MEMBER KING: Paul Brown, are you on the

18 line?

19 DR. BROWN: Yes, I am.

20 MS. GRINNELL: Terrific. Paul, we would

21 like you to add your comments to the NRC.

22 DR. BROWN: Beyond what I've written?

23 MS. GRINNELL: Yes.

24 DR. BROWN: Oh, okay. Well, primarily my

25 comments relate to the fact that the utility seems 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
25

1 be reluctant to extract and examine cores in

2 compression and tension. While it would have been

3 really beneficial had they done that when the ASR was

4 first discovered, it's still not too late. It would

5 have provided a data point in time. And if they link

6 that campaign with the testing of cores from areas

7 where ASR has not been observed, then it provides a

8 basis for understanding the extent to which the

9 properties of the concrete shell have presently

10 degraded. 

11 And that's really the substance of my

12 comments. And I'm happy to answer any questions

13 related to that.

14 MEMBER KING: Debbie, are there any more

15 presentations?

16 MS. GRINNELL: I think we have covered our

17 comments. We have the benefit of having Dave Lochbaum

18 and Paul Brown here. If there are any technical or

19 specific questions that you might have on our

20 petition, we would be so pleased to have you direct a

21 question directly to our experts.

22 MEMBER KING: Great. Thank you. So at

23 this time does the NRC staff here at headquarters have

24 any questions for C-10, or any headquarters staff on

25 the phone?

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 (No response.)

2 MEMBER KING: Hearing none, what about the

3 region? Any staff in the region have any questions?

4 MR. COOK: No questions from Bill Cook. 

5 Thank you.

6 MEMBER KING: Okay. Hearing none, does

7 the Licensee have any questions?

8 MR. HAMRICK: This is Steve Hamrick for

9 NextEra. No, we don't have any questions right now. 

10 Thank you.

11 MEMBER KING: Okay. Well, Deborah

12 Grinnell, thank you for taking the time to provide the

13 NRC staff with clarifying information on the petition

14 you submitted. 

15 Before we close does the court reporter

16 need any additional information for the teleconference

17 transcript?

18 COURT REPORTER: Just questions I'll ask

19 after we're off the record. 

20 MEMBER KING: Okay. Great. With that,

21 this meeting is concluded --

22 MR. GUNTER: Excuse me. This is Paul

23 Gunter, Beyond Nuclear.

24 MEMBER KING: Okay.

25 MR. GUNTER: It's my understanding 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
27

1 you do open an opportunity up for the public to ask

2 questions about the process. 

3 MEMBER KING: Yes, this is not a public

4 meeting. They asked for a teleconference, but we are

5 open to answering questions about the process. They

6 requested not a public meeting. They requested a

7 teleconference, which is --

8 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Well, that answers my

9 question, because I was looking to see if you were --

10 you know, the meeting was not publicly posted to 

11 the --

12 MEMBER KING: Yes, because typically in

13 the Management Directive 8.11 the Petitioner is

14 offered a teleconference or a meeting here. And as

15 you know, Paul, typically you're nearby, so you come

16 and you have a public meeting. I guess because the

17 distance and travel-wise they elected to have a

18 teleconference --

19 MR. GUNTER: Yes.

20 MEMBER KING: -- which is non-public.

21 MR. GUNTER: So this is their first --

22 MEMBER KING: Yes.

23 MR. GUNTER: This is a Petition Review

24 Board meeting, their first Petition Review Board

25 meeting?

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 MEMBER KING: This is the request to

2 supply supplemental information prior to the PRB

3 meeting.

4 MR. GUNTER: And then they will get an

5 additional opportunity to address --

6 MEMBER KING: Yes.

7 MR. GUNTER: -- the Petition Review 

8 Board --

9 MEMBER KING: That's correct.

10 MR. GUNTER: -- after you -- yes. And in

11 fact they'll get two opportunities to address the

12 Petition Review Board?

13 MEMBER KING: Well, this is the first. I

14 think there's a second one after, but --

15 MR. GUNTER: Okay.

16 MEMBER KING: That's my understanding at

17 this time.

18 MR. GUNTER: Yes, I'm sorry. I guess the

19 concern here is that this is very likely -- it should

20 be reviewed as a generic issue and an opportunity for

21 public to be informed, just have some transparency as

22 how this might impact other sites or open

23 opportunities for other public interest experts to

24 listen in. That's our concern. I apologize for being

25 thick, but this does not represent their first

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 Petition Review Board meeting open to public scrutiny

2 and transparency. 

3 MEMBER KING: Tanya, are you on the line?

4 MS. MENSAH: I am. This is Tanya Mensah. 

5 I'm the senior project manager, 2.206 coordinator. So

6 the process they're following is outlined and

7 described in the Management Directive 811. If you

8 look in there, if the Petitioner requests a meeting

9 with the public -- with the NRC, that is noticed as a

10 public meeting, and that is typically held at NRC

11 Headquarters where any stakeholders are invited to

12 comment at the end of the meeting.

13 Now, the Petitioner -- 

14 MR. GUNTER: But let me just stop you

15 right there. Those meetings that I participate in

16 open a bridge line for broader public interest --

17 MS. MENSAH: So if the Petitioner --

18 (Simultaneous speaking)

19 MR. GUNTER: -- the Petitioners.

20 MS. MENSAH: If you're interested in

21 joining as a co-petitioner, you would coordinate that

22 through the Petitioner. I don't know if that's been

23 done, if you've expressed that before this call. 

24 Because they could have included you on the discussion

25 so that you could also have submitted comments. 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
30

1 transcript -- the way that this is made transparent is

2 that following the meeting the transcript will be made

3 public in ADAMS and then the Petitioner will be

4 informed of the initial recommendation, they'll have

5 a second opportunity, as you commented, in accordance

6 with the management directive to make a second

7 presentation if they want to add additional facts.

8 MR. GUNTER: Have they been provided 

9 that --

10 MS. MENSAH: Is that clear or do I need to

11 go back through the process?

12 MR. GUNTER: Well, first of all, if you

13 would, could you make it clear that you are offering

14 them a second opportunity?

15 MS. MENSAH: That's in accordance with the

16 management directive and it's offered for every

17 petitioner. It's not just for this petition. It's

18 spelled out that a second opportunity is in the

19 management directive. Every petitioner receives two

20 opportunities. The first is before the Board meets to

21 make their initial recommendation. And then once

22 they're informed, they receive a second opportunity. 

23 And that's the system for all petitions.

24 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Thank you. I

25 apologize for missing the opening here. Did you offer

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 the Petitioner an opportunity for a second -- to make

2 them aware that they have an opportunity for a second

3 meeting?

4 MS. MENSAH: I believe that the PRB Chair

5 expressed in his opening remarks that following

6 today's discussion that the PRB will be deliberating

7 internally and that following that they will be

8 informed of the initial recommendation and have

9 another opportunity. And I believe also that in

10 accordance with the process that John Lamb would have

11 provided the Petitioners with a copy of the management

12 directive so that they have the process and they know

13 what we're following. 

14 MR. GUNTER: So this phone call is

15 satisfying that initial meeting with the PRB that

16 we're familiar with.

17 MS. MENSAH: That's correct. And that is

18 their choice. They were offered either a meeting

19 where they could have requested to meet face to face,

20 and that would have been a public meeting, or they are

21 offered a teleconference, which at that point they can

22 also, as they've done, invite other experts out to

23 speak on their behalf for their petition. And that's

24 what has occurred today.

25 MR. GUNTER: Can I indulge you just one --

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 just for clarification? You do not publicize PRB

2 meetings with petitioners on your web-based schedule,

3 calendar --

4 MS. MENSAH: Only public meetings.

5 MR. GUNTER: With petitioners for the PRB

6 do you have -- have you published meeting dates on

7 these PRB meetings on your regular calendar? I mean

8 --

9 MS. MENSAH: Are you referring to on the

10 public web site where they have the list of public

11 meetings?

12 MR. GUNTER: Yes, ma'am.

13 MS. MENSAH: So that would be for if there

14 were a public 2.206 meeting. There would be a meeting

15 notice, and those are on there. 

16 MR. GUNTER: Right.

17 MS. MENSAH: This is a teleconference, so

18 they're not public meetings. 

19 MR. GUNTER: I see.

20 MS. MENSAH: They are calls between the

21 petitioner --

22 MR. GUNTER: I see.

23 MS. MENSAH: -- so that the petitioner can

24 provide additional information on behalf of their

25 2.206 --

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 MR. GUNTER: I see.

2 MS. MENSAH: -- to the Board. So those

3 are not on the public web site.

4 MR. GUNTER: Thank you. So if they

5 request this second meeting as a public meeting at

6 which they attend in the Commission hearing room, that

7 meeting will be timely posted in advance of the

8 meeting to the public?

9 MS. MENSAH: That's correct.

10 MR. GUNTER: If they receive a bridge line

11 from the NRC, those are typically not posted for

12 public to listen in on?

13 MS. MENSAH: Unless the petitioner invites

14 other stakeholders that are familiar with the topic on

15 their behalf to say we want to have other experts or

16 other members of the public speak during our

17 teleconference. And they provide the number to

18 whoever they want.

19 MR. GUNTER: Okay. Well, thank you for

20 that clarification, because --

21 MS. MENSAH: Okay.

22 MR. GUNTER: -- it's one of these fine

23 lines where again we view this as potentially generic

24 issue that has much broader interest than the Seabrook

25 Petitioners and their experts, and we would like 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
34

1 recommend that these kinds of meetings -- you know,

2 it's not that difficult to post a telephone conference

3 line. I mean, I don't think that it was C-10's

4 intention to request that this meeting be exclusive or

5 private, but again, we feel that there's a broader

6 concern here. And just for a matter for the record,

7 the process should be inclusive in terms of

8 transparency that these meetings are happening and

9 that the NRC timely posts them as opportunities for

10 broader public interest and in the sake of

11 transparency. That concludes my comment.

12 MS. MENSAH: Okay. Thank you. And this

13 is Tanya Mensah again. So do you have a comment that

14 you need to coordinate through the Petitioner, or have

15 you already informed them that you have comments?

16 MR. GUNTER: My comment is again on the

17 2.206 process with regard --

18 MS. MENSAH: Okay.

19 MR. GUNTER: -- to providing public

20 transparency to potentially generic issues of public

21 health and safety, and that I think it's something of

22 a shortcoming to bias the public notification process

23 to those of us who can by convenience attend these

24 meetings in person and get that public notification

25 and transparency out there. But in the same sense 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
35

1 not -- just because you can't participate in person

2 doesn't mean that you exclude broader public interest

3 by participation in these telephone conference calls

4 on a public Petition Review Board meeting. That's my

5 point. So my comment again is process, and it's

6 directed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

7 MS. MENSAH: Thank you. 

8 MR. NORD: This is Chris Nord. I'd like

9 to just follow up very quickly on something Paul just

10 said, and that is to point out that a way that we at

11 C-10 believe that this does touch on a generic issue

12 is that as long as the heretofore relied on method of

13 visual inspection is continued and used by U.S. NRC as

14 an initial look at the possibility of ASR, whether ASR

15 exists or doesn't exist at other nuclear plants, you

16 will not know whether in fact there is ASR at other

17 plants. So we need to move to petrographic analysis

18 in order to know for sure whether you have ASR at

19 other plants. That's my comment. Thank you.

20 MR. GUNTER: Let me just -- this is Paul

21 Gunter again. One point again on the transparency for

22 this particular meeting. I was trying to find out the

23 exact time of the call. And since this meeting was

24 not posted on the NRC schedule as a calendar event, I

25 called the switchboard. And when I spoke with your

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36

1 switchboard operator and requested the time for this

2 particular meeting, the -- and I at that point

3 provided the operator with the petition manager's

4 name, and the switchboard operator informed me that

5 the PRB meeting with John Lamb is tomorrow at 2:00

6 p.m. 

7 So that -- again, I'm just telling you --

8 this is feedback on where public interest is -- could

9 use a little work in terms of providing -- the Agency

10 providing transparency to its processes, particularly

11 these emergency enforcement petitions. And apparently

12 the switchboard has got the wrong date.

13 MEMBER KING: Okay. Any other questions

14 from any phone participants. 

15 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, I would like to make

16 a contribution to this meeting today. We wrote a

17 petition for rulemaking -- 

18 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you

19 identify yourself?

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 MS. GRINNELL: -- 2.206. Can you hear me?

22 COURT REPORTER: I'm asking if you can

23 identify yourself.

24 MS. GRINNELL: Yes, it's Debbie Grinnell,

25 C-10 Foundation. We sent the petition because we know

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37

1 that the NRC is sending in their final Safety

2 Evaluation Report before the NRC and this study will

3 be done. And we were very encouraged by the fact that

4 the NRC had invested into a very important study. 

5 In the meantime, NextEra has invested into

6 a study, and certainly the results of those studies in

7 terms of what can be learned, because all of us have

8 needed to learn this as a new form of degradation. So

9 this is all valuable. 

10 But what's concerning to us is that the

11 very basic interests of what is happening at Seabrook

12 at the site is a deep concern to the public here

13 because we do not know the extent or the rate of the

14 containment building or the spent fuel pool. And this

15 is seven years after this was discovered at Seabrook,

16 and they are in violation of their license. 

17 We cannot be making decisions on safety

18 when we have no idea what the extent, rate or even if

19 we've confirmed that ASR is occurring at containment

20 or at the -- it's been too many years with no action

21 from the NRC. And these are standard code testing

22 that we've required that -- as Dave has spoken and

23 also as Paul Brown has told us, that these are

24 standards and the very best that we have. And I think

25 given the fact that the studies have been done, you

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38

1 have an obligation to utilize the most important and

2 existing certified testing that's possible and use

3 that to know at least the degree of ASR and the most

4 important and most critical structures at Seabrook. 

5 There has been growing Seabrook concern

6 because they are very aware, we are all very aware

7 that NextEra continues to operate in something that is

8 active and progressive and there is no way to repair

9 these structures and we can't predict on how they are

10 going to respond. And there's a great deal of

11 anxiety. And I think that the NRC is obligated as

12 they are on their current license to at least test

13 with the most sophisticated ability that you have and

14 wait for the studies. And I would think that the NIST

15 and NRC study will give you the guidance that you

16 need. But in the meantime, we have a plant and we

17 have no idea the condition of the plant. 

18 I appreciate the time you have given me. 

19 I don't know if anyone else would like to speak, but

20 I'd like to open this up to C-10.

21 MS. SKIBBEE: I'd like to follow up 

22 Debbie's extremely cogent comments with a comment

23 also. This is Pat Skibbee, C-10 Board. And I'm

24 thinking that if the petrographic analyses from ACI

25 and ASTM standards had been adopted by the NRC years

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39

1 ago, we would not be in this quandary because the core

2 sampling would have been done, the testing would have

3 been done. It would be possible therefore by

4 comparing testing from some years ago and currently to

5 see what the progress, if any, of the ASR is, what the

6 extent is, but because it wasn't done we are, as

7 Debbie Grinnell said, in the situation of ignorance on

8 this.

9 Also, I'm going to point out that

10 according to our materials that we submitted to you

11 yesterday, in 2010 comments by the NRC staff said

12 NextEra said that they would be conducting core

13 petrographic examinations and that, quote, "No

14 structure will be precluded from continued monitoring

15 for the effects of ASR concrete degradation until: (1)

16 core bore petrographic examination has been completed

17 on the Seabrook structure to confirm the absence of

18 ASR; and (2) that ASR is no longer active. These

19 things have not been done. And we're talking about

20 something that happened three-and-a-half years ago,

21 statements that were made three-and-a-half years ago. 

22 Then apparently later in the same year,

23 2012, NextEra's position changed and instead of doing

24 core sampling according to ACI and ASTM accepted

25 standards, they switched their strategy to again,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40

1 supposedly similar, but of course not really similar,

2 cores, pull cores at the Ferguson, Texas site. And

3 clearly this is not adequate. I mean, one might

4 wonder why NextEra's position changed. If these

5 standards were mandatory, as C-10's petition is

6 asking, they couldn't have done that. The licensee

7 would have had to take the responsible route by using

8 actual core samples from the actual nuclear power

9 plant, which is what should be happening and which I

10 hope and trust that the NRC will understand and

11 therefore approve our petition. Thank you.

12 MEMBER KING: Okay. NRC has no further

13 questions. So with that, this meeting is concluded

14 and we'll be terminating the phone connection.

15 MS. SKIBBEE: All right. Thank you for

16 listening.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went

18 off the record at 2:54 p.m.)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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