ML081500352
| ML081500352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/2008 |
| From: | Ho Nieh NRC/NRR/ADRO/DPR |
| To: | Leyse M - No Known Affiliation |
| Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML081500370 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20080162, OEDO-2008-0178 | |
| Download: ML081500352 (34) | |
Text
June 5, 2008 Mr. Mark E. Leyse P.O. Box 1314 New York, NY 10025
Dear Mr. Leyse:
In a letter addressed to Mr. Luis Reyes, the Executive Director for Operations at the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated March 7, 2008, you submitted a petition request pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 of the NRC's regulations, asking 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 request, you stated that there are deficiencies in the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) evaluation calculations done to qualify the current power levels of IP2 and IP3. Your petition request was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRRs) Petition Review Board (PRB) and is publicly available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML080710121. This petition request is similar to one you previously submitted to the NRC on April 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071150299). You were informed that the NRR PRB did not accept that petition request for review in the 10 CFR 2.206 process by a letter from the NRC dated May 31, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071500238). In a letter dated July 17, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072000374), you appealed the PRBs decision to Mr. Reyes, who at the time was the NRCs Executive Director for Operations. In a letter to you dated August 21, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072140819), Mr. Reyes concurred with the PRBs decision.
On March 27, 2008, the NRR petition manager for your new petition request informed you that the PRBs initial recommendation was to not accept your petition for review. On April 23, 2008, you participated in a teleconference with the PRB. The transcript of that teleconference is enclosed. That discussion was considered by the PRB in its review of your request for immediate action and in deciding whether the petition request meets the criteria for acceptance under 10 CFR 2.206. Your request for immediate suspension of operations at IP2 and IP3 is denied because you identified no safety hazard which would warrant the requested action. 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.
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. Specifically, you provided no facts to indicate that there is crud or oxidation on the fuel rods at IP2 or IP3 that would violate NRC requirements.
The PRB notes, as was noted in our response to your previous petition request, that a petition for rulemaking is an appropriate process to address your concerns, which are generic in nature, and further notes that you have submitted such a petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML070871368, docket PRM-50-84). The NRC will communicate with you periodically to advise you of the status of your petition for rulemaking.
M. Leyse Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely,
/ra/
Ho Nieh, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
Enclosure:
PRB Transcript dated April 23, 2008 cc w/encl: See next page
M. Leyse Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely,
/ra/
Ho Nieh, Deputy Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286
Enclosure:
PRB Transcript dated April 23, 2008 cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: G20080162/EDATS: OEDO-2008-0178 PUBLIC LPL1-1 R/F RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrPMJBoska RidsNrrLASLittle RidsNrrWpcMail ECobey, RI GLongo, OGC HNieh RidsOGCMailCenter RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOeMailCenter RidsOiMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn1MailCenter RidsAcrsAcnw&mMailCenter Package: ML081500370 Incoming: ML080710121 Letter: ML081500352 OFFICE LPL1-1/PM LPL1-1/LA LPL1-1/BC PRAB/BC NAME JBoska SLittle MKowal JZimmerman DATE 5/29/08 5/29/08 5/29/08 6/2/08 OFFICE DD/DSS DD/DPR NAME JWermiel HNieh DATE 6/3/08 6/5/08 Official Record Copy
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 cc:
Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Senior Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Vice President Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Vice President and COO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Mr. Paul Tonko President and CEO New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. John P. Spath 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 12223-1350 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Resident Inspector=s Office Indian Point 2 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Senior Resident Inspector=s 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 Mr. Raymond L. Albanese Four County Coordinator 200 Bradhurst Avenue Unit 4 Westchester County Hawthorne, NY 10532 Mayor, Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 cc:
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. Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA via email
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Petition of Mark Leyse Docket Number:
50-247 and 50-286 Location:
(teleconference)
Date:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Work Order No.:
NRC-2137 Pages 1-36 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
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 cc:
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4
+ + + + +
5 PETITION REVIEW BOARD 6
+ + + + +
7 TELECONFERENCE 8
x 9
PETITION OF: : Docket Nos 10 MARK EDWARD LEYSE : 50-247 and 50-286 11
x 12 Wednesday, April 23, 2008 13 14 OWFN, O-4B6 15 11555 Rockville Pike 16 Rockville, MD 17 18 The above-entitled matter came on for 19 conference, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m.
20 BEFORE:
21 HO NIEH, Chairman of the Petition Review Board 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 www.nealrgross.com 2
NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF PRESENT:
1 JOHN BOSKA 2
GIOVANNA LONGO 3
RICHARD DUDLEY 6
FRANK ORR 8
ADRIAN MUÑIZ 9
ARLON COSTA 10 MICHELLE HONCHARIK 11 12 NRC REGIONAL OFFICE PARTICIPANTS:
13 SAM McCARVER 14 15 PETITIONER:
16 MARK LEYSE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
MR. BOSKA: All right, this is John Boska from 2
NRC headquarters back on the line. I'd like to welcome 3
everyone and thank you for attending this teleconference.
4 I'm the Indian Point project manager and I'm also the 5
petition manager for this 2.206 petition request. The 6
Petition Review Board chairman today is Ho Nieh. The 7
Petition Review Board will also be referred to by its 8
9 Mr. Leyse, are you on the line?
10 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, I am on the line.
11 MR. BOSKA: All right, so I'll go through 12 introductions and then we'll open it up for you. So let me 13 continue.
14 PETITIONER LEYSE: Thank you.
15 MR. BOSKA: As part of the Petition Review 16 Board's review of his 2.206 petition, Mr. Leyse has 17 requested this opportunity to address the PRB and provide 18 additional information. This meeting is scheduled to last 19 from 3:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. The teleconference is being 20 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 21 transcribed by a Court Reporter. The transcript will 22 become a supplement to the petition that was submitted on 23 March 7th, 2008 by Mr. Mark Leyse. It will also be made 24 publicly available.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4
I'd like to open this meeting with 1
introductions. As we go around, please be sure to clearly 2
state your name, your position and the office that you work 3
for within the NRC for the record here at headquarters.
4 I'll start off. I'm John Boska, the Indian Point Project 5
Manager from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 6
which is also known as NRR.
7 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I'm Ho Nieh. I'm the Petition 8
Review Board Chairman. I'm the Deputy Director in the 9
Division of Policy and Rulemaking in NRR.
10 MS. LONGO: I am Giovanno Longo. I'm a Senior 11 Attorney in the Office of General Counsel and I'm the OGC 12 advisor to the PRB.
13 MS. MENSAH: I'm Tanya Mensah. I am the 2206 14 Coordinator and I work in the office of NRR.
15 MR. KOWAL: My name is Mark Kowal. I'm a 16 Branch Chief in the Office of NRR.
17 MR. DUDLEY: I'm Richard Dudley. I'm the 18 Project Manager for the petition for rulemaking submitted 19 by Mr. Leyse, PRN 50-84.
20 MR. CLIFFORD: Paul Clifford, Senior Technical 21 Advisor, NRR, Division of Safety Systems.
22 MR.
ORR:
Frank
- Orr, Technical (audio 23 problem).
24 MR. MUÑIZ: Adrian Muniz, NRR Project Manager.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5
THE REPORTER: Gentlemen, could we go back 1
just one moment. I missed an introduction. Paul Clifford.
2 MR. CLIFFORD: Paul Clifford, yes.
3 MR. BOSKA: And you want the next person?
4 THE REPORTER: Mr. Clifford, I think I missed 5
part of your introduction. If you could just go through 6
that again, and then continue on after that.
7 MR. CLIFFORD: Okay, Senior Technical Advisor, 8
NRR, Division of Safety Systems.
9 THE REPORTER: Okay, thank you, continuing.
10 MR. ORR: Okay, Frank Orr, Technical Reviewer, 11 Division of Safety Systems.
12 MR. MUÑIZ: Adrian Muniz, Project Manager, 13 NRR.
14 MR. BOSKA: All right, that completes the 15 introductions at NRC headquarters.
16 MR. COSTA: You're missing one more. This is 17 Arlon Costa, Acting Branch Chief for Financial Policy and 18 Rulemaking Branch.
19 MR. BOSKA: All right, thank you Arlon. Anyone 20 else from NRC headquarters? All right, are there any 21 participants from the NRC Regional Office on the phone?
22 MR. McCARVER: Yes, this is Sam McCarver, 23 Project Engineer, Division of Reactor Projects, Branch 2.
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6
MR. BOSKA: All right, and the licensee for 1
Indian Point is Entergy. Are there any representatives of 2
Entergy on the phone?
3 (No audible response.)
4 MR. BOSKA: All right, hearing none there, Mr.
5 Leyse, would you please introduce yourself for the record?
6 PETITIONER LEYSE: Sure, Mark Edward Leyse.
7 I'm the Petitioner.
8 MR. BOSKA: All right, and Mr. Leyse, are 9
there any other people on the phone from your side of this 10 case?
11 PETITIONER LEYSE: I'm not entirely certain.
12 Some people were going to possibly call in, but if they 13 haven't identified themselves, I would assume there is no 14 one else.
15 MR. BOSKA: All right, if they do call in 16 later, we can identify them at that time they call in.
17 That's fine.
18 PETITIONER LEYSE: Okay.
19 MS. HONCHARIK: Excuse me, I'm not sure if my 20 introduction was heard when I came on the line. This is 21 Michelle Honcharik from NRR as well.
22 MR. BOSKA: All right, welcome, Michelle.
23 MS. HONCHARIK: Thank you.
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7
MR. BOSKA: All right, I'd like to emphasize 1
that we each need to speak clearly and loudly. If you do 2
have something you'd like to say, please first state your 3
name for the record and make sure you're near to the phone 4
so that the Court Reporter can accurately transcribe this 5
teleconference.
6 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 7
Chairman Ho Nieh.
8 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Thank you, John. Good 9
afternoon, Mr. Leyse and other phone participants. Thank 10 you for taking the time to participate in this dialogue on 11 the 2.206 petition under review regarding the Indian Point 12 Nuclear Power Plant in New York. Before we get started, I 13 just want to emphasize that this is going to be transcribed 14 and that for the folks here at headquarters and on the 15 phone, if you could identify yourself, please, before you 16 speak, that will help us in doing the transcription which 17 will be part of the public record regarding this petition.
18 Before we get into the details of the 19 discussion, I want to provide some general information 20 about the NRC's 2.206 petition process. Under Title 10 of 21 the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206, any person 22 may petition the NRC to take an enforcement related action 23 such as modifying, suspending or revoking a license. The 24 NRC staff guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8
requests is contained in Management Directive 8.11 which is 1
publicly available for review.
2 The purpose of today's meeting is to provide 3
the Petitioner, Mr. Leyse, an opportunity to comment on the 4
Petition Review Board's initial recommendation and to 5
provide any relevant explanation and support for the 6
petition. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it a 7
meeting for the participants to examine the merits of the 8
issues raised in the petition request. No NRC decisions 9
regarding the merits of this petition will be made during 10 this dialogue.
11 Following the meeting, the Petition Review 12 Board or PRB will conduct its internal deliberations to 13 determine if there is a need to modify its initial 14 recommendations. The outcome of this internal meeting will 15 be documented in an acknowledgment letter to the 16 Petitioner.
17 Any general questions about the process, Mr.
18 Leyse?
19 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, I do have -- they're 20 not necessarily general about the process, more about 21 statements that you -- that the Petition Review -- oh, 22 sorry, this is Mark Leyse speaking.
23 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes.
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9
PETITIONER LEYSE: More questions about the 1
PRB's position that I have presented a generic issue that 2
is better resolved in a rulemaking petition and that's 3
something I have heard, I heard last year also when I 4
submitted a very similar petition, so I have questions 5
about that.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I understand that Mr. Leyse.
7 I understand that in the last petition you submitted in 8
April -- I believe it was April 24th, 2007, that was 9
provided back to you. That response was provided back to 10 you in an acknowledgment letter. The purpose of this 11 meeting is to fully consider the petition that you supplied 12 to the NRC in March of 2008 and to the extent that we can 13 better understand the issues that you've presented in your 14 March letter, that's the main purpose of our meeting here 15 today. It's not really to go back to revisit the previous 16 petition that you submitted and I recognize that there are 17 attributes of both petitions that are similar but namely 18 the ones from your April petition and also the March 19 petition.
20 But I wasn't around for that previous petition 21 and as far as your March petition goes, I am treating this 22 as if it were a new petition received by the NRC and I want 23 to take a thorough and comprehensive review of the 24 information you provided.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking. Yes, 1
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying that this 2
is a discussion about the March 2008 petition. I guess one 3
thing is that John Boska, the Indian Point Project Manager, 4
sent me an e-mail I believe, yeah, it's dated March 27th, 5
and that states that -- are you still there?
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes, we're here.
7 PETITIONER LEYSE: Okay, sorry, I thought I 8
heard a disconnect sound. And okay, anyway, he states that 9
in this e-mail there's an allusion to the effect that I 10 have presented a generic issue that is better resolved by a 11 rulemaking petition. Yes, specifically, he's says, I 12 quote, "You present generic concerns that are properly 13 handled through a petition for rulemaking and the NRC is 14 considering your petition for rulemaking on these issues",
15 unquote.
16 CHAIRMAN NIEH: This is Ho Nieh. I do see 17 that. John Boska just provided a copy of that e-mail to me 18 to review and maybe I misunderstood your question. I 19 thought you were really referring back to the statements 20 made in the letter that was sent back to you in May of 2007 21 in response to your April petition. And I guess, regarding 22 this one, the way I see this is that I think we're just 23 stating an observation that the issues that were presented 24 in your March petition do have some generic implications 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 and that there is a petition for rulemaking that is being 1
addressed separately from this 2.206 petition.
2 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse, understand, I 3
just want to point out that your actual rules in the 4
Handbook 8.11 that you mention, the review process for 10 5
CFR 2.206 petitions, it states specifically it says under -
6
- on page 12, "Criteria for rejecting petitions". It 7
states in the second paragraph on that page, "The 8
Petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject 9
of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, 10 other similar facilities or on a generic basis". Then it 11 goes on, "For which a resolution has been achieved, the 12 issues have been resolved and the resolution is applicable 13 to the facility in question".
14 So I just really want to point out, this is a 15 generic issue that does affect the entire fleet of PRWs.
16 Nonetheless, it does still affect Indian Point, Unit 2 and 17 3, and I really don't see that this is a situation where a 18 resolution for Indian Point Unit 2 or 3 has been achieved, 19 or that the issues have been resolved or that the 20 resolution is applicable to both of those nuclear power 21 plants.
22 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Thank you, Mark. This is Ho 23 Nieh, the PRB Chair. I understand your views and I agree 24 that, you know, these issues from a generic perspective 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 are still being evaluated and considered by the NRC staff 1
and I am not aware of a facility specific resolution for 2
Indian Point.
3 If you will allow me to continue to go through 4
some of the details and summarizing your petition, I can at 5
least try to help reiterate the basis by which the PRB made 6
its initial recommendation to not accept this particular 7
petition for review.
8 PETITIONER LEYSE: Sure.
9 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I'm going to go on mute for 10 one second while I consult with one of our staff here.
11 (Pause) 12 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, Mark, we're back. This 13 is Ho again. I was being offered advice from my colleague 14 in the Office of General Counsel which in many ways, 15 reinforces kind of what I just said that as we get further 16 into the details of your petition and the basis for the 17 initial recommendation to not accept, I'll cover that. So 18 if you'll allow me to move forward so we can get to the 19 more important discussion which is your information and 20 your dialogue that you would like to present to the NRC 21 would that work out for you okay, Mark?
22 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, most certainly.
23
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay. And I will get back to 1
the generic aspect as I just summarize your request and the 2
NRC actions to date. Thank you.
3 PETITIONER LEYSE: Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, so what have we done so 5
far and what is the scope of the petition? On March 7th, as 6
John mentioned, you submitted to the NRC a petition under 7
2.206 regarding deficiencies of the ECCS, Emergency Core 8
Cooling System calculations performed at Indian Point Units 9
2 and 3 and we'll just refer to them as IP 2 and 3 for ease 10 of discussion. Those calculations are required by 10 CFR 11 50.46.
12 In the petition, you requested that the NRC 13 either revoke the operating license of IP 2 and 3 or order 14 the licensee of IP 2 and 3 to immediately suspend 15 operations or temporarily shut down IP 2 and 3 because 16 recent ECCS evaluation calculations performed to qualify 17 the current power levels of IP 2 and 3 did not calculate 18 the most severe postulated Loss of Coolant Accidents, we'll 19 refer to those as LOCAs for ease of discussion, that could 20 occur at both plants, which is in violation of 10 CFR 21 50.46.
22 You requested the NRC order the licensee to 23 conduct conservative ECCS evaluation calculations that are 24 in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. These calculations should 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 model fuel rods that are heavily crudded and/or oxidized or 1
would have crud induced corrosion failures.
2 They should also model solids in the reactor 3
coolant system water that might cling tenaciously to the 4
fuel cladding and compromise the heat transfer. That was 5
our read of the petition you submitted in March 2008.
6 Let me discuss the NRC activities to date. On 7
March 27, the NRC Petition Review Board or PRB met to 8
review the petition request against the acceptance criteria 9
in Management Directive 8.11 and to discuss the need for 10 any immediate NRC actions related to the Indian Point 11 Nuclear Power Plant. Based on the information contained in 12 your petition, the PRB made an initial determination to 13 reject the petition from review under the 2.206 review 14 process described in Management Directive 8.11.
15 The basis for that was that the petition did 16 not contain sufficient information to warrant the requested 17 action. We did not apply the criteria that you described 18 which is the Petitioner raises issues that have already 19 been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation on a 20 generic basis and for which a facility specific resolution 21 has been achieved. Those, as I discussed with my colleague 22 from OGC, that particular criteria does not apply for our 23 purposes here because what you were requesting was an 24 enforcement related action and that criteria, I understand 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 is not for an enforcement-related action. Is that correct, 1
Jenny?
2 MS. LONGO: Well, I think the simplest way to 3
state it is that you did make a request for an enforcement-4 related action and the request for immediate action had to 5
be supported by facts sufficient to warrant the requested 6
action and the basis for the initial recommendation or the 7
denial of that request for immediate action was that you 8
did not present facts sufficient to establish either a 9
violation or a safety hazard, so that we did not grant your 10 request for immediate action.
11 We did not make that decision based on whether 12 or not there was another proceeding available for you to 13 participate in or whether the issue had been resolved 14 already. What Mr. Boska's e-mail simply was doing was 15 assuring you that to the extent that your petition contains 16 generic aspects, it will be addressed in the rulemaking. I 17 think that's all he really meant to say.
18 CHAIRMAN NIEH: So maybe I didnt characterize 19 20 THE REPORTER: Please identify yourself.
21 CHAIRMAN NIEH: This is Ho Nieh again, the 22 Petition Review Board.
23 THE REPORTER: The female speaking.
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Oh, that was Jenny Longo from 1
the Office of General Counsel. So Mark, this is Ho again.
2 I probably did not characterize what Jenny had described to 3
me when I went on mute but what I will summarize what I 4
said before is that we didn't apply that particular 5
criteria regarding the generic issue and like I said 6
earlier, that John was mentioning that the generic aspects 7
of your petition are, indeed, being considered in a related 8
petition for rulemaking. So the criteria that we applied 9
was that it did not meet the criteria to accept and to 10 review under 2.206 for insufficient information and 11 regarding the information that was provided, the NRC did 12 not identify a safety basis to warrant any immediate 13 actions at the Indian Point facility.
14 Following our March 27 meeting, the Petition 15 Manager, John Boska, again provided you, Mr. Leyse, via e-16 mail the initial decision of the Petition Review Board to 17 not accept the request as a 2.206 petition and made 18 available the opportunity for you to address the Petition 19 Review Board which is why we are here today. So I'm about 20 ready to turn the discussion over to you, Mark. You know, 21 like I said before, the purpose of the meeting today is to 22 provide an opportunity for you to give the Petition Review 23 Board additional information and explanation in support of 24 your petition and also to provide you an opportunity to 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 comment on the PRB's recommendation. We are eager and 1
interested to listen to your comments because we are 2
intending to do a comprehensive and thorough review of the 3
information you provided. And we do understand that, yes, 4
there is a Petition for Rulemaking that's underway and 5
that, yes, you have submitted a previous petition on a 6
related issue but in your March letter you have stated that 7
you have provided substantive additional information from 8
the April letter.
9 So we are indeed interested in learning more 10 from you about your petition so we can make a thoroughly 11 and comprehensively informed decision and that decision 12 which will be made following this telephone call will be 13 provided to you documented in a
- letter, in an 14 acknowledgment letter.
15 So before I turn it over to you I'd like to 16 just give you the opportunity to clarify anything that I 17 might have mischaracterized in the summary of your petition 18 or ask any other general questions before you can address 19 the Board with your information.
20 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking. Yes, 21 thank you. I believe your summary was quite accurate of 22 what I had requested and I appreciate the explanation that 23
-- you've mentioned that your decisions were not based on 24 the fact that it was a generic issue. That was just 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 something that you had pointed out. Your decision was more 1
based on your position -- the Petition Review Board's 2
position that the facts I presented were not sufficient and 3
therefore, they decided to at least preliminarily reject 4
the petition from review.
5 Now, I would like to speak about the facts 6
that I have presented in the petition and also speak about 7
what the NRC categorized, terms -- actually the term 8
"anticipated operational occurrences". So I would like to 9
address those issues. Is there anything that you would 10 like to say previous to that?
11 CHAIRMAN NIEH: No, we're ready to listen to 12 your information, Mark.
13 PETITIONER LEYSE: Okay. Mark Leyse speaking 14 again. Well, basically, I wanted to point out this is a 15 very simple thing. In the ECCS evaluation calculations 16 that qualified the recent uprates at Indian Point, Units 2 17 and 3, there was a claim by Entergy that in the event of a 18
- LOCA, that the pre-accident oxidation and transient 19 oxidation would always be below 15 percent. That claim is 20 referenced in letters that I cite in my petition. It's 21 actually on page 11 of the March 2008 petition and there's 22 actually a footnote that cites the letters concerning this 23 claim.
24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 19 And basically, in recent years, within the 1
last say dozen or 13 years, there have been three incidents 2
at PWRs in the United States where during operation, 3
oxidation has actually perforated the cladding of the fuel 4
rods. So I don't see how Entergy can make this claim that 5
the pre-accident oxidation and transient oxidation would 6
always be under 15 percent at either Indian Point Unit 2 or 7
- 3.
8 And I guess what I would like to ask the 9
Petition Review Board, you don't have to answer this now 10 but if you would just consider these two questions. The 11 first question to consider is how can the Petition Review 12 Board assure that there will never be any cases of crud 13 induced fuel failures at either Indian Point Unit 2 or 3?
14 And the second question is, how can the Petition Review 15 Board assure that there will never in the event of a LOCA 16 at either Indian Point Unit 2 or 3 be a situation where the 17 pre-accident oxidation and transient oxidation would always 18 be below 15 percent, when in the last 13 years during 19 normal -- during operation of three plants, PWRs in the 20 United States there has actually been 100 percent oxidation 21 where oxidation perforated cladding?
22 So I would like the Petition Review Board to 23 consider those two questions. If you want to answer them 24 now, I'm not against that if you do want to go on the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 record and say that you are certain that neither of these 1
situations will occur at either Indian Point Unit 2 or 3, I 2
would appreciate it actually to hear an answer now.
3 However, at the same time, if you don't want to answer it 4
now, I think it's more important just that you consider 5
those questions.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: This is Ho Nieh, the PRB 7
Chair. The PRB will consider those questions. We are not 8
prepared at this moment to make a definitive statement or 9
answer regarding those questions. Again, the purpose of 10 this particular meeting is that we want to learn from you 11 any information you have in addition to what you already 12 provided to us in your March 2008 letter or any 13 clarifications you want to provide to us so that in the end 14 we can determine whether any changes are needed to be made 15 to the PRB's initial recommendation.
16 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse. Yes, I 17 understand that. I guess what these two questions would 18 probably fall under the category of clarification just to 19 maybe help the Petition Review Board review actual events 20 that have occurred in recent history with PWRs and that 21 they will look at page 11 of the March 2008 petition and 22 see that those facts are explicitly stated.
23
- Now, I
would like to with further 24 clarification, I want to point out that the NRC has a 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21 Standard Review Plan. It's NUREG 800, Standard Review Plan 1
and Section 4.2 has a section -- it's actually on page 15 2
and page 16. It's Standard Review Plan Section 4.2, 3
actually pages 15, 16, where it discusses doing ECCS 4
evaluation calculations where the thermal conductivity of 5
the fuel, the cladding, the cladding crud and the cladding 6
oxidation layers are phenomena that should be modeled in 7
such evaluation calculations. This is an NRC document.
8 Now, this is not a legally binding rule. These are 9
guidelines and they're actually addressing high burn-up 10 fuel with these guidelines, but I just want to point out 11 that these guidelines, you have the ability to do ECCS 12 evaluation calculations, where you consider the thermal 13 resistance effects of crud and oxidation and basically what 14 my petition is stating, this has happened for fuel which is 15 in its first cycle and in this situation with the low burn-16 up fuel, you have a situation where -- if you would model 17 that, the ECCS evaluation calculation results would be more 18
-- it's just modeling a more severe type of accident than 19 if you're modeling the beginning of life fuel.
20 So I just want to point out that this is in 21 like I said, Standard Review Plan, Section 4.2 page 15 and 22 16 addressing high burn-up fuel. You just need to have 23 things shifted where you're talking about fuel in its first 24 cycle and apply the same logic. Therefore, you will be 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22 actually calculating the most severe type of LOCA which 1
would be in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i). And I 2
also want to -- this is kind of back to the generic issue 3
but it's just in case the PRB is thinking, oh, well, this 4
is kind of being taken care of with this rulemaking, I just 5
want to point out that the rulemaking is actually -- the 6
rulemaking petition which I submitted in April 2007 --
7 sorry, actually, that was submitted in I believe in --
8 anyway, not April but it was submitted in 2007. The 9
rulemaking petition is basically a petition where there are 10 not existing rules where I'm requesting new rules to limit 11 crud and rules to limit hydriding in cladding and rules 12 regarding how to model the ECCS evaluation calculations.
13 It's to amend Appendix K to Part 50. But basically, I mean, 14 this is very simple, but in the petition that I submitted 15 as an enforcement action that's not to that's 16 considering violations of an existing rule.
17 It's related to the rulemaking petition but 18 it's you know, more regarding the fact that you have not 19 submitted or rather you have not done the most severe type 20 of calculation to model the most -- I'm sorry, you have not 21 modeled the most severe type of LOCA that could occur at 22 Indian Point, and I want to just mention that in the 23 standard review plan that I mentioned before, there's a 24 term which says anticipated operational occurrences, so I 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 just want to submit, if something has occurred three times 1
in PWRs in the United States in the last 13 years, why is 2
that not considered an anticipated operational occurrence?
3 You're just acting like this has never occurred and it will 4
never, that it's impossible that this will ever occur at 5
either Indian Point Unit 2 or 3 with your decision, just 6
stating that this is not the most severe type of LOCA that 7
could occur when, in fact, it could.
8 And I just -- as just to kind of wrap up what 9
I have to say at this point, I just want to say that in the 10 petition from pages 22 to page 30, I cite an example of 11 crud induced fuel failures which occurred at Three Mile 12 Island Unit 1 during cycle 10 and I discuss my belief that 13 with high probability the parameters that are set forth in 14 10 CFR 50.46(b) might have been violated had there been a 15 LOCA during that fuel cycle. And I also want to point out 16 that in detail, in the petition from page 10 to page 22, I 17 discuss the ECCS evaluation calculations that were 18 conducted by Entergy for the recent power uprates and 19 that's basically what I have to say at this point.
20 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you for that 21 information, Mark, and I do appreciate your framing of 22 those questions for the Petition Review Board to consider.
23 And as I mentioned, as we walk through our dialogue 24 internally to consider what you've provided today, I can 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 assure you that I'm going to ask those same questions to 1
the technical staff that are part of this review board.
2 I did not mention before the composition of 3
the board. That was one aspect of the process. I kind of 4
moved along a little quicker because I wanted to make sure 5
we had enough time to listen to your questions and be able 6
to ask you questions. But I'm the Petition Review Board 7
Chair. We have John Boska is our Project Manager and the 8
other folks that support the Board are the folks you heard 9
from, the technical staff and then the folks from the 10 region and we get advice from the General Counsel. So if 11 you had questions on who was actually part of the Board, 12 just look at the names you took down for the NRC 13 participants and they all support the decision-making. So 14 we want to make sure that we have the right people and we 15 do have the right folks from the fuel side of the Division 16 of Safety Systems here to consider those things. With that 17 said, part of this process involves the staff the 18 opportunity to ask you questions to further understand and 19 better understand the things that you've provided us today 20 and you know, we're not trying to engage in a debate with 21 you on some of the issues you raised. We really just want 22 to understand. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to 23 any of the technical staff here that have questions for Mr.
24 Leyse.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25 Okay, any of the project management staff here 1
have questions for Mr. Leyse? We're going to go on mute 2
for just one second, Mark. Please hold.
3 (Off the record.)
4 CHAIRMAN NIEH: We're back, Mark, this is Ho 5
Nieh again, the PRB Chair. You know, the issues you've 6
represented in your petition are, indeed, I think, complex 7
and we're trying to fully understand things. I did have a 8
question related to some of the information you provided 9
regarding the Standard Review Plan, Section 4.2. In 10 reading through your petition you submitted in March, you 11 discuss that the calculations performed by the licensee for 12 Indian Point 2 and 3 do not comply with 50.46 and during 13 your discussions you specified certain aspects of the SRP 14 Section 4.2. Can you just for my information and 15 consideration with the meeting with the PRB, can you tell 16 me what portions of 50.46 you believe the licensee has not 17 complied with.
18 PETITIONER LEYSE: Oh, sure.
19 CHAIRMAN NIEH: The ECCS acceptance criteria?
20 PETITIONER LEYSE: Oh, certainly. Yes, and I 21 first -- Mark Leyse speaking.
22 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes.
23 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, I can tell you that 24 and first I want to first say I appreciate the fact that 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26 you will consider the questions I asked earlier. You had 1
mentioned that maybe five minutes ago and I just wanted to 2
express my appreciation of that. And I would like to say a 3
couple more things but first I'll address what you just 4
asked. You asked which sections of 50.46 do I believe were 5
violated?
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes.
7 PETITIONER LEYSE:
- Okay, basically it's 8
section 50.46(a)(1)(i). It basically, it states that the 9
ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in accordance 10 with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated 11 for a number of postulated loss of coolant accidents of 12 different sizes, locations and other properties, sufficient 13 to provide assurance that the most severe postulated loss 14 of coolant accidents are calculated.
15 So that's just on the first page of that rule.
16 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Understand.
17 PETITIONER LEYSE: And so basically what it's 18 asking is that accidents of different sizes, locations that 19 they be calculated. That's why they will calculate a large 20 break loss of coolant accident and a more mild loss of 21 coolant accident. They'll basically model -- one might be 22 a double guillotine break. They'll model different 23 hypothetical loss of coolant accidents which could actually 24 occur and that is to provide assurance that the most severe 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 postulated LOCAs are calculated. So that's the rule, and 1
basically, when you turn to 50.46(b), you see the 2
parameters that cannot be -- well, if a LOCA were to occur 3
at a plant, to be compliant with 50.46, it must be 4
compliant with the parameters set forth in Section B. So 5
there's a peak cladding temperature, maximum cladding 6
oxidation, maximum hydrogen generation.
7 So basically, what I'm saying is you have a 8
situation at Indian Point, Unit 2 and 3 where there is the 9
possibility of having a heavy crud layer during the first 10 cycle of operation for fuel and that has not been modeled.
11 So because that has not been modeled, that's a very severe 12
-- you know, that would be a very severe accident, were it 13 a large break accident for example.
14 And Entergy claims -- well, it's a standard to 15 claim that the most severe Large Break Loss of Coolant 16 Accident would be with fresh beginning of life fuel. What 17 I'm saying, well, actually there's a situation where if you 18 had a large crud layer, it would actually be more severe.
19 It was estimated, which is discussed in my petition, that 20 at Three Mile Island Unit 1 during Cycle 10, that during 21 operation the cladding temperatures actually increased by 22 about 300 degrees Fahrenheit. So if you were to have that 23 situation, it would be possible that the peak cladding 24 temperature in the event of a LOCA would actually exceed 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28 2200 degrees Fahrenheit. If you have a crud layer with 1
already -- if there's a crud induced fuel failure, you 2
would actually already have 100 percent oxidation. That's 3
actually already over the 17 percent rule.
4 But that's just an observation. So that's 5
basically what I'm trying to explain in the petition.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I did have another question 7
for you, Mark. This is Ho Nieh, again, the PRB Chair. In 8
your
- petition, you take issue with the previous 9
acknowledgment letter you received following your April 10 2007 petition saying that the NRC's rejection for 11 insufficient facts was incorrect because you had presented 12 facts to support your claim. And I just want to make sure 13 that I get a good understanding of what those facts are and 14 part of the facts that you're providing today and in your 15 March letter is that there have been instances which 16 occurred and you cite three occurrences, I think, Palo 17 Verde, TMI and another facility. Is that one of the facts 18 that you're presenting as evidence that these cladding 19 oxidation levels can be greater than 15 percent?
20 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse, yes, those are 21 facts. I'm claiming that there have been crud induced 22 corrosion fuel failures at three PWRs in the United States 23 24 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 PETITIONER LEYSE: -- in recent years and that 1
those are most certainly facts.
2 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Can you help me with some more 3
facts again to steer me toward as far as what the oxidation 4
levels at Indian Point are, like what type of information 5
you might have in that regard.
6 PETITIONER LEYSE: Well, I would say that 7
oxidation levels at Indian Point must vary from time to 8
time on different fuel rods. More what I'm presenting is 9
the fact that there would be the possibility of there being 10 extreme oxidation at Indian Point Unit 2 or 3 if there were 11 a heavy crud layer at either plant. Like I said before, 12 these are postulated loss of coolant accidents that are 13 calculated.
14 For example, there has never been a LOCA at 15 either Indian Point 2 or 3 so far but hypothetically, there 16 could be a LOCA there. So hypothetically, an event that 17 has occurred at a PWR in recent years in the United States 18 could also occur at Indian Point. That should be 19 considered an anticipated operational occurrence. So 20 that's more of what I'm going at. It's not that I'm citing 21 specific evidence regarding actual oxidation levels at 22 Indian Point.
It's more that I'm stating that 23 hypothetically, well, more it's like this has occurred in 24 recent years at other places. It should be considered an 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30 anticipated operational occurrence. Therefore, this should 1
be included in the ECCS evaluation calculations for Indian 2
Point Unit 2 and 3.
3 CHAIRMAN NIEH: I believe I understand now.
4 And the other aspect that you're reaching or conclusion 5
that you're reaching is that based on the calculations 6
you've seen at Indian Point, they have not accounted for 7
these hypothetical circumstances that you believe are 8
possible. Do I understand that correctly?
9 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, you do.
10 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay.
11 PETITIONER LEYSE: Yes, Mark Leyse speaking.
12 Yes, yes, you do understand that correctly, that I'm just 13 saying this should be considered an anticipated operational 14 occurrence and it should be modeled in what is the rule to 15 model the most severe postulated loss LOCAs.
16 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you.
17 PETITIONER LEYSE: May I just add a couple 18 things I had not added before and it kind of relates to the 19 question you just asked me.
20 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes, sir.
21 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking.
22 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Yes, you can, of course.
23 PETITIONER LEYSE: Thank you. Basically, I do 24 want to say that it's another question for the PRB is 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31 hypothetically, if the current power levels of Indian Point 1
Unit 2 and 3 had been indeed, qualified by non-conservative 2
ECCS evaluation calculations that were done in violation of 3
10 CFR 50.46, would you believe that that would be a safety 4
hazard? So that's a question that, if you did believe that 5
I was correct in my assertion that these were non-6 conservative ECCS evaluation calculations, would that, 7
indeed, be a safety hazard? So that's a question for you 8
to please also consider.
9 And I just want to read a little bit from the 10 Standard Review Plan Section 4.2, Fuel System Design. I'll 11 try to be quick because I realize we're running out of 12 time.
13 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Sure.
14 PETITIONER LEYSE: It states that, "Fuel 15 system safety review provides assurance that 1, the fuel 16 system is not damaged as a result of normal operation and 17 anticipated operational occurrences, 2, fuel system damage 18 is never so severe as to prevent control rod insertion when 19 it is required, 3, the number of fuel rod failures is not 20 underestimated for postulated accidents, and 4, coolability 21 is always maintained". That's on page 1 actually of the 22 Standard Review Plan 4.2.
23 So it alludes to the anticipated operational 24 occurrences and it also alludes to the fact that the number 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 of fuel rod failures should not be underestimated for 1
postulated accidents and I just want to point out that when 2
you have crud induced fuel failures, those are failed fuel 3
rods and as the Standard Review Plan states, the number of 4
fuel rod failures should not be underestimated for 5
postulated accidents. That basically sums it up.
6 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Thank you, Mark. We're just 7
going to go on mute for one second. I have an internal 8
question here.
9 (Off the record.)
10 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, hi, Mark. We're back 11 here. We just had an internal question here. Was there 12 anything else that you wanted to provide for us, to us, 13 Mark?
14 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking. At 15 this moment, I would say no, I believe I just tried to help 16 clarify the petition by presenting a few additional aspects 17 and I want to state that I appreciate your questions and 18 your interest in trying to clarify what I had to say also 19 with your questions.
20 CHAIRMAN NIEH: This is Ho Nieh. Thank you, 21 Mark. This is why we're having the call. We just want to 22 make sure that we do make informed decisions and can fully 23 consider all of the input you have for the NRC in this 24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33 process. Are there any questions from anybody else here at 1
headquarters for Mr. Leyse?
2 (No audible response.)
3 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Does the NRC staff that are 4
participating via the telephone, do you have any questions 5
for the Petitioner?
6 MR. McCARVER: None from Region 1.
7 CHAIRMAN NIEH: Okay, thank you, Sam. Hearing 8
no other, Mark, we'll get ready to conclude the call. I do 9
want to thank you for taking the time to give us this 10 information and I will assure you that the Petition Review 11 Board is going to thoroughly evaluate your March petition 12 and the issues you've documented in that letter and also 13 the information you've provided today. We are going to get 14 this conversation transcribed in a very timely manner 15 hopefully and have it publicly available, so we can all 16 read through it and make sure we understand what we've 17 heard today so that we can look at our initial 18 recommendation and determine a course of action moving 19 forward.
20 The results of the PRB meeting following this 21 call will be documented to you in a letter and we will also 22 call you before sending you the letter as well. With that, 23 Mr. Leyse, again, thank you very much and we are going to 24
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 secure from the call, unless you have any further questions 1
for the NRC staff.
2 PETITIONER LEYSE: Mark Leyse. No, I just 3
wanted to thank you for your listening to what I have to 4
say and your time also. Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN NIEH: You're welcome. Have a good 6
afternoon.
7 PETITIONER LEYSE: You too. Bye.
8 (Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the above-entitled 9
matter concluded.)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16