ML071500238
| ML071500238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2007 |
| From: | Jennifer Golder NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| To: | Leyse M - No Known Affiliation |
| Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML071500267 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20070273, PRM-50-84 | |
| Download: ML071500238 (35) | |
Text
May 31, 2007 Mr. Mark E. Leyse P.O. Box 1314 New York, NY 10025
Dear Mr. Leyse:
In an email addressed to Mr. Reyes, the Executive Director for Operations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated April 25, 2007, you submitted a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 of the NRC's regulations, requesting that enforcement action be taken against Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). You requested that the NRC "...either 1) revoke the operating license of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 ('IP-2 and -3'), 2) order the licensee of IP-2 and -3 to immediately suspend the operations of IP-2 and -3, or 3) temporarily shutdown IP-2 and -3, per 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.202." As the basis for your petition, you stated that there are deficiencies in the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) at IP2 and IP3. Your petition was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and is publicly available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML071150299.
On May 24, 2007, you participated in a teleconference with NRR's Petition Review Board (PRB) to discuss your petition. The transcript of that teleconference is attached. That discussion was considered by the PRB in its review of your request for immediate action and in deciding whether the petition meets the criteria for acceptance under 10 CFR 2.206. Your request for immediate suspension of operations at IP-2 and IP3 is denied because you identified no safety hazard. The PRBs final decision is that your petition does not meet the criteria for acceptance under 10 CFR 2.206 because you did not provide facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the requested action. Specifically, you identified no facts to indicate that IP2 or IP3 is in violation of any NRC requirement, or that operation of IP2 or IP3 presents a safety hazard.
The PRB provides the following clarification related to your questions at the teleconference.
The PRB indicated that there would be opportunities for hearing requests during the license renewal process, which is in the initial phases at IP2 and IP3. However, the condition of fuel rods would not be a valid hearing request under license renewal. The fuel rods are typically used in the reactor core for three cycles or fewer, so they are not considered as a long-term aging issue which could be addressed in license renewal. The PRB notes that a petition for rulemaking is an appropriate process to address your concerns, and further notes that you have submitted such a petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML070871368, docket PRM-50-84).
M. Leyse Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jennifer Golder, Deputy Director (Acting)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
Enclosure:
PRB Transcript dated May 24, 2007 cc w/encl: See next page
M. Leyse Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jennifer Golder, Deputy Director (Acting)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
Enclosure:
PRB Transcript dated May 24, 2007 cc w/encl: See next page Package: ML071500267, Letter: ML071500238 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA LPL1-1/BC DD/DPR(A)
NAME JBoska SLittle MKowal JGolder DATE 5/31/07 5/31/07 5/31/07 5/31/07 Official Record Copy
LETTER TO MR. LEYSE DATED MAY 31, 2007 G20070273 PUBLIC LPL1-1 R/F RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrPMJBoska RidsNrrLASLittle RidsNrrWpcMail ECobey, RI GLongo, OGC JGolder RidsOGCMailCenter RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter cc: Plant Mailing list
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 cc:
Mr. Gary J. Taylor Chief Executive Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 Mr. John T. Herron Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Fred R. Dacimo Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Paul Rubin General Manager, Plant Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Oscar Limpias Vice President Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Christopher Schwarz Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. John F. McCann Director, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Ms. Charlene D. Faison Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael J. Columb Director of Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. James Comiotes Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Patric Conroy Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P. O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Peter R. Smith, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident Inspectors Office Indian Point 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Senior Resident Inspectors Office Indian Point 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mayor, Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Raymond L. Albanese Four County Coordinator 200 Bradhurst Avenue Unit 4 Westchester County Hawthorne, NY 10532 Mr. William DiProfio PWR SRC Consultant 139 Depot Road East Kingston, NH 03827 Mr. Garry Randolph PWR SRC Consultant 1750 Ben Franklin Drive, 7E Sarasota, FL 34236 Mr. William T. Russell PWR SRC Consultant 400 Plantation Lane Stevensville, MD 21666-3232 Mr. Jim Riccio Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Mr. Phillip Musegaas Riverkeeper, Inc.
828 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 Mr. Mark Jacobs IPSEC 46 Highland Drive Garrison, NY 10524 Mr. Michael R. Kansler President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRR PETITION REVIEW BOARD
Title:
Mark Leyse 10CFR2.206 Petition on Indian Point Docket Number:
50-247, 50-286 Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, May 24, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1593 Pages 1-28 Edited by John Boska, NRR Petition Manager NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Enclosure
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 MARK LEYSE 10CFR2.206 PETITION ON INDIAN POINT 4
+ + + + +
5 TELECONFERENCE 6
+ + + + +
7 THURSDAY 8
MAY 24, 2007 9
+ + + + +
10 The conference call was convened at 1:00 p.m.
11 12 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
13 JENNIFER GOLDER NRR, PRB Chairman 14 JOHN BOSKA NRR, Petition Manager 15 GIOVANNA LONGO Office of the General Counsel 16 FRANK ORR NRR 17 TANYA MENSAH NRR 18 PAUL CLIFFORD NRR 19 20 GUESTS:
21 Mark E. Leyse 22 Robert H. Leyse 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(1:11 p.m.)
2 MR. BOSKA: My name is John Boska. I'm 3
the Petition Manager for this petition. And I'll get 4
us started with some introductory remarks.
5 MR. R. LEYSE: So you will be the only 6
person?
7 MR. BOSKA: No, we have more people here 8
in the room where I am and we will introduce 9
ourselves.
10 MR.
LEYSE: Is Entergy going to 11 participate?
12 MR.
BOSKA: No, Entergy will not 13 participate.
14 MR. LEYSE: Okay. Is Entergy there?
15 MR. BOSKA: No.
16 MR. BOSKA: Is anyone from Entergy on the 17 line? (No response). They had told me previously they 18 were not going to participate. And I don't hear them 19 on the line.
20 Okay, so my name is John Boska. I'm the 21 Indian Point Project Manager and the Petition Manager 22 for this petition. And the Petition Review Board 23 Chairman is Jennifer Golder.
24 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. GOLDER: I'm here.
1 MR. BOSKA: And as part of the Petition 2
Review Board's review of this 2.206 petition, Mr.
3 Leyse has requested an opportunity to address the 4
Petition Review Board and provide additional 5
information.
6 This meeting is scheduled to last until 7
2:00 p.m. and it is being recorded by the NRC 8
Operations Center and is being transcribed by a Court 9
Reporter. And the transcript will become a supplement 10 to the petition that was submitted on April 25th by 11 Mr. Leyse. It will also be made publicly available.
12 I'll open the meeting with introductions.
13 And as we go through the introductions, please clearly 14 state your name, your position, and the office that 15 you work for within the NRC for the record.
16 I'm John Boska, the Petition Manager, and 17 I work for NRR.
18 MS. GOLDER: I'm Jennifer Golder. I am 19 the Petition Review Board Chairman. And I work for 20 NRR.
21 MS. LONGO: I am Giovanna Longo. I'm a 22 Senior Attorney in the Office of the General Counsel.
23 MR. ORR: I'm Frank Orr, Reactor Systems 24 Engineer in NRR.
25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. CLIFFORD: Paul Clifford, Fuels 1
Engineer, NRR.
2 MR. ROBINSON: Jay Robinson. I'm a 3
Project Manager from NRR.
4 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, I'm the 2.206 5
Coordinator from NRR.
6 MR. BOSKA: All right. We've completed 7
the introductions here at NRC Headquarters. Are there 8
any NRC participants from NRC Region I on the phone?
9 (No response.)
10 MR. BOSKA: Okay, hearing none --
11 MR. R. LEYSE: One question, who was the 12 participant prior to Mensah?
13 MR. BOSKA: Jay Robinson.
14 MR. R. LEYSE: Did you say Robinson?
15 MR. BOSKA: Yes.
16 MR. R. LEYSE: Thank you.
17 MR. BOSKA: You're welcome.
18 MR. BOSKA: Entergy is the licensee for 19 Indian Point. Is there anyone from Entergy on the 20 phone?
21 (No response.)
22 MR. BOSKA: Okay. Mr. Leyse, could you 23 introduce yourself for the record please?
24
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Sure. My name is Mark Edward 1
Leyse.
2 MR. BOSKA: Thank you. And could your 3
guest introduce himself please?
4 MR. LEYSE: Yes.
5 MR. R. LEYSE: Yes. My name is Robert H.
6 Leyse. And in about a minute and a half, I can give 7
you my rundown if you want it.
8 MR. BOSKA: Yes just please hold off a 9
minute --
10 MR. R. LEYSE: Yes.
11 MR. BOSKA: -- while we go through the 12 process.
13 MR. R. LEYSE: Go ahead.
14 MR. BOSKA: I apologize for mispronouncing 15 your last name. I understand it is Leyse?
16 MR. LEYSE: Correct.
17 MR. BOSKA: All right. Thank you.
18 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 19 speak clearly and loudly. And if you break into the 20 conversation, please state your name so the Court 21 Reporter can correctly record which remarks came from 22 which person.
23 And at this time, I'll turn it over to the 24 Petition Review Board Chairman, Jennifer Golder.
25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. GOLDER: Good afternoon. This is 1
Jennifer Golder. Welcome to the teleconference 2
meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted on 3
emergency core cooling system issues at Indian Point.
4 From this point forward, I will address -- I will 5
refer to emergency core cooling system as the ECCS.
6 On April 24th, 2007, Mark Leyse, the 7
petitioner, submitted to the NRC a petition under 8
2.206 regarding deficiencies of the ECCS at Indian 9
Point Units 2 and 3. In the April 24th, 2007 petition 10 request, Mr. Leyse requests that the NRC revoke the 11 operating license of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, order 12 the licensee of Indian Point 2 and 3 to immediately 13 suspend operations of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, also 14 temporarily shut down Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
15 In the event of Option Three, the 16 petitioner requests that the NRC order the licensee to 17 correct the current deficiencies of the ECCS design 18 basis and reconfigure the power production levels of 19 both plants, making Indian Point Units 2 and 3 20 compliant with 10 CFR 50.46b.
21 In the event of a license renewal process, 22 conduct review to the license renewal of Indian Point 23 Units 2 and 3 that encompass conservative ECCS 24 evaluation calculations modeling scenarios where one-25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 cycle fuel would have been heavily crudded and/or 1
oxidized fuel rods would have crud-induced corrosion 2
failures.
3 I would like to point out that the NRC 4
staff reviewed the immediate request to order the 5
licensee of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 immediately 6
suspend operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The 7
PRB denied this request on the basis that no factual 8
information was provided in the petition regarding 9
Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
10 At this time, the PRB has reviewed the 11 aforementioned petition for review and as described in 12 our 2.206 process document, Management Directive 8.11, 13 which is publicly available, the petitioner has 14 requested to meet with the PRB prior to the Board's 15 internal meeting to decide whether to accept the 16 petition for review under the 2.206 process.
17 The purpose of today's meeting is to 18 provide the petitioner with an opportunity to provide 19 any relevant additional information and support for 20 the petition in advance of the Petition Review Board's 21 internal meeting.
22 As described in our process, the NRC staff 23 and the licensee, who have also been invited to this 24 meeting, but they didn't wish to meet, will have the 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the 1
petitioner. For clarification, the licensee is not 2
part of the decision-making process for the NRC's 3
2.206 process.
4 I want to emphasize that the purpose of 5
this meeting is not to determine whether the NRC 6
agrees or disagrees with the contents of the petition.
7 Rather it is to clarify the issues in the petition for 8
understanding so that the NRC can decide whether to 9
accept the petition for review.
10 After the PRB's internal meeting, we will 11 inform the petitioner of our decision.
12 At this time, I'd like to introduce the 13 Board and then turn the meeting over to the 14 petitioner, Mr. Mark Leyse.
15 Typically the Board consists of a
16 Chairman, usually an SES-level Manager at the agency.
17 That is myself. It has a Petition Manager, who 18 already spoke, Mr. John Boska which, for a plant-19 specific petition, it is usually the licensing 20 Project Manager, which is John. And then other 21 members would be determined by the NRC staff as 22 appropriate based on the content of the information in 23 the petition.
24
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Tanya Mensah is the 2.206 Coordinator. In 1
addition, we have technical staff on the PRB. We also 2
obtain advice from our Office of General Counsel and 3
the Office of Enforcement.
4 Are there any questions for this meeting 5
over the phone on where we are in the process? And on 6
the purpose for this meeting?
7 MR. LEYSE: Not at the moment, no.
8 MS. GOLDER: Okay. Mr. Leyse, do you have 9
any general questions before we proceed?
10 MR. LEYSE: Yes, I do have a number of 11 questions.
12 MS. GOLDER: In general on the process, or 13 what?
14 MR. LEYSE: No, not in general on the 15 process.
16 MS. GOLDER: Okay. Okay, well let me just 17 finish and then --
18 MR. LEYSE: Certainly.
19 MS. GOLDER: Okay. So just quickly before 20 I finish, if you are going to speak, just make sure 21 you introduce yourself before you speak or when you 22 first speak up so we know who is speaking.
23 And at this time does anyone here at 24 headquarters have anything?
25
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 MS. GOLDER: No.
1 MS. GOLDER: Okay. So, Mr. Leyse, go 2
ahead. If you'd like to address us, the floor is 3
yours.
4 MR. LEYSE: Okay. Thank you.
5 First I would like to introduce my 6
consultant, Robert H. Leyse. And let him discuss some 7
of his experience in the field of nuclear engineering.
8 MR. R. LEYSE: Okay. Robert H. Leyse.
9 I've been in this business since 1950 on several tasks 10 including the FLECHT tests that are referenced in 11 Appendix K. If you check ADAMS under Leyse, you will 12 find 172 entries. These include documents that I have 13 submitted to the NRC, related public comments, NRC 14 evaluations, and other diverse matters.
15 My succinct discussion of fouling in the 16 range of light water reactors over the decades may be 17 found on Google by entering unmet relap. That is U-N-18 M-E-T R-E-L-A-P. You will find my slide presentation 19 to the 2003 RELAP5 Users Conference under the title 20 Unmet Challenges for SCDAP/RELAP5.
21 The impact of fouling on LOCAs or 22 reactivity insertion accidents has not been evaluated 23 although extensive fouling of fuel elements is 24 widespread in the U.S.A. and elsewhere. In the 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 U.S.A., ultrasonic fuel cleaning has been applied at 1
some units. In Europe, chemical cleaning has been 2
applied.
3 The impact of fouling has not been 4
included in the wide range of international test 5
programs that address reactor accidents. The U.S.A.
6 FLECHT Program never covered this, LOFT did not, and 7
the present day work at Penn State does not.
8 I may update my 2003 presentation and call 9
it unmet challenges for TRACE. Anyway, there are more 10 examples that I would cite in such an update; however, 11 the bottom line is unchanged. And that is the end of 12 my presentation.
13 MR. LEYSE: And I, Mark Leyse, now I would 14 just, for clarification, when Robert H. Leyse 15 mentioned fouling, he is referring to crud. It's just 16 a semantic difference.
17 MS.
GOLDER: Thank you for that 18 clarification.
19 MR. LEYSE: And I would like to ask a 20 couple questions now from the Petition Review Board.
21 MS. GOLDER: Go right ahead, sir. This is 22 Jennifer Golder. Go right ahead.
23 24 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Okay, Mark Leyse again.
1 Yes, I received an email from Mr. Boska on 2
May 10th which kind of mentioned some of the things, 3
that the Board proposes to deny revoking the operating 4
licenses for Indian Point's Units 2 and 3 and also 5
ordering the licensee to immediately suspend 6
operations at Indian Point's Units 2 and 3. And you 7
had mentioned that earlier in this same meeting.
8 What I'm wondering is are these decisions 9
based on any information that you have regarding the 10 current levels of crud at either Units 2 or 3 at 11 Indian Point?
12 MS. GOLDER: What information do you have?
13 Jennifer Golder, sorry.
14 MR. LEYSE: What information do I have?
15 Well, I have the information that since 1995, out of 16 68 PWRs, pressurized water reactors, there have been 17 three cases of crud-induced corrosion failures, which 18 means that in the United States since 1995, that would 19 be approximately a total of 816 PWR reactor years for 20 the total of 68 PWRs. There have been three cases of 21 crud-induced corrosion failures. So that is one case 22 every 272 reactor years.
23 So the licenses of Indian Point 2 and 3 24 are set to expire in 2013 and 2015 respectively. So 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that is a total of 14 reactor years left between the 1
two of them. So based on the fact that there has been 2
one of these cases of crud-induced corrosion failures 3
every 272 reactor years, that means the probability is 4
five percent that either plant will operate with this 5
cladding and fuel condition.
6 And 20 million people live and work within 7
a 50-mile radius of both plants according to a census 8
from 2000. So it seems that it is highly probable 9
that -- well, it is probable that this condition can 10 occur at either unit. So that is why I'm wondering 11 is your current decision based on any knowledge that 12 you have regarding current levels of crud at either 13 plant.
14 MS. GOLDER: this is Jennifer Golder. Mr.
15 Leyse, the PRB denied this request on the basis that 16 no factual information was provided in the petition 17 regarding Indian Point Units 2 and 3. Is there 18 anything specific to Indian Point that you -- any 19 information specific to Indian Point that you have?
20 MR. LEYSE: I began the petition with --
21 well, I didn't begin it -- starting on page 3, there 22 are facts constituting the basis for the petitioner's 23 request. And I discuss the calculations that you had 24
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for the ECCS evaluation. Actually, it is the ECCS 1
evaluation calculations.
2 And I illustrate clearly that such 3
cladding and fuel conditions were not modeled in those 4
calculations. So that is what I have for both of 5
those units.
6 The fuel that was modeled in those 7
calculations -- this is all in the petition -- was 8
beginning of life fuel.
9 MS. GOLDER: Okay, well, this is Jennifer 10 Golder. Thank you for the information you provided 11 us.
12 Is there anything else you would like to 13
-- any other information you would like to give us?
14 MR. LEYSE: Well, basically I just wanted 15 to -- Mark Leyse speaking again --
16 MS. GOLDER: Yes.
17 MR. LEYSE: -- I just wanted to clarify 18 that the Petition Review Board has made its decision 19 to not revoke the license or suspend the operations at 20 either plant without any knowledge of what the current 21 levels of crud are at either plant. That's correct?
22 MS. GOLDER: No. This is Jennifer Golder 23 again. Our initial decision was regarding the request 24 for immediate action. And that was it.
25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Okay. So you didn't base that 1
decision on any knowledge that you have regarding the 2
current levels of crud at either nuclear power plant?
3 MS. GOLDER: Again, this is Jennifer 4
Golder. The PRB denied the request on the basis that 5
-- for immediate action, excuse me. The PRB denied 6
the request for immediate action on the basis that no 7
factual information was provided in the petition 8
regarding Indian Point Units 2 and 3, and regarding 9
the amount of crud, in particular.
10 MR. LEYSE: Okay. So you didn't -- I 11 didn't provide you with factual information regarding 12 the current levels of crudding at either units. So 13 that is your basis of denying the immediate action?
14 MS. GOLDER: Yes.
15 MR. LEYSE: The burden of proof is on me 16 in other words.
17 MS. LONGO: It's not so much the burden --
18 this is Jenny Longo speaking. It is not so much the 19 burden of proof. It is just that we have to make a 20 decision based on what we have. And you did not give 21 us specific information about crudding at Indian Point 22 2 and 3.
23 MR. LEYSE: Okay, Mark Leyse again. Were 24 you able to contact Entergy and ask them what the 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 current levels of crud at either unit is at the 1
moment? Hello?
2 MR. BOSKA: We are going to go on mute and 3
consider our response here. This is John Boska.
4 MR. LEYSE: Okay.
5 MR. BOSKA: Give us a minute.
6 MR. LEYSE: Sure.
7 MS. GOLDER: Mr. Leyse, this is Jennifer 8
Golder, the Petition Review Board Chair. Sorry to 9
keep you on hold for the few minutes.
10 MR. LEYSE: No problem.
11 MS. GOLDER: We have not gone to the 12 licensee. This is in response to your question. We 13 have not gone to the licensee and requested 14 information on the level of crud because you haven't 15 provided any sufficient information to warrant 16 inquiry. And additionally, the licensees are not 17 required to report that information.
18 If you have information specific to Indian 19 Point 2 and 3, this is an opportunity to bring that to 20 our attention.
21 MR. LEYSE: Okay, this is Mark Leyse 22 speaking again. Do you have any plan -- anything in 23 place for what would be done if it were discovered 24
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that crud levels at either plant had become a safety 1
hazard?
2 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder.
3 That is not the purpose of this phone call. The 4
purpose of this is for you to provide information to 5
us regarding Indian Point 2 and 3. Do you have 6
information for us regarding Indian Point 2 and 3, the 7
crud levels?
8 MR. LEYSE: Well, like I said before, 9
since 1995, there have been -- with PWRs, there have 10 been three cases of crud-induced corrosion failures.
11 And also, as I had mentioned, Indian Point's Units 2 12 and 3, the licenses are scheduled to expire in 2013 13 and 2015 respectively. And these are up for renewal 14 at the moment for I believe it is an additional 20 15 years each. Is that correct?
16 MR. BOSKA: Yes, this is John Boska, 20 17 years is correct.
18 MR. LEYSE: Thank you. Mark Leyse again.
19 Well, basically from this point in time, that would be 20 a total of 54 reactor years before both plants are 21 closed. And based on the track record of the last 12 22 years, since there has been a case of crud-induced 23 corrosion failure in every 272 reactor years, that 24 means that in 54 reactor years, there would be almost 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a 20 percent chance that either Indian Point's Units 1
2 or 3 will experience a crud-induced corrosion 2
failure situation.
3 So that's -- I think that is a pretty 4
important thing to take into consideration. I'm 5
providing information about and it is clearly 6
illustrated in the petition. I talk about Three Mile 7
Island, Unit No. 1 in detail.
8 This problem also occurred at Palo Verde 9
and Seabrook in recent years. It is pretty clear that 10 there could be a 20 percent chance that if both of 11 these plants have their license renewed that there 12 would be a problem. And that at that moment when they 13 would have such a problem, the current ECCS evaluation 14 calculations would not have factored in that problem.
15 So the power levels would be too high according to 16 that problem. And there would be a highly probable 17 chance that 10 CFR 50.46b would be violated in that 18 situation.
19 And as I said, in view of the fact that 20 both of these units are in a densely populated area, 21 I think that is something to be concerned about.
22 MS. GOLDER: Mr. Leyse, thank you for your 23 comments. Do you have any other comments you would 24 like to make?
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Yes, I do.
1 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder 2
again. Do you have any other information you would 3
like to provide us regarding Indian Point's 2 and 3?
4 MR. LEYSE: Yes, I do. In the meantime, 5
I would also just like to ask a couple more questions.
6 You don't have to answer them but I'd just like to put 7
them out there. It might be something you might want 8
to think about when you are reviewing the petition.
9 It would be one, what would be done in the 10 event if a leaking fuel rod was detected? That is 11 that would be an off-gas leak or what is called a 12 leaker. And it was deemed that there was a 13 possibility that that fuel rod was leaking because of 14 a crud-induced corrosion failure.
15 MS. GOLDER: Okay. You had other 16 questions?
17 MR. LEYSE: Yes. The other one I would 18 like to add to that -- Mark Leyse again -- would be 19 would the fuel cycle be terminated in such a 20 situation? And would the leaking rod or any other 21 heavily corroded and/or crudded fuel rods be removed?
22 MS. GOLDER: Okay. And do you have any 23 other questions? This is Jennifer Golder.
24
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Yes, I do. Now I just -- I 1
want to -- the reason I just asked these two questions 2
is this is a scenario that could very possibly occur 3
at either unit. And it would be a situation where 4
there would be a clear sign that there would be --
5 that it would be highly possibly that in the event of 6
a loss of coolant accident, that the parameters set 7
forth in 10 CFR 50.46b would be violated.
8 Now I do have a couple of other questions.
9 Let me see. Yes. I want to know if the NRC plans to 10 allow Entergy to continue omitting cladding and fuel 11 conditions, specifically the crud-induced corrosion 12 failure, I'm wondering if the NRC is going to continue 13 approving of any ECCS evaluation calculation that 14 Entergy conducts relating to either plant that omits 15 modeling such cladding and fuel conditions?
16 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder.
17 Does that have to do with licensing?
18 MR. LEYSE: Yes, it does.
19 MS. GOLDER: We can't answer that. That 20 is out of the scope of this process.
21 MS. LONGO: You know the 2.206 -- this is 22 Jenny Longo speaking -- the 2.206 process does not 23 encompass licensing.
24 MR. LEYSE: I see.
25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. LONGO: Those actions are not 1
addressed in the 2.206 process.
2 MR. LEYSE: Well, Mark Leyse again, as you 3
had read earlier, one of the options that I gave in my 4
request for action was in the event of a temporary 5
shutdown for Indian Point's 2 and 3 that because the 6
plants are actually up for license renewal at the 7
moment, I requested that the reviews for the license 8
renewal of both plants would encompass conservative 9
ECCS evaluation calculations that would model 10 scenarios where one cycle fuel would have heavily 11 crudded and/or oxidized fuel rods or would have crud-12 induced corrosion failures.
13 MS. LONGO: Mr. Leyse, this is Jenny Longo 14 again. The 2.206 process is an opportunity for 15 members of the public to request enforcement-type 16 action. And if you are going to ask that certain 17 actions be taken in the licensing process, it is 18 outside the 2.206 process.
19 When the licensee files a request for 20 license renewal, the public has an opportunity to 21 comment. And you will have an opportunity to comment.
22 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder 23 speaking. Do you have -- Mr. Leyse, do you have any 24 other information particular to Indian Point's 2 and 25
22 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 or any other questions particular to that or the PRB 1
process?
2 MR. LEYSE: Yes, I do have some other 3
information that can be applied to Indian Point's 4
Units 2 and 3.
5 MS. GOLDER: Okay. Sir, this is Jennifer 6
Golder. We have 15 minutes left on the conference 7
call. So we need to start wrapping it up.
8 MR. LEYSE: Okay.
9 MS. GOLDER: What specific information do 10 you have on the Indian Point 2 and 3 ECCS and the 11 crud?
12 MR. LEYSE: Okay. Well, this is Mark 13 Leyse speaking again. Entergy, if any utility would 14 have experience with crud, it would actually be 15 Entergy. In recent years, they've had -- now these 16 are boiling water reactors. They have had two boiling 17 water reactors that have had crud-induced corrosion 18 failures, River Bend and Vermont Yankee. And I'm 19 going to tie this in with Indian Point.
20 Basically at the moment, Entergy has a 21 program -- I believe they are working on this with 22 EPRI, Electrical Power Research Institute, that they 23 are sampling some of the BWR crud flakes. And in an 24 article called Crud -- I'm sorry, the article is 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 titled, Fuel Crud Formation and Behavior, Charles Turk 1
from Entergy states, methods developed to determine 2
the number and distribution of chimneys and 3
capillaries on fuel crud surface, essential in 4
understanding the adequacy of heat transfer within 5
crud deposits, have large applications for both PWR 6
and BWR fuel depositions.
7 So basically Entergy right now is working 8
on -- is studying some of the crud flakes that have 9
been taken from River Bend. And what I'm wondering is 10 do they plan to take some of that information that 11 they gather regarding heat transfer and the thermal 12 conductivity of crud and apply it to their ECCS 13 evaluation calculations for either Indian Point Units 14 2 or 3.
15 MS. GOLDER: Okay. Thank you for your 16 comments. This is Jennifer Golder. Do you have any 17 other questions or information particular to Indian 18 Point's 2 and 3?
19 MR. LEYSE: Well, another -- well, this is 20 isn't exactly particular -- Mark Leyse speaking again 21
-- this isn't particular to Indian Point's Units 2 or 22 3 but given the current trend as EPRI says that fuel 23 is -- actually I'm trying to find it in my petition --
24 fuel is being run more aggressively than ever before.
25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And that the overall industry fuel failure rate has 1
risen in the last couple of years as increased fuel 2
duty and new water chemistry environments have 3
presented increasing challenges to cladding integrity.
4 And you also have longer fuel cycles.
5 These issues seem very pertinent to both 6
Indian Point's Units 2 and 3. And like I said, if 7
they are going to re-license these plants, and there 8
will be a total of 54 reactor years of operation of 9
both of these plants, I believe this is something that 10 needs to be taken into consideration.
11 And I would also like to bring up one 12 other issue regarding River Bend, which is a boiling 13 water reactor that Entergy runs.
14 MS. GOLDER: Is that directly related to 15 your request, your petition request? Is this 16 information related to this? This is Jennifer Golder.
17 MR. LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking. It is 18 related to it.
19 MS. GOLDER: Go right ahead. This is 20 Jennifer Golder.
21 MR. LEYSE: Thank you. Mark Leyse again.
22 The peak cladding temperature at River Bend in Cycle 23 8, and this is a question Entergy may want to answer 24 at a later point in time.
25
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 The peak cladding temperature was 1
calculated for a large break loss of coolant accident 2
at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Just to clarify, that is 3
for a computer simulation of a large break loss of 4
coolant accident. And the PCT was reported to be 5
1,700 degrees Fahrenheit.
6 And General Electric reported that during 7
the operation of Cycle 8 local cladding temperatures 8
approached 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. So I'm wondering 9
if Entergy has reviewed its calculation and come up 10 with a new value for the PCT because 1,700 degrees 11 Fahrenheit seems like a low value for the PCT in this 12 case.
13 And I would tie that in to Indian Point 14 Units 2 and 3 because Entergy is running both of those 15 units also. And I'm wondering if Entergy is 16 investigating the effect of crud and integrating its 17 new findings of the low thermal conductivity of crud 18 and if it is going to apply those findings to its ECCS 19 evaluation calculations regarding Indian Point's Units 20 2 and 3.
21 MS. GOLDER: Thank you very much. Do you 22 have any other information? Jennifer Golder again.
23
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. LEYSE: Well, just a few questions I 1
would like to put in the arena. It may be something 2
that Entergy would like to answer at a later time.
3 Do they plan to actually model crud-4 induced corrosion failures in future ECCS evaluation 5
calculations for either Units 2 or 3 at Indian Point?
6 And do they continue -- or are they going to continue 7
omitting such crud and corrosion conditions?
8 And I guess this would be another question 9
directly to this panel, is the NRC going to allow 10 Entergy to continue omitting these conditions from its 11 models for its ECCS evaluation calculation?
12 MS. GOLDER: Okay. Do you have any other 13 questions?
14 MR. LEYSE: Well, I was -- that was -- I'm 15 wondering if you would be able to answer that question 16 at this time.
17 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder 18 again. You had asked that already. And we had 19 already answered that.
20 MR. LEYSE: I thought I actually asked you 21 more of -- I asked you a question regarding the 22 current levels of crud and oxidation at Indian Point's 23 Units 2 and 3. I didn't ask you specifically if you 24 planned to allow Entergy to continue ECCS evaluation 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 calculations where they would omit modeling conditions 1
where there are crud-induced corrosion failures.
2 MS. LONGO: This is Jenny Longo. I 3
believe, in fact, you did ask this question and we did 4
answer it. But let me recap it. We asked you if you 5
were talking about the licensing basis and about what 6
was going on with license renewal. And our answer to 7
you was that that is outside the scope of 2.206. And 8
you can address that and you can raise these questions 9
in the licensing process.
10 MR. LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking again.
11 Okay, I remember that you had said that. Now what 12 about a situation where, as in recent years, there 13 have been power uprates at both plants, what about a 14 situation where they put in a request for a power 15 uprate?
16 MS. LONGO: What is your question about 17 power uprates?
18 MR. LEYSE: Well, when they do a power 19 uprate, they do the ECCS evaluation calculations as 20 they did in recent years for power uprates.
21 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder.
22 Power uprates are part of the licensing process. So 23 that is outside the scope of the 2.206. I do want to 24
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 point out that we have five minutes left on this 1
conference call so we do need to start wrapping it up.
2 Do you have any other information to 3
provide us specific to Indian Point's 2 and 3, the 4
ECCS, and the crud?
5 MR. LEYSE: I do not. This is Mark Leyse 6
speaking. No, I have no additional questions at this 7
moment. And I have no other additional information to 8
provide.
9 MS. GOLDER: This is Jennifer Golder.
10 Thank you very much for providing your information.
11 And at this time, if you have no more questions or any 12 information, does anyone here at headquarters have any 13 questions for this conference call?
14 (Chorus of nos.)
15 MS. GOLDER: Okay. I'd like to thank you 16
-- this is Jennifer Golder again -- I'd like to thank 17 the petitioners for taking time to provide the NRC 18 with the information. And with that I'd like to 19 conclude the meeting.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 21 teleconference was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)
22 23 24