ML20087M178

Official Transcript, Interview with Paul Blanch

ML20087M178
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/20/2020
From:	Blanch P - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/EDO/AO, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Clark T
References
NRC-0866, OIG 16-024
Download: ML20087M178 (51)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Gas Transmission Lines at Indian Point Nuclear Plant OIG Case Number: 16-024 Location:

teleconference Date:

Friday, March 20, 2020 Work Order No.:

NRC-0866 Pages 1-50 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 OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + +

3 STAFF'S RESPONSE 4

---

x 5

In the Matter of: :

6 CONCERNS PERTAINING TO GAS :

7 TRANSMISSION LINES AT : OIG Case No.16-024 8

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR POWER :

9 PLANT :

10

---

x 11 Friday, March 20, 2020 12 13 Teleconference 14 15 NRC STAFF PRESENT:

16 DAVID SKEEN, Team Lead; Deputy Director of 17 International Programs 18 THERESA CLARK, Program Manager 19 SUZANNE DENNIS, RES/DRA/PRAB 20 DR. YUEH-LI "RENE'E" LI, Office of Nuclear Reactor 21 Regulation 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

2 ALSO PRESENT:

1 PAUL BLANCH, Citizen Stakeholder 2

TINA BONGAR, Resist Spectra 3

MICHEL LEE, Council on Intelligent Energy and 4

Conservation Policy 5

STEVE NANNEY, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 6

Safety Administration, DOT 7

AMY ROSMARIN, Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion 8

SUSAN VAN DOLSEN, Stop the Algonquin Pipeline 9

Expansion 10 NANCY VANN, Safe Energy Rights Group 11 ELLEN WEININGER, Grassroots Environmental Education 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

1:02 p.m.

2 MR. SKEEN: Hello, this is Dave Skeen.

3 This is the 1:00 call to discuss the evaluation team's 4

review of the IG findings with Paul Blanch. Who else 5

do we have on the line?

6 MS. LI: Rene'e Li, from NRC.

7 MS. CLARK: Theresa Clark, from NRC.

8 MR. BLANCH: And Paul Blanch, a citizen 9

stakeholder.

10 MR. SKEEN: Thanks, Paul.

11 MR. NANNEY: And Steve Nanney, US DOT, 12 PHMSA.

13 MS. DENNIS: This is --

14 MR. SKEEN: Thanks, Steve.

15 MS. DENNIS: -- Suzanne Dennis, with the 16 NRC.

17 MR. SKEEN: Okay. I don't hear others. I 18 think with the court reporter, we should probably each 19 state our names and spell it for him, so that he, as 20 we're speaking, he'll know who to attribute comments 21 to.

22 So, I'll go first. My name is David 23 Skeen, it's S-K-E-E-N. And I'm the team leader for 24 the evaluation team that's looking into the Inspector 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 General's event inquiry.

1 MS. CLARK: This is Theresa Clark, T-H-E-R-2 E-S-A, last name Clark, C-L-A-R-K. And I'm Dave's 3

deputy on the NRC team.

4 MS. LI: This is Rene'e Li, my official 5

name is Yueh-Li Li, spells Y-U-E-H, dash, L-I, last 6

name Li, L-I. And I'm from NRC.

7 MR. BLANCH: You're from where?

8 MS.

LI:

NRC, Nuclear Regulatory 9

Commission.

10 MR. BLANCH: Okay. And my name is Paul 11

Blanch, B-L-A-N-C-H, and I

am the concerned 12 stakeholder that was discussed in the OIG report.

13 MS. DENNIS: Hi, this is Suzanne Dennis, S-14 U-Z-A-N-N-E, last name Dennis, D-E-N-N-I-S.

15 MR. BLANCH: And where are you from, 16 Suzanne?

17 MS. DENNIS: Oh, I'm from the Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission. Sorry about that.

19 MR. BLANCH: Okay.

20 MR. SKEEN: So, who else do we have? I 21 know there's other folks.

22 MS. ROSMARIN: This is Amy Rosmarin, and 23 I'm just listening. I'm with Stop the Algonquin 24 Pipeline Expansion.

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

5 MR. SKEEN: Okay, thank you.

1 MS. VAN DOLSEN: This is Susan Van Dolsen, 2

I'm also with Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion 3

and listening. I'm going to go on mute.

4 MR. SKEEN: Thank you.

5 MS. VANN: I'm Nancy Vann, I'm with Safe 6

Energy Rights Group, and also just listening.

7 MR. SKEEN: Okay, thank you.

8 MS. BONGAR: And hi, I'm Tina Bongar, and 9

I'm with United for Clean Energy/Resist Spectra. And 10 I'm just listening.

11 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Is there anyone else on 12 the line?

13 MS. LEE: Yes, this is Michel Lee, with the 14 Council on Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy, 15 also just listening on mute.

16 MR. SKEEN: All right, thank you.

17 MS. WEININGER: Ellen Weininger, and I'm 18 with Grassroots Environmental Education, and I'm just 19 listening. Thank you.

20 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Is that everyone? I 21 don't hear anyone else.

22 MR. BLANCH: I thought we were going to 23 have someone from New York State. Amy, you said you 24 were going to be in contact, are they participating?

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

6 MS. ROSMARIN: I just, I sent them an 1

invitation and haven't heard back. I gave them the 2

call-in information. But the timing was pretty short.

3 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I know. Okay. Who wants 4

to start?

5 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Well, thanks, Paul. So, 6

let me just get the thing started here.

7 So, as I said, I'm part of a special team 8

that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put together to 9

evaluate the Inspector General findings from the event 10 inquiry related to the 42-inch gas pipeline that runs 11 near Indian Point Energy Center.

12 I was tasked to put together a team of NRC 13 and external experts to evaluate the findings and to 14 provide a report back to the Commission within 45 days 15 on the findings, on our evaluation of the Inspector 16 General's findings.

17 And so, we have both internal experts, as 18 well as external experts, on our team that are looking 19 into the findings from the Inspector General.

20 So, with that, the purpose of this call 21 was to talk with Paul Blanch today. I know Paul was 22 the concerned individual that was involved in some of 23 the activities related to the gas pipeline and the 24 2.206 Petition that was provided to the NRC.

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

7 And so, we want to hear his thoughts, make 1

sure that we have all of his concerns as part of our 2

efforts, as we go forward. And so, with that, I 3

wanted to talk with Paul about, to make sure we 4

understood his concerns that he has raised thus far.

5 And I know, Paul, you had sent something 6

in to us with a draft letter that you had, and maybe 7

we should go and start with that, maybe the best thing 8

to walk through that with you.

9 MR. BLANCH: Yes. That's what --

10 MR. SKEEN: And then, we have --

11 MR. BLANCH: That's what I --

12 MR. SKEEN: -- some particular questions --

13 MR. BLANCH: -- would like, too.

14 MR. SKEEN: -- we wanted to ask as well.

15 So, if that's okay with you, and the team, I have the 16 team on the line with me, so if there are specific 17 questions or clarifications we need as you go through 18 some of your concerns, we'll try to make sure we 19 capture those as we go forward.

20 MR. BLANCH: Okay. What I -- it was a 21 draft letter, and I know anything sent to the NRC, 22 draft or not, is going to go into ADAMS. That's fine.

23 I was just trying to give you a heads-up, 24 because there were probably editorial mistakes in 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

8 there and so on and so forth. But the concept of the 1

letter remains the same. I do not know whether you 2

distributed it to the rest of your team.

3 MR. SKEEN: Yes, the team has seen it. I 4

forwarded that to them when you sent it, because I 5

thought it would help the discussion this afternoon.

6 So, we have at least seen it.

7 But if you wanted to walk us through, to 8

make sure we've got your concerns. I think a lot of 9

what is in your letter was already part of our 10 efforts, but I just want to be sure, as we talk with 11 you, that we've captured everything. So --

12 MR. BLANCH: Okay.

13 MR. SKEEN: -- if you want to go ahead, 14 please do.

15 MR. BLANCH: Yes, do you have anyone from 16 Sandia online? On the line?

17 MR. SKEEN: I don't believe Sandia is on.

18 I know they were doing the computer runs, but I don't 19 believe that we have them on. Suzanne, did you notice 20 if Sandia was going to be available?

21 MS. DENNIS: Hi, yes, I talked with our 22 experts from Sandia yesterday and they decided, since 23 today was being transcribed, they would look over the 24 notes and focus on getting the simulations done, 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

9 hopefully before this weekend.

1 MR. SKEEN: All right, thank you. So, 2

Paul, no, we don't have Sandia with us this afternoon.

3 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Well, I sent that 4

letter just so your team could digest where I'm coming 5

from, and for those others listening to it, they have 6

not seen my draft letter, but it's my comments on a 7

official NRC document that was put out on March 18, 8

which is basically the scope of the team.

9 And I think it would be best if I just 10 read the letter and we could stop after each 11 paragraph, if there are questions. So, if that's 12 okay, to get it into the record, I know it will be 13 part of the record anyway.

14 I say in my letter, it's addressed to 15 David Skeen, it appears the team's direction is to 16 have Sandia National Labs perform a risk analysis.

17 I have no problem with this approach, 18 however, I question, quote, analyzing natural gas 19 pipeline rupture phenomena and consequences, which was 20 in Dave's outline, as the sole guidance, when there is 21 clear federal law and regulations as to how to 22 evaluate the pipeline's impact on public safety.

23 I want a structured approach for risk 24 assessment, is basically what I'm saying. And the 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

10 only one that we can fall back on is what is in the 1

federal law.

2 And then, I go on and state the PHMSA's 3

mission is to protect, is pipeline safety, no doubt 4

about that. NRC's mission is nuclear safety and 5

providing adequate protections to the public health 6

and safety. PHMSA does not regulate the NRC or 7

oversee the NRC, and the same way, the NRC doesn't 8

oversee PHMSA.

9 So, I go on to say, from the enclosed 10 direction, it appears the NRC is about to charter 11 Sandia to conduct yet one more risk assessment. We've 12 had risk assessments conducted by Entergy, Algonquin, 13 NRC, PHMSA, State of New York, myself, and then, 14 there's another one that got lost by the NRC that's on 15 a CD somewhere.

16 We've had enough attempts on risk 17 assessment and have everyone thinking, this is what we 18 think we need. I go on to say, there is a regulatory 19 and industry consensus of conducting a

risk 20 assessment, and that is specified in 49 CFR 192.917 21 and 935.

22 This is the only generally accepted 23 guidance for conducting a risk assessment of gas 24 lines. This went through rulemaking, comments, 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

11 industry comments, this is the consensus of how one 1

does a risk assessment.

2 And I go on to say, quoting in my letter, 3

it is my position that the risk assessment be 4

conducted following the Pipeline Safety Act of 2016 5

and 49 CFR 192. The result must then be reviewed by 6

PHMSA for compliance with its regulations.

7 And then, the NRC, based on that risk 8

assessment, makes the determination of, quote, 9

reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public 10 health and safety.

11 I have just gone through the final 12 Environmental Impact Statement and, Steve, this is 13 probably directed at you. Steve is from PHMSA.

14 Throughout the Environmental Impact Statement, dozens 15 and dozens of times, are statement, total compliance 16 with 49 CFR 192.

17 No exceptions that I have identified.

18 Meaning that, FERC, PHMSA, EPA, in signing off of that 19 document are saying, the regulations of 192, amongst 20 others, have been met.

21 I have tried, communicated, and the reason 22 Amy and Ellen are on here, they have communicated with 23 me and with Karen Gentile of PHMSA, to attempt to get 24 a copy of the risk assessment they said was done. All 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

12 I got from PHMSA, and this was all in writing and 1

PHMSA has it and I think, Dave, you may have some of 2

it, all --

3 MR. SKEEN: Excuse me, Paul.

4 MR. BLANCH: -- I've gotten are --

5 MR. SKEEN: Excuse me, Paul. Did someone 6

else just come on the line.

7 MS. CLARK: That was Theresa. Somehow my 8

call dropped and now I'm back, sorry.

9 MR. SKEEN: Okay, thank you. I just heard 10 another beep, so I just wanted to make sure we knew 11 who was on the line. Thank you. Go ahead, Paul, I'm 12 sorry.

13 MR. BLANCH: Okay. So, what we have is a 14 document called the Environmental Impact Statement 15 certifying compliance with 49 CFR 192, which is, at 16 best, an inaccurate statement. And something that the 17 NRC's risk assessment may have been based upon.

18 I guess my next question is directed at 19 Steve. And by the way, Rick Kuprewicz, our common 20 associate says very good things about you. Has there 21 been a risk assessment done for the pipelines at 22 Indian Point that are in compliance with PHMSA 23 regulations? And if so, how do we get a copy?

24 MR. SKEEN: So, Steve, are you on the line?

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

13 MR. NANNEY: Yes, I'm listening. Dave, do 1

you want me to answer?

2 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I'd like to.

3 MR. SKEEN: Yes, if you could answer that, 4

that's fine. Like I say, that's more of a PHMSA than 5

an NRC question, I guess --

6 MR. BLANCH: Well, they're all --

7 MR. SKEEN: -- so, if you can --

8 MR. BLANCH: -- tied together.

9 MR. SKEEN: -- answer, that would be fine.

10 MR. NANNEY: Well, first of all, you're 11 asking has one been done? But I can answer you this 12 way, if you go look at Part 192, Subpart O, it has the 13 regulations of when you have to do assessments of the 14 pipeline.

15 In other words, when you've found it to be 16 a high consequence area, as defined in Part 192. And 17 18 MR. BLANCH: Right.

19 MR. NANNEY: -- the parent company that 20 owns the same pipeline is Enbridge. And Enbridge does 21 have a compliant integrity management program.

22 This particular line, this particular 23 location, has Steve Nanney seen the documents? The 24 answer is, no.

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

14 And because -- I'm listening in today, 1

I've listened in when Richard talked yesterday, 2

because my goal of listening in was to see what the 3

concerns were and to see what my takeaway would be of 4

going back and looking, since I wasn't involved in 5

this back several years ago when it was built and 6

everything.

7 So, that being said, yes, they would have 8

to have a risk assessment on that. A risk assessment, 9

by the code on the new pipeline, the first thing that 10 I would look for would be, did they do a hydrostatic 11 pressure test that met the code?

12 On a new pipeline, that would be the first 13 item to look at, to make sure. And I would be, and I 14 will be going back and asking that question.

15 The other thing, as the pipeline is put 16 in-service and time goes by, would be inline 17 inspection tools run on this pipeline, plus their 18 yearly maintenance activities and patrolling 19 activities.

20 So, to answer your question, yes, I will 21 go back and look at that. What we can actually put 22 out for the public review, I can't say right at the 23 moment what I could actually give you, until I look at 24 the records and everything.

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

15 MR. SKEEN: So, I appreciate that, Steve.

1 I appreciate that. And maybe, Paul, when we talk 2

about a risk assessment, are we talking about two 3

different things?

4 From an NRC probabilistic risk assessment, 5

a risk-informed process that we have, versus the risk 6

assessment for a gas pipeline may be looking at 7

different things.

8 And I know we've talked about this, what's 9

in the ASME appendix and all of that, but maybe it 10 would be good to make sure we understand, when we say 11 risk assessment, what we're talking about.

12 MR. BLANCH: Okay. This is Paul Blanch, 13 again. I'll try to explain it and, Steve, sorry to 14 put you on the spot here, because you're relatively 15 new to this.

16 But the clear requirements, Steve, in 17 Subpart O of 192 are numerous, as you know. And 18 192.917 and 934 require a very detailed risk 19 assessment. This should be outside of NRC space.

20 I

would have

expected, if you're 21 installing or if PHMSA is approving the installation 22 of a 42-inch line in the vicinity of two nuclear power 23 plants, that they would do an adequate risk assessment 24 and those results would be presented to the NRC. They 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

16 could take the results, here are the probabilities, 1

these are numbers.

2 It shouldn't be the NRC doing this, these 3

are the numbers that PHMSA should be coming up with 4

and following the regulations of ASME B31.8, and there 5

are other references, or documents, incorporated by 6

reference.

7 And this is not inconsistent -- has 8

everyone seen the letter from the Attorney General of 9

the State of New York this morning?

10 MR. SKEEN: I have seen that, yes, Paul.

11 MR. BLANCH: Yes. My request is not 12 inconsistent with what the Attorney General of the 13 State of New York is saying.

14 These are -- this is my immediate concern, 15 I've been working on this, as everyone knows, for five 16 or six, maybe more years, and all I get is, oh, I'm 17 going to do my risk assessment my way, and I'm going 18 to do it my way, and we don't even get to see what 19 these risk assessments, and they get lost.

20 And my very strong position is, I want to 21 see a

risk assessment, which is PHMSA's 22 responsibility. And I'm not -- it's just like the 23 NRC, PHMSA needs to impose that requirement on its 24 licensees or its regulated pipeline manufacturer.

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

17 That's the way the NRC does it, they don't 1

do -- it's not their responsibility to do the risk 2

analysis. And it's not PHMSA's, but PHMSA should 3

assure that we are being protected by ensuring 4

compliance with the regulation. Which is the absolute 5

minimum to assure safety.

6 And then, NRC takes that and the NRC 7

decides, does this present a hazard to the nuclear 8

power plant?

9 MR. SKEEN: Okay. So, appreciate that, 10 Paul. And so, I think what we can do, we recognize 11 the concern. Certainly, we can work with Steve and 12 his folks to verify, or confirm if there was this risk 13 assessment done under the Part 49 regulations. So, we 14 can take that. So, appreciate that statement and I 15 think we can move on from there, then.

16 MR. BLANCH: Yes. That is my number one 17 immediate concern. There's a lot of other issues, but 18 that's my priority right now. And from my 19 communications with PHMSA, PHMSA has dropped the ball 20 and has not done a risk assessment.

21 MR. SKEEN: Okay. I think we understand 22 your concern and we'll look at that to see if we can 23 verify that a risk assessment was done under Part 49.

24 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Okay. Where would we 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

18 like to go from here?

1 MR. SKEEN: So, I think, in the rest of 2

your letter, it does talk about some other things, 3

some of which I think are covered in the IG findings, 4

but if you wanted to kind of step through those, that 5

was the bulletized issues that you had on another page 6

of your draft letter you had shared with me this 7

morning.

8 MR. BLANCH: Yes. Yes, the -- I made a 9

complaint with the Inspector General's Office. And 10 you know the Inspector General does not have adequate 11 budget, personnel, they get a lot of stuff and they're 12 very selective in what they do and the scope.

13 I asked the Inspector General to look at 14 a lot of different things. They didn't look at 15 everything.

16 Now, one of the things I asked them to do, 17 and I've asked the NRC staff, is Entergy made 18 inaccurate, incomplete, I believe, okay, allege, 19 inaccurate, incomplete, in violation of 10 CFR 50.9, 20 and possibly 50.5. That has never been addressed.

21 Let me see.

22 MR. SKEEN: Okay. So, could you clarify 23 just a little bit on the 50.9, where you think it 24 violated 50.9? Just to help us understand --

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

19 MR. BLANCH: Sure.

1 MR. SKEEN: -- it, please.

2 MR.

BLANCH:

Well, in their 50.59 3

evaluation, they clearly stated three-minute closure 4

time. That is an inaccurate statement, inaccurate, 5

incomplete statement. I got better words for it, but 6

I'm going to be nice. It's never been looked at by 7

anyone within the NRC.

8 MR. SKEEN: Okay. I -- just stop right 9

there just a sec, Paul. So, I can tell you, as part 10 of our team, we are looking at that, trying to find 11 out where that one to three minutes came from, as 12 well. So, that will be part of what our report covers 13 when we do that. So, we can certainly look at that 14 one.

15 MR. BLANCH: You and I have talked about 16 that, and we think we might know where it is. But 17 getting back to the root cause of the problem.

18 The NRC is allowing, and accepts and 19 defends, A, inaccurate information provided by a 20 licensee, which has just cost us so much time, 21 trouble, cost the State of New York over a quarter of 22 a million dollars to have their own analysis done.

23 And the NRC won't do anything.

24 And you have laws against providing false 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

20 information, deliberate misconduct, and inaccurate and 1

incomplete information. But you seem not to be 2

willing to ever enforce those laws. And then, let me 3

see what else.

4 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Just so I understand, so 5

you're saying that the fact that they reported this 6

one to three minutes, that is a violation of the 50.9, 7

that's your concern?

8 MR. BLANCH: Yes, it is.

9 MR. SKEEN: Okay.

10 MR. BLANCH: Unless you --

11 MR. SKEEN: That makes --

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR.

BLANCH:

a

message, with a

14 violation, intentional, criminal, I don't care what, 15 but anyway.

16 One of my things was fuel in the diesel 17 slurries tank. Dave, you and I, I think, I'm 18 satisfied, if Brian told you that those tanks are 19 empty, that's just fine.

20 MR. SKEEN: And for those that aren't 21 aware, we're talking about the storage, the diesel 22 storage tanks that was for Unit 1, that has been shut 23 down for many years.

24 When they shut down that unit, they 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

21 abandoned those tanks, they drained them, they cleaned 1

them out, and they valved them off, so that there's 2

nothing in those tanks any more. We did verify that 3

with the Senior Resident Inspector at the site. So, 4

thanks, Paul, I appreciate that.

5 MR. BLANCH: Yes. But my, as we've talked, 6

Dave, my biggest concern is the existing pipelines.

7 Okay. We have two pipelines, one of them's idle right 8

now and the 30-inch is active.

9 They run very close to the switchgear room 10 and the control room. A leak in one of those pipes 11 could cause unignited methane to migrate into the 12 control room, just a few hundred feet away.

13 If that occurs, and I'm talking a gas 14 leak, like we've all seen in our neighborhoods, but a 15 sizeable one, two-inch or greater, and that gas 16 migrates into, especially the control room and the 17 electrical switchgear room, if that gets in there, we 18 are in big trouble.

19 If you take out the switchgear room, then 20 the danger of core damage, spent fuel pool damage, and 21 all your post-Fukushima fixes would not be available.

22 And that's something that absolutely, that is my 23 number one concern, and that has been conveyed many 24 times to the NRC and ignored.

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

22 So, the risk assessment not only applies 1

to the AIM pipeline, it also applies to existing 2

pipelines, and that's effective in the year 2004. So, 3

I don't think PHMSA has assured that that has been 4

done. And I don't mean to pick on PHMSA, but I've 5

never been able to get a straight answer from them.

6 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Well, thanks for that, 7

Paul, appreciate that. Now, let me understand just a 8

little bit more. So, when you're talking about the 9

existing lines, would the leak be from the underground 10 part? Because there's not -- it's mostly underground 11 it runs on the site, right? It only comes aboveground 12 13 MR. BLANCH: Correct.

14 MR. SKEEN: -- just before it gets to the 15 river, is that correct?

16 MR. BLANCH: Yes. It's underground, it 17 comes up out of the ground by the river and that's 18 where the pig station is. And then, from the pig 19 station, it goes across the site, within the owner 20 controlled area, comes within 300 or 400 feet of the 21 control room, switchgear room, and then goes out. And 22 then, it ties into the AIM pipeline.

23 MR. SKEEN: Okay. So, but your concern 24 would be where the aboveground portion of the piping 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

23 is? Is that what you're concerned about, a gas leak 1

2 MR. BLANCH: Well, it's --

3 MR. SKEEN: -- from a --

4 MR.

BLANCH:

primarily the

one, 5

aboveground, whatever could cause gas to leak into 6

those areas. Aboveground, below ground, doesn't 7

matter where the source is. But certainly, this is 8

not something that would be acceptable in today's 9

environment, for being built today.

10 MR. SKEEN: Okay. All right. I --

11 MR. BLANCH: And that --

12 MR. SKEEN: -- think I understand your 13 concern. I'm not sure that was one of the findings of 14 the IG report, but like I say, I want to hear all of 15 your concerns one way or the other, to make sure we're 16 addressing what we need to address and if there's 17 things outside of our scope, I want to make sure that 18 those get addressed as well. So, I don't mind at all 19 pursuing this a little bit --

20 MR. BLANCH: Yes.

21 MR. SKEEN: -- with you.

22 MR. BLANCH: Again, when I wrote to the IG, 23 and I think I gave you this letter, all those concerns 24 were outlined in my letter to the IG dated, it was 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

24 2016, I believe, February somewhere. Those are my 1

concerns, they weren't all addressed by the IG, so 2

that means they're back with the staff.

3 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Okay. I understand, I 4

appreciate that.

5 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Dave, you do have that 6

letter, or I could send it again to you.

7 MR. SKEEN: Well, I think we have that.

8 That was your 2016 letter, right, that you sent in?

9 MR. BLANCH: 2016?

10 MR. SKEEN: Is that -- which one were you 11 referring to?

12 MR. BLANCH: My initial -- yes, 2016, yes.

13 MR. SKEEN: Yes.

14 MR. BLANCH: I think --

15 MR. SKEEN: Yes, we --

16 MR. BLANCH: -- February --

17 MR. SKEEN: -- have that.

18 MR. BLANCH: -- of 2016.

19 MR. SKEEN: Yes, we have that one.

20 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Those are the issues.

21 If the IG didn't address them, then I think the NRC 22 staff needs to close it out. And my final comment 23 here is I have -- this is in my -- you haven't even 24 seen this, Steve, is why I didn't make that a draft.

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

25 I have extensive experience at Millstone, 1

as you know, Maine Yankee, Indian Point, and other 2

places, and worked with the NRC on safety culture.

3 And I have a limited knowledge of root cause analysis.

4 And if the NRC identified these type of 5

problems at a licensee, they would give them the 6

normal chilling effect letter and they may impose 7

Inspection Procedure 95003 for a total assessment.

8 That's going to be in my final letter to you.

9 And I believe that the NRC has a cultural 10 problem and I think that this definitely needs a root 11 cause assessment, and I know NRC has done these, 12 they've been trained on them. This is a deep rooted 13 cultural problem within the NRC, such as the backward 14 engineering.

15 And I've done it, I will admit, if my boss 16 tells me this is the result that I want, I can go find 17 information supporting that result. That is a 18 cultural problem, I've been a victim of that myself, 19 I've done it.

20 We used to have a document the NRC 21 approved, which is a justification for operations, its 22 name has been changed to something else now. It's 23 basically saying, go find me a solution that I want.

24 Unacceptable.

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

26 And I believe that the NRC has a severe 1

cultural problem and that needs to be looked at. And 2

you need to look at that Inspection Procedure 95003, 3

see if the NRC fits into that.

4 I know this was not a part of the OIG 5

findings, but from my assessments, somewhat as an 6

expert, even written, Dave, I shared it with you, my 7

paper on safety culture, NRC has a problem.

8 And

finally, I

support just about 9

everything that was in the letter from the Attorney 10 General from the State of New York dated yesterday, 11 March 19.

12 MR. SKEEN: Okay. I appreciate that. I 13 know we had talked about that, you had mentioned 14 before that you had supported what the Attorney 15 General was sending in, so I appreciate that. And 16 certainly, we can take a look at that and make sure we 17 understand that. Anything else?

18 MR. BLANCH: That's all I have. I will 19 follow up, I'll give you a final copy of that letter, 20 whether you want to keep your draft or not doesn't 21 matter to me.

22 But I will -- before, well, by Monday or 23 Monday night, I will have my final letter out to you.

24 It goes over all these things and what I think the NRC 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

27 needs to do.

1 And obviously, what Steve said and, not 2

picking on Steve, but I think Steve is going to go 3

back and see if a risk assessment was done in 4

compliance with the regulations. Do I understand that 5

correctly, Steve?

6 MR. SKEEN: Well, we can certainly do that 7

as part of our efforts. I mean --

8 MR. BLANCH: Okay.

9 MR. SKEEN: -- Steve's on the team with us, 10 so we'll make sure that we address that, Paul, because 11 we had been looking at that ourselves, surely there 12 must have been a Part 49 risk assessment done.

13 And we're just trying to uncover that 14 ourselves, to make sure that that was done anyway.

15 So, appreciate your concerns on that, we were kind of 16 heading that direction anyway. So, we'll see what we 17 can find out on that one.

18 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Your job becomes much 19 easier if you can find one that meets the requirement.

20 MR. SKEEN: Yes, I understand, certainly.

21 MR. BLANCH: And -- yes.

22 MR. SKEEN: Go ahead.

23 MR. BLANCH: And I just want to say this, 24 Sandia is involved. I have no problem whatsoever with 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

28 Sandia. If Sandia is directed to go out and do a risk 1

assessment in accordance with the requirements, I have 2

no problem with that, as long as they're in compliance 3

with the requirements.

4 MR. SKEEN: Okay. Thank you for that, I 5

appreciate that too. We did want to talk about some 6

of the NRC process issues.

7 MR. BLANCH: Sure.

8 MR. SKEEN: That's one I think that we can 9

-- we need to have a good understanding of that as we 10 go forward, if the agency is going to try to do 11 something about some of our processes. So, I do want 12 to touch on that with you as well.

13 MR. BLANCH: Yes. Well -- yes. There's 14 one other technical thing I need to address, do you 15 mind, Dave?

16 MR. SKEEN: No, please, go ahead.

17 MR. BLANCH: Okay. The -- I had sent you 18 our calculations done by Dave Lochbaum and a few other 19 people. And they're the calculations that were done 20 based on the equation provided in Regulatory Guide 21 1.91.

22 And I asked four different people and we 23 all came up with similar results, that go out greater, 24 the blast pressure greater than one pound going out 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

29 beyond 4,000 feet, or whatever the number, you got the 1

information.

2 But the ASME document that is incorporated 3

by reference also has an equation for calculating the 4

impact radius. Okay. It's a different equation, 5

comes up with a completely different result.

6 The purpose of the PIR equation in ASME 7

B31.8S is to determine the high consequence area. You 8

come up with a number, it could be 660 feet, it could 9

be a thousand feet.

10 Its only purpose is to calculate the area 11 that is covered by high consequence area requirements.

12 It's not meant to say that if you're at more than 13 that, you're not going to be in danger, which is what 14 the NRC equation is.

15 The intent of both equations, I thought 16 was the same thing, but it's not. So, just be aware 17 of that. I have no problem with the NRC's equation.

18 MR. SKEEN: Well, I appreciate that, Paul.

19 That's one thing we were looking at, was the Reg Guide 20 1.91, to see if it was clear or if there's things that 21 maybe it needs to be clarified in some way in how to 22 apply that. So, appreciate that information that you 23 provided to us.

24 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Sorry to interrupt you 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

30 there.

1 MR. SKEEN: Oh, no, that's fine. That's 2

okay. So, those are the kinds of things we want to 3

hear, right? Because to me, that is process, if 4

you're telling me that some of our procedures may not 5

be clear or appropriate. So, that's what we're 6

looking at as well, as part of our effort.

7 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I'm saying Reg Guide 1.91 8

equation is very clear. You just have to plug in the 9

numbers and go. I haven't had a problem with it.

10 MR. SKEEN: Okay. So, you think 1.91 is 11 okay the way it is?

12 MR. BLANCH: I think so, unless you guys 13 see something wrong with it.

14 MR. SKEEN: Well, we'll look into that and 15 see. That was one that we wanted to make sure we 16 understood. So, I appreciate your input on that, 17 that's good.

18 What if we turn to the 2.206 process now?

19 I know that you've had some concerns with that over 20 the years, so if you could kind of enlighten us a 21 little bit more on some of the concerns with that 22 process?

23 MR. BLANCH: Yes. That process, and I've 24 probably filed five, over my lifetime. And the first 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

31 thing we get is a, we've rejected because, or we don't 1

see any immediate problem. I've got one in the works 2

out at Southern Cal Edison right now.

3 So, we get an immediate response from the 4

NRC, we don't see any problem. And this gets back to 5

the

culture, okay?

They've already made a

6 determination, there's no problem, and then, the NRC 7

sends its Petition Review Board out, okay, come and 8

support my conclusion I've already done here.

9 It's, again, getting back to the IG's 10 statement about backward engineering. It's a real 11 problem and we've faced it time and time again. I had 12 a very well thought out petition, well, not only this 13 one on the pipeline, but we had one that I filed with 14 Arnie Gunderson on Vermont Yankee and tritium leaks.

15 And it's just that if we look historically 16 at 2.206 petitions, the number of them in the last 20-17 30 years has been 400, either -- many of them may be 18 not valid, but many of them are valid, but they've all 19 been rejected. There might have been two that have 20 been partially accepted.

21 So, one's chances of getting a 2.206 22 petition granted, even though it comes from people 23 with credibility, and I say credibility, Dave Lochbaum 24 has credibility, I have credibility, Arnie Gunderson 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

32 has some credibility, everything's always rejected.

1 Something's wrong with it.

2 If a licensee comes in and makes a request 3

to change something, to reduce safety margin, it's 4

always, it's never rejected. We just get the feeling 5

that the NRC is not protecting the public by not 6

listening to our 2.206 petitions.

7 I mean, how many years did we spend on 8

this one that I put in? And no one has pointed out 9

why it was wrong. Something is wrong within the 10 agency that essentially they automatically find a way 11 to reject petitions from the public on safety issues.

12 And sometimes, these members of the 13 public, like myself, have as much, if not more, 14 expertise than the NRC staff has. So, anyway, that's 15 the general complaint I have. I'm not sure how we 16 address that.

17 MR. SKEEN: Okay. No, I appreciate that, 18 Paul, it's good feedback. And that's something we're 19 looking at too, is how does the NRC handle the 2.206 20 petitions that we get in and are we being true to our 21 processes? And so, I do appreciate your input on 22 that.

23 MR. BLANCH: Yes, and that goes back a long 24 way, to 1993, when I was working with Senator 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

33 Lieberman and Dan Berkovitz, who was his chief of 1

staff on the committee, and we were working on the 2

2.206 process and should that have the ability to 3

appeal the NRR director's decision?

4 And because of the politics at the time, 5

there's no legal appeal to a director's decision on 6

that. So, when a director says, no, this is not a 7

problem, we have no way to appeal.

8 I know that's a Congressional issue, it's 9

part of the Atomic Energy Act, but it's obviously 10 something that irks me. But on a positive side, 11 you're one of the few agencies that does have a 12 petition process. Okay.

13 I think those are big issues. I don't 14 think we need to get into specific, but the culture is 15 bad, and I understand that, we've seen cultural 16 problems in a lot of regulated industries. We've seen 17 the Boeing recently. We've seen airline industry.

18 You look at NTSB studies and stuff, you see cultural 19 problems identified.

20 So, those are my concerns, you know where 21 my priorities are and you know what I think has to be 22 addressed.

23 MR. SKEEN: Yes, no, I appreciate that.

24 But another thing I wanted to raise with you as well, 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

34 Paul, is what about the interactions among the 1

different agencies, the government, and dealing with 2

the different agencies? As far as communication or 3

understanding the roles and responsibilities of the 4

various agencies, did you see any issues with that in 5

your --

6 MR. BLANCH: No, I don't. I don't know 7

what it is between PHMSA and FERC and EPA, but I can 8

say I think the interactions on a subject like this, 9

of putting a 42-inch gas line next to a nuclear power 10 plant, from an outsider's observation, there was no 11 communication with PHMSA, with the licensee.

12 Now, there's a big problem. It's probably 13 very rare that two agencies are facing such an 14 overlapping problem. But on something like this, my 15 God, there has to be some good communication and open 16 communication. What is the risk of this line? What 17 harm's it going to do?

18 And NRC, I'm not saying it's all NRC, but 19 NRC should have been communicating with PHMSA all 20 along on this thing, to assure that the public is 21 adequately protected, not only from gas lines, but 22 from its impact on nuclear plants, or potential impact 23 on nuclear plants. You could have gotten ahead of the 24 curve with proper communication back in 2014, I think.

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

35 And the fact that you just blindly 1

accepted Entergy's 50.59 analysis, without question, 2

is inexcusable. And that question could have gone 3

from the NRC to PHMSA, hey, is this three minutes 4

really possible?

5 You, Dave, as an engineer, and me, as an 6

engineer, and every other engineer, including Rick 7

Kuprewicz, and I'm not sure that Steve will even 8

disagree, that the time to identify a leak at a 9

minimum is 30 minutes, from 920 documents I've looked 10 at from PHMSA.

11 And someone not being able to recognize 12 that false statement by Entergy is unforgivable. And 13 they --

14 MR. SKEEN: Okay.

15 MR. BLANCH: -- ought to pay a price.

16 MR. SKEEN: No, I understand, I understand 17 your concern there. But, I guess, as far as the 18 communications, was it -- apparently, from the 19 outside, it looks like there were no communications 20 among the agencies at all.

21 And so, that's what I'm wondering, is it 22 a public communication issue, that we're not doing 23 enough to communicate with the public? Or is it an 24 internal interagency issue of communications between 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

36 agencies?

1 MR. BLANCH: Well, I don't know the 2

interactions between agencies, I have -- that 3

information is never made public or I never see it.

4 I've never seen any formal communication between the 5

NRC and PHMSA or FERC or anything like that. So, yes, 6

our perception, there is none. And believe me, we've 7

tried to get it.

8 MR.

SKEEN:

Okay.

That's helpful 9

information too, so I appreciate that piece as well.

10 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Anyone else?

11 MR. SKEEN: Well, I want to make sure that 12 the team, because I'm doing all the talking here, but 13 a lot of the team has a lot of the technical 14 capabilities, so I want to make sure I leave a chance 15 for other folks to, if they have clarifying questions 16 or maybe something that they've been working on that 17 they want to make sure they understand from you.

18 So, if you're okay, I'll open it up and 19 let Theresa go first. And then, ask if other team 20 members might have questions or explanations for you.

21 Let's do that. Theresa?

22 MS. CLARK: Hi, Paul, this is Theresa 23 Clark. Thanks again for taking the time to talk to 24 us, I think this has been really helpful to hear in-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

37 person, or virtually in-person at least --

1 MR. BLANCH: Right.

2 MS. CLARK: -- what some of your concerns 3

are. I have a couple of questions, a couple of 4

process ones, I think, and then, technical ones.

5 We're quite interested in both angles of this, it's 6

what the Chairman asked us to look at.

7 One thing that you just mentioned about 8

proper communications that we could have had back in 9

2014, one of the things I've been struggling with in 10 putting together the documents that we might include 11 in our report is that some of the analyses that were 12 done had security related information in them, when we 13 were talking about specific distances from here to 14 there, for example.

15 And it seems like that may have 16 complicated some of our communications on these 17 issues. Do you have a perspective on that?

18 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I do, because I have 19 received from FERC, over Algonquin's objections, I 20 have received CEII clearance from FERC. I've conveyed 21 that to the NRC. So, that should not have been a 22 problem with those people. I know Rick Kuprewicz also 23 has CEII clearance.

24 So, I agree there may be some issues, 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

38 security issues, terrorism issues, and so on, that may 1

contain CEII, but not most of it. And as I say, I 2

have that clearance.

3 MS. CLARK: Thanks, Paul, that's helpful.

4 What about how we communicate these issues to the 5

broader public, who don't have those clearances? Are 6

there ways that we could communicate better on these 7

topics without getting into details that we shouldn't?

8 MR. BLANCH: Sure, I think that you could 9

hold public meetings and say, hey, we've addressed 10 terrorism, we've addressed EMP, whatever else might be 11 considered CEII information.

12 And if you got before the public and said, 13 hey, we've looked at these, it's security related or 14 CEII related, but I provide you my assurance that we 15 have looked at it and we're satisfied with it, that's 16 never been done.

17 MS. CLARK: Okay. That's fair, thank you.

18 So, you mentioned a couple minutes ago about documents 19 that you had looked at from PHMSA, I think you said a 20 number of 920, I didn't know if that was a number of 21 documents or a specific document, on valve closure 22 times. Are there specific references that you want to 23 offer to us?

24 MR. BLANCH: Sure, I've sent Dave a 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

39 spreadsheet. Correct, Dave?

1 MR. SKEEN: Yes, we have the spreadsheet 2

that you sent on the pipe rupture data.

3 MR. BLANCH: Yes. That is, I'm not sure 4

how far it goes back, but I think there were 921 5

events identified by PHMSA and it provides location, 6

latitude, longitude, size of the leak, did it 7

explode?, did it not explode?, time identified, time 8

event occurred. You've got it all. And that is not 9

Paul Blanch's data, that is on PHMSA's website.

10 MS. CLARK: Okay, Paul, I was confused 11 about that. Yes, we definitely have that spreadsheet.

12 I couldn't remember whether that spreadsheet included 13 data that would let us calculate how long it took to 14 detect and isolate these issues.

15 MR. BLANCH: Yes, it does.

16 MS. CLARK: Okay, thanks. We'll take 17 another look at that. And then, I guess --

18 MR. BLANCH: There's so --

19 MS. CLARK: -- my last --

20 MR. BLANCH: -- many columns --

21 MS. CLARK: Go ahead, please.

22 MR. BLANCH: -- of data, so many columns of 23 data, you're going to have to parse it and sort it and 24 everything, which I've done, and that's how I found 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

40 out there's --

1 MS. CLARK: Okay.

2 MR. BLANCH: -- anywhere from 30 minutes to 3

30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> --

4 MS. CLARK: Okay.

5 MR. BLANCH: -- for a response time.

6 MS. CLARK: Understand. Thank you. And I 7

guess, I want to give other folks some air time here, 8

but you mentioned a few minutes ago about the Reg 9

Guide 1.91 equations and the calculations that you and 10 some of the others had done using those.

11 And I think the number that you mentioned, 12 knowing that it wasn't necessarily the exact number, 13 was something like a 4,000-foot radius.

14 I wanted to clarify, is that -- your point 15 was that this was the number that you got using our 16 equation, so it raised some questions in your mind, or 17 were you concerned that that was, perhaps I'm not 18 saying this the right way, but the radius of concern 19 for the plant?

20 MR. BLANCH: I didn't --

21 MS. CLARK: Am I making sense?

22 MR. BLANCH: -- look into the derivation of 23 the equation in Reg Guide 1.91. I'm ex-Navy reactor 24 operator and degreed electrical engineer, understand 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

41 all that stuff.

1 But when I did the calculations, given the 2

gas flow through that line, assuming that comes out, 3

I did a plot, as Dave Lochbaum did and Joe Carson, 4

Larry Criscione, we all came up with the same numbers 5

and they all go out thousands of thousands of feet.

6 And that's just for the pressure pulse.

7 We did not use ALOHA, we used your 8

numbers, and we all came up with a similar thing. Is 9

that right? I don't know, but that's the only thing 10 we could go by, we're not gas experts.

11 MS. CLARK: Okay. I think I understand, I 12 just wanted to clarify that. So, do you have a feel 13 for whether you think there would be impacts at that 14 distance? Or is the point that you're making more 15 specific to how the equation works?

16 MR. BLANCH: Well, the equation works such 17 that it predicts the impact going out, based on the 18 gas flow and time.

19 And that's what the results of the 20 equation say, that the impact, depending on the amount 21 of time it takes to isolate the leak, goes out this 22 far. And I would assume it includes pressure pulses, 23 heat flux, vapor clouds, and so on and so forth. I 24 don't know the derivation of your equation in 1.91.

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

42 MS. CLARK: Okay. Thanks, Paul. And 1

that's why I have smart people helping us out, because 2

I don't think I do either, at this point. But I'm 3

learning a lot.

4 MR. BLANCH: I'm not the only dumb one 5

here, huh?

6 MS. CLARK: Hey, I didn't say I was dumb.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. BLANCH: I'm saying I am.

9 MS. CLARK: Just kidding. Okay. I think 10 that's everything I have this second. Dave, you want 11 to call the next person?

12 MR. SKEEN: Yes. Suzanne, did you have 13 anything that you wanted to raise?

14 MS. DENNIS: Yes. Hi, Paul, this is 15 Suzanne Dennis. I was looking over the calculations 16 that you had sent to Dave about what other people had 17 seen using those Reg Guide 1.91 calculations.

18 MR. BLANCH: Yes.

19 MS. DENNIS: The minutes that were used 20 differed. And so, I was just wondering how the 21 timings were chosen for those expert evaluations, or 22 if you just had asked, hey, take an independent look 23 at this and let me know, and each expert kind of 24 picked?

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

43 MR. BLANCH: Well, what I did, I told Dave 1

and Larry and Joe to, hey, here's the equation, here's 2

the flow rate, what's the impact radius, based on the 3

1.91 equation? And we all came up with numbers that 4

are plus or minus 20-30 percent. So, they're ballpark 5

numbers.

6 MS. DENNIS: Okay. All right. Yes, that's 7

very helpful, thank you. And then, as our resident 8

risk analysis expert, I just wanted to, one, ask for 9

some clarification and maybe provide some 10 clarification too.

11 So, at the NRC, when we talk about risk 12 assessment, we're usually talking about probabilistic 13 risk assessment, so not only the consequence, but also 14 the frequency of the event occurring.

15 And I think, and Steve can correct me if 16 I'm wrong here, but the PHMSA risk assessment that is 17 in the regulations isn't quite that. It's more making 18 sure that the pipeline operators have taken steps to 19 ensure that there is limited risk.

20 So, essentially, trying to lower that 21 probability portion of the equation. And I think at 22 NRC, we're kind of looking at risk a little 23 differently. So, I didn't know if you had any 24 thoughts on that or Steve had any thoughts on that.

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

44 MR. BLANCH: I briefly looked at the 1

regulation 917, 935, and I briefly looked at the ASME 2

B31.8 document.

3 And what I got out of the ASME document 4

is, here are 22 scenarios that you must evaluate, from 5

tornado to flooding to ice age to global warming to 6

vandalism, didn't use the word terrorism. And those 7

are probabilistic, more than consequences, I think.

8 I don't know how -- I mean, that damn 9

document is 800-page long, but that's the document 10 that was approved by the industry.

11 MS. DENNIS: Got it, understood.

12 MR. SKEEN: Any other questions, Suzanne?

13 MS. DENNIS: No, that's all I have.

14 Thanks, Dave.

15 MR. SKEEN: Rene'e, did you have any 16 questions?

17 MS. LI: Yes. Paul, I would like to get 18 some clarification on the calculation that we got, or 19 I got, today, if they are thorough calculation.

20 And I noted that, in one of the table, 21 that you calculate, it's a table that lists for the 22 Indian Point blast radius calculation. And then, the 23 first column is time in minutes. And then, there's a 24 column that describe the mass of vapor. So --

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

45 MR. BLANCH: Correct.

1 MS. LI: -- like the first minute is 2

376,000 kilogram. And then, for the two minutes, 3

because the increase by 200,000 kilogram, so it become 4

576,000. And then, the next minute, it increase by 5

100,000, resulting in 676,000. And there, after that, 6

every minute, you would increase by 100,000.

7 So, that's this table and it's consistent 8

with the number that in the calculation by Dave that 9

use this and then, used the Reg Guide 1.91 equation to 10 calculate the radius.

11 But I noticed that in Joe Carson's 12 calculation, I think that use a different approach, 13 assuming average flow rate of 1,877 kilograms per 14 second and last for six minutes. So, that's 360 15 seconds. And times this two number, it come up with 16 approximately same as the three minutes in the other 17 two calculation, it's about 676,000.

18 And therefore, all the calculation using 19 the Reg Guide 1.91 equation result in a pretty 20 consistent radius, blast radius.

21 And I'm just wondering, the two different 22 assumption, one is the average flow rate times the six 23 minutes and the other one just has for one minute, 24 what's the release of mass, and the three minutes, 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

46 after three minutes, it come up with a pretty same 1

mass of vapor. Do you have some thought about what's 2

behind these two consideration?

3 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I do. It was from a 4

document, an email from Dave Bellio, who's NRC staff, 5

and it should have been redacted. It was redacted one 6

FOIA request, but unredacted in another.

7 And Dave Bellio actually gave the flow 8

rate in dekatherms for minute for various times. So, 9

I used those numbers from Dave Bellio. If you don't 10 have them, I could probably find them with a little 11 bit of effort.

12 But those are the numbers that I used when 13 I calculated it. I can't say for sure that Dave 14 Lochbaum and Larry and Joe used the same numbers, but 15 I would suspect they did. So, those numbers were 16 given to me by the staff.

17 MS. LI: I see. Thank you. Yes, I just 18 wondering, because one is accounting for three 19 minutes, the other is six minutes, but somehow it come 20 out with the same mass of vapor.

21 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I didn't go over the 22 details of the other engineers' calculations. So, 23 sorry, but I can't give you a definitive answer, other 24 than we used David Bellio's numbers.

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

47 MS. LI: Okay, thank you.

1 MR. BLANCH: You're welcome.

2 MR. SKEEN: Yes, thanks for that, Paul. I 3

know it was fairly technical for other folks to hear, 4

but I know Rene'e was looking at the calculations that 5

you had provided. So, we thought this was a good 6

opportunity to ask a question of that, too. So, I 7

appreciate you being able to answer that for us.

8 Anyone else? Steve, did you have any 9

questions you wanted to raise?

10 MR. NANNEY: I just have one clarification 11 I'd like to know. I kept hearing Regulation 1.92 and 12 1.91, and I just wanted to make sure, when I was 13 hearing the 1.92, you weren't by mistake meaning the 14 DOT Part 192?

15 MR. BLANCH: Oh, no, let me clarify. I'm 16 looking at PHMSA Regulation 49.192. Now, under there 17 are subregulations --

18 MR. NANNEY: There isn't a DOT Regulation 19 0.192, there is --

20 MR. BLANCH: No.

21 MR. NANNEY: -- DOT Regulation 192, that's 22 what my clarification was.

23 MR. BLANCH: No, the --

24 MR. NANNEY: Were you --

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

48 MR. BLANCH: The regulation is 49 CFR 1

192.917 and 192.935.

2 MR. NANNEY: Okay. And you also mentioned 3

a calculation you were doing for blast radius of some 4

equation. What equation was that that you were using?

5 MR. BLANCH: I was using the NRC's equation 6

for external threats, including gas lines. NRC will 7

be able to give you them, they're in Regulatory Guide 8

1.91. But you need input to that too.

9 MR. NANNEY: Okay. Thank you.

10 MR. SKEEN: Yes, and we can discuss that, 11 Steve. That's in our own Reg Guide, so we can 12 certainly discuss that with you.

13 MR. NANNEY: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. SKEEN: So, no other questions?

15 MR. BLANCH: For an old man, I can remember 16 all those numbers. Been around them long enough.

17 MR. SKEEN: You did very well.

18 MR. BLANCH: Thank you.

19 MR. SKEEN: So, again, Paul, we appreciate 20 you taking the time to talk to us. As you know, we're 21 on this time line to try to get this report to the 22 Commission.

23 I thought it was very important to talk 24 with you today, and with Rick Kuprewicz as well, to 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

49 make sure we understand the concerns coming in from 1

you.

2 And we'll certainly take this forward in 3

our considerations as we get ready to write our report 4

and get something to the Commission.

5 MR. BLANCH: I don't envy you guys.

6 MR. SKEEN: I appreciate that, but we've 7

got a good team here. So, between our internal and 8

external folks, we've got some really good experts 9

that we're working on this.

10 MR. BLANCH: Especially the letter from the 11 State of New York, it went to the world.

12 MR. SKEEN: Yes.

13 MR. BLANCH: So, you are --

14 MR. SKEEN: I think, we're aware of that, 15 I think.

16 MR. BLANCH: Thank you, Dave, for your 17 consideration, obviously.

18 MR. SKEEN: Yes, I understand.

19 MR. BLANCH: Okay. I have --

20 MR. SKEEN: Okay. We --

21 MR. BLANCH: -- spoken my piece.

22 MR. SKEEN: Well, we certainly appreciate 23 your time and this gives us some more information to 24 consider as we go forward.

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

50 And if you have any other issues, I know 1

you're not shy about letting me know if you have other 2

issues coming along or concerns. So, certainly feel 3

free to pass anything along that you do have.

4 We do have a few weeks before we have to 5

get the report to the Commission, so if there's 6

anything we can factor in, we'll certainly try to do 7

that.

8 MR. BLANCH: I've never been shy, never 9

been accused of it.

10 MR. SKEEN: Well, thank you --

11 MR. BLANCH: I will do it. I appreciate 12 everyone's time.

13 MR. SKEEN: All right. We appreciate you 14 talking with us. So, you have a good afternoon and 15 I'm sure we'll be talking with you.

16 MR. BLANCH: You too, ladies and gentlemen, 17 thank you.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19 off the record at 2:12 p.m.)

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