ML100200966
| ML100200966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/2010 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Saba F, NRR/DORL/LPL2-2, 301-415-1447 | |
| References | |
| 2.206, FOIA/PA-2010-0116, NRC-018 | |
| Download: ML100200966 (33) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Crystal River Unit 3 2.206 Petition Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, January 7, 2010 Work Order No.:
NRC-018 Pages 1-32 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
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
+ + + + +
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+ + + + +
4 THOMAS SAPORITO 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION FOR 5
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 6
+ + + + +
7 TELECONFERENCE 8
+ + + + +
9 THURSDAY 10 JANUARY 7, 2010 11
+ + + + +
12 The teleconference convened at 13 10:30 a.m., Thomas Blount, Petition Review Board 14 Chair, presiding.
15 NRC STAFF PRESENT:
16 THOMAS BLOUNT, NRR/ADRO/DPR, Petition Review Board 17 Chair 18 THOMAS BOYCE, NRR/ADRO/DORL/LP[L2-2]
19 RICH CHOU, Region II 20 MICHAEL CLARK, OGC/GCHEA/AGCMLE 21 BOB CARRION, Region II 22 FARHAD FARZAM, NRR/DE/EMCB 23 MARK FRANKE, Region II 24 DAVID HARDAGE, Region II 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
LOUIS LAKE, Region II 1
TANYA MENSAH, NRR/ADRO/PSP[B], Petition Review Board 2
Coordinator 3
BRENDA MOZAFARI, NRR/ADRO/DORL/LP[L2-2]
4 ALI REZAI, NRR/DCI/CPNB 5
STACEY ROSENBERG, NRR/ADRO/DPR/ PSP[B]
6 FARIDEH SABA, NRR/ADRO/DORL/LP, Crystal River Unit 3 7
Project Manager 8
MARVIN SYKES, Region II 9
GEORGE THOMAS, Region II 10 11 PETITIONER:
12 THOMAS SAPORITO 13 14 PROGRESS ENERGY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
15 BRIAN McCABE 16 JOHN FRANKE 17 GARRY MILLER 18 JOHN O'NEILL 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(10:34 a.m.)
2 MS. SABA: Good morning. I would like to 3
welcome -- to thank everybody for attending this 4
meeting.
5 My name is Farideh Saba, and I am the 6
Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant Unit 3 Project 7
Manager.
8 We are here today to allow the Petitioner, 9
Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the Petition Review 10 Board regarding the 2.206 petition dated December 5, 11 2009.
12 I am the Petition Manager for this 13 petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Tom 14 Blount. As part of the Petition Review Board, or PRB, 15 review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested 16 this opportunity to address the PRB.
17 This meeting is scheduled from 10:30 a.m.
18 to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being 19 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 20 transcribed by a Court Reporter. The transcript will 21 become a supplement to the petition. The transcript 22 will also be made publicly available.
23 I would like to open this meeting with 24 introductions. As we go around the room, please 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 4
sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 1
the office that you work for within the NRC for the 2
record. I'll start off. Farideh Saba, Senior Project 3
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRR, 4
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
5 MR. REZAI: Ali Rezai, Piping and NDE 6
Branch, Materials Engineer.
7 MR. FARZAM: Farhad Farzam, Mechanical and 8
Civil Engineering Branch, NRR Office.
9 MR. CLARK: Michael Clark. I'm an 10 attorney with the Office of the General Counsel.
11 MS. MOZAFARI: Brenda Mozafari, Senior 12 Project Manager, NRR.
13 MR. BOYCE: Tom Boyce. I'm a Licensing 14 Branch Chief in the Office of NRR, Division of 15 Operating Reactor Licensing.
16 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah. I'm the 2.206 17 coordinator in the office of NRR.
18
[CHAIRTom] BLOUNT: Tom Blount, NRR, 19 Deputy Director in the Division of Policy and 20 Rulemaking. I am the PRB Chair.
21 MS. ROSENBERG: Stacey Rosenberg, NRR, 22 Branch Chief in the Division of Policy and Rulemaking.
23 MS.
SABA:
Okay.
Are there any 24 representatives for the licensee on the phone? Please 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
introduce yourself.
1 MR. McCABE: Yes, thanks, Farideh. This 2
is -- good morning to everyone. This is Brian McCabe.
3 I'm the Regulatory Affairs Manager for Progress 4
Energy. With me on the call today are John Franke, 5
the Crystal River 3 Vice President; Garry Miller, the 6
General Manager responsible for the Crystal River 3 7
containment project; and John O'Neill, who is serving 8
as counsel to Progress Energy.
9 We appreciate the opportunity to 10 participate in the call today. We understand that, 11 per Management Directive 8.11, this is a call between 12 the NRC and the Petitioner, and that the purpose is to 13 afford the Petitioner an opportunity to provide the 14 NRC with additional information relative to the 15 petition.
16 So, as such, we understand and respect our 17 role on this call is not to be an active participant, 18 but to, rather, listen to the discussions, and, if 19 necessary, ask clarifying questions, so that we 20 understand the issues that have been raised.
21 So, again, Farideh, we appreciate the 22 opportunity to listen in on the discussions today.
23 And with that, I will turn it back to you.
24 MS. SABA: Okay. We would like also 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 6
NRC employees from the region or anybody else on the 1
line please introduce yourself.
2 MR. FRANKE: From Region II, this is Mark 3
Franke, Chief of Engineering Branch III[3], Division 4
of Reactor Safety.
5 MR. CARRION: This is Bob Carron also from 6
Region II, Senior Project Engineer -- Senior Reactor 7
Engineer with Engineering III[3].
8 MR.
CHOU:
Rich
- Chou, C-H-O-U, 9
Region II --
10 THE COURT REPORTER: Pardon me. This is 11 the transcriber. I am not getting a good recording.
12 Somebody doesn't have their phone on mute. I'm 13 getting interference.
14 MR. McCABE: Hey, Mark Franke, this is 15 Brian McCabe. It seems like when the region is 16 speaking there is a lot of interference in what is 17 coming over the speaker.
18 MR. FRANKE: Okay. So only when we're 19 speaking, Brian?
20 MR. McCABE: Yes, now it's clear. But it 21 seemed like there was some shuffling associated with 22 the speaker that might have been interfering in the 23 communication.
24 MR. FRANKE: Okay. Thank you. What was 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 7
the last name that the transcriber was able to get?
1 THE COURT REPORTER: I couldn't get the 2
names from -- whenever that region started to 3
introduce themselves, the interference started, so I 4
couldn't get the names. They were -- there were only 5
two names.
6 MR. FRANKE: We'll have the same person 7
basically introduce all of us.
8 MR. SYKES: Okay. So here in Region II we 9
have Mark Franke, Chief of Engineering Branch III[3]
10 in the Division of Reactor Safety; we have Bob 11 Carrion, Senior Inspector, Division of Reactor Safety; 12 we have Rich Chou, Senior[reactor] Inspector, Division 13 of Reactor Safety; we have David Hardage, Reactor 14 Inspector, Division of Reactor Projects; and Marvin 15 Sykes, Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, Branch 16 III[3]. And that's all from here in Region II.
17 And onsite at Crystal River we have I 18 think Lou Lake, Louis Lake, Senior Inspector, DRS, 19 Branch III[3], Engineering Branch III[3]; and Mr.
20 George Thomas from our Office of Nuclear Reactor 21 Regulation in Washington.
22 MS. SABA: Okay. Mr. Saporito, would you 23 please introduce yourself for the record?
24 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. My name is Thomas 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
Saporito. I'm a United States citizen. I reside in 1
Jupiter, Florida.
2 MS. SABA: Are there any others, such as 3
members of the public, on the phone?
4 MR. DANIELSON: My name is Rick Danielson.
5 I'm a reporter with the St. Petersburg Times.
6 MS. SABA: Could you please spell your 7
name?
8 MR. DANIELSON: Yes. First name Richard, 9
R-I-C-H-A-R-D, last name Danielson, D-A-N-I-E-L-S-O-N.
10 MS. SABA: And would you please repeat 11 your association?
12 MR. DANIELSON: I'm a reporter with the 13 St. Petersburg Times in Florida.
14 MS. SABA: Thank you.
15 MR. DANIELSON: You're welcome.
16 PARTICIPANT: This is the headquarters 17 operations officer. Just for your information, if you 18 do not have a mute on your phone, you can mute it 19 through our system by hitting star 6. And then, when 20 you want to unmute, you can hit star 6 again.
21 MS. SABA: Thank you.
22 I would like to emphasize that we each 23 need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the 24 Court Reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
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 9
If you do have something that you would like to say, 1
please first state your name for the record.
2 At this time, I will turn it over to the 3
PRB Chairman, Mr. Tom Blount.
4 CHAIR BLOUNT: This is Tom Blount. Good 5
morning. Welcome to the meeting regarding the 2.206 6
petition submitted by Mr. Saporito. I would like to 7
first share some background on our process.
8 Section 2.206 of Title X[10] of the Code 9
of Federal Regulations describes the petition process 10
-- the primary mechanism for the public to request 11 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
12 This process permits anyone to petition the NRC to 13 take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees 14 or licensed activity. Depending on the results of 15 this evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke 16 an NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate 17 enforcement action to resolve a problem.
18 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 19 of a
2.206 petition request is in Management 20 Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
21 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 22 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 23 additional explanation or support for the petition 24 before the Petition Review Board's initial 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 consideration and recommendation.
1 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 2
an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or 3
examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented 4
in the petition request. No decisions regarding the 5
merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
6 Following this
- meeting, the Petition 7
Review Board will conduct its internal deliberation.
8 The outcomes of this internal meeting will be 9
discussed with the Petitioner.
10 The Petition Review Board typically 11 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the 12 senior executive level, senior executive service 13 level, at the NRC. It has a petition manager and a 14 PRB coordinator. Other members of the Board are 15 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 16 the information and the petition request.
17 At this time, I would like to introduce 18 the Board. I am Tom Blount, the Petition Review Board 19 Chairman. Farideh Saba is the Petition Manager for 20 the petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is 21 the office's PRB coordinator.
22 Our technical staff includes Farhad Farzam 23 and George Thomas from the Office of NRR, Mechanical 24 and Civil Engineering Branch; Ali Rezai from NRR, 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 Piping and NDE Branch; Marvin Sykes and Mark Franke, 1
Branch Chiefs from Region II. We also obtain advice 2
from our Office of General Counsel represented by Mike 3
Clark.
4 As described in our process, the NRC staff 5
may ask clarifying questions in order to better 6
understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 7
a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 8
Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 9
process.
10 I would like to summarize the scope of the 11 petition under consideration and the NRC's activities 12 to date. On December 5, 2009, Mr. Saporito submitted 13 to the NRC a petition under 2.206 against Progress 14 Energy Corporation at Crystal River Nuclear Generating 15 Station Unit 3.
16 In this petition request, Mr. Saporito 17 identified the following areas of concern. Physically 18 remove the -- Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC take 19 enforcement action against the licensee and issue a 20 confirmatory order requiring that the licensee: one, 21 physically remove the outer 10 inches of concrete 22 surrounding the Crystal River Nuclear Containment 23 Building from the top of the Containment Building to 24 the bottom of the Containment Building and 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 encompassing 360 degrees around the entire Containment 1
Building.
2 Two, test samples of the concrete removed 3
from the Crystal River Nuclear Containment Building 4
for composition and compare the test results to a 5
sample of concrete from a similarly-designed facility 6
like the Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point 7
Nuclear Plant.
8 And, three, maintain the Crystal River 9
Nuclear Station in cold shutdown mode until such time 10 as the licensee can demonstrate full compliance with 11 its NRC operating license for Crystal River, within 12 the safety margins delineated in the licensee's final 13 safety analysis report and within the Crystal River 14 Nuclear Station's site-specific technical 15 specification.
16 And, four, provide the public with an 17 opportunity to intervene at a public hearing before 18 the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to challenge 19 any certification made by the licensee to the NRC that 20 it has reestablished full compliance with 10 CFR 50 21 and the safety margins delineated in its FSAR and 22 technical specification.
23 Allow me to discuss the NRC activity to 24 date. On December 9, 2009, the Petitioner requested 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 13 to address the PRB prior to its initial meeting, and 1
requested time to prepare supplemental information for 2
the Board's consideration. And that is the meeting 3
that we are having today.
4 As a reminder for the phone participants, 5
please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as 6
this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 7
transcript that will be made publicly available.
8 Thank you.
9 Mr. Saporito, I will turn the meeting over 10 to you to allow you to provide any information you 11 believe the PRB should consider as part of this 12 petition. You will have one hour, as you requested, 13 to provide additional information to the PRB.
14 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you very 15 much. I appreciate the opportunity to engage the NRC 16 in this manner.
17 First of all, good morning to everyone.
18 As I stated earlier for the record, my name is Thomas 19 Saporito. That's S as in Sam, A-P-O-R-I-T-O. And I 20 am the Petitioner in this matter.
21 As a result of the licensee's discovery of 22 a structural defect in the Crystal River Nuclear Plant 23 Containment Building, I filed a formal request through 24 the NRC 2.206 process. The specific request was for 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 confirmatory order to take enforcement action, which 1
the Chairman has addressed very adequately.
2 For the benefit of those members of the 3
public who may be attending this meeting today, I will 4
provide a brief background of the events of the 5
Crystal River Nuclear Plant for which this petition 6
arose. During the maintenance activity performed 7
under the direction and authorization of the licensee 8
to cut an opening in the Containment Building to gain 9
access to replace steam generator units, it was 10 discovered that the -- there were separations or 11 delaminations in the concrete perimeter of the 12 Containment Building.
13 Now, the licensee has been engaged in 14 various testing methods to determine the root cause of 15 the separations with the delaminations. So before I 16 continue, let me -- let me just state that in a prior 17 teleconference call attended by the NRC, and by the 18 licensee, myself, and others, the licensee made a 19 verbal commitment to[through] Mr. Jim Scarola, if I'm 20 not mistaken, to determine the root cause of the 21 delamination of the Containment Building structure 22 prior to the restart of the Crystal River nuclear 23 reactor.
24 First, let me say that I have personally 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 worked with Mr. Scarola during the startup of the 1
Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear 2
Reactor Number 2, and I can assure everyone attending 3
this teleconference today that Mr. Scarola is a very 4
competent and knowledgeable individual who always 5
places safety ahead of economics.
6 With respect to the Crystal River 7
Containment Building, the actual root cause of the 8
structural failure may never be fully known. During 9
the last telephone conference call, the licensee 10 stated that they were investigating a number of 11 reasons that may have contributed to the root cause of 12 the Containment Building delamination, and that they 13 were engaged in a process of eliminating this area of 14 suspected reason in an attempt to determine the root 15 cause of the Containment Building delamination.
16 However, because of the nature of this 17 particular structural failure, the actual root cause 18 may never really be discovered. And, instead, the 19 licensee, through the process of elimination, may 20 arrive at what I call a best guess determination of 21 the root cause.
22 Nonetheless, the NRC's focus should not be 23 solely on what the root cause of the containment 24 structure failure was, but instead I would suggest 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 16 that the agency should focus its attention on whether 1
the licensee at some time in the future will be able 2
to return the Crystal River Containment Building's 3
safety design basis, the safety margins required in a 4
licensee's
- FSAR, and site-specific technical 5
specifications.
6 In other words, the licensee need not be 7
required to state for certain the root cause of the 8
containment structural failure to be allowed to 9
restart the nuclear reactor, so long as the licensee 10 can demonstrate reasonable assurance that the Crystal 11 River Containment Building can function to meet its 12 safety design basis after repairs are completed.
13 And I think that is the focus that the NRC 14 should be engaged, because there is, you know -- I am 15 not a rocket scientist or a degreed engineer, but I 16 can tell you just, you know, common sense looking at 17 this particular failure, there is a number of reasons 18 that could have caused this failure -- the tensioning 19 of the peripheral tendons prior to making the cut, the 20 manner in which the cut was made, the vibrations, 21 there have been a number of reactor SCRAMs that caused 22 the pressure within the containment structure to vary 23 and caused that failure -- the failure of the concrete 24 material itself or a chemical reaction of the metal 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 material against concrete.
1 There are just so many reasons that to be 2
certain of any one particular reason that caused this, 3
I don't -- as a reasonable-minded person, I don't 4
think it's possible, especially because there was no 5
-- in my research no similar failure to this degree 6
and this extent over the course of the operation of 7
the 104 reactors operating in this country.
8 For the benefit of the NRC, I refer -- I 9
have done some research on this topic, and I refer you 10 to a document that's entitled "Detection of Aging [of]
11 Nuclear Power[
]pPlant Structures."
This was 12 apparently authored by D.J. Naus -- that's spelled N-13 A-U-S -- from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 14 Ridge, Tennessee, and also by H.L. Graves, G-R-A-V-E-15 S, III, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 16 Washington, D.C.
17 And specific to this article, which drew 18 my attention, it speaks at one point in this article 19 about the -- from a safety standpoint, speaking from a 20 safety standpoint, that the containment is -- hello?
21 MS. SABA: We can hear you.
22 MR. SAPORITO: Oh, okay. I thought 23 someone was -- okay. From a safety standpoint, the 24 containment is one of the most important components of 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 a nuclear power[ ]plant, because it serves as the 1
final barrier to the release of fission products or 2
radioactive particles to the outside environment under 3
postulated accident conditions.
4 So that -- that sums it up. That sums up 5
the importance of the -- of the failure of this 6
Containment Building, why it is so important the 7
licensee's repairs are such that the licensee return 8
this building to its original design basis, because 9
this is -- we are talking about containing nuclear 10 materials from entering the environment and harming 11 the public.
12 The article goes on. It talks about that 13 such physical damage occurs when the geometry of a 14 component is altered by the formation of cracks, 15 fissures, or voids, or its dimensions change due to 16 overload, buckling, corrosion, erosion, or formation 17 of other types of surface flaws. You know, changes in 18 the component geometry can affect structural capacity 19 by reducing the net section available to resist 20 applied loads.
21 So, in essence, the failure or the 22 delamination of the containment structure, and 23 specifically the Crystal River Containment Building, 24 is very significant because it -- in its current state 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 19 it can no longer meet its safety design basis. It 1
can't function sufficiently to protect public health 2
and safety should there be a nuclear accident within 3
that containment structure, and similar to Three Mile 4
Island where you had, you know, a major portion of the 5
core actually melt down.
6 Fortunately, that containment structure 7
served its design basis, and it functioned to protect 8
the public and the environment by containing those --
9 the majority of that nuclear material, although some 10 was eventually released.
11 So also what caught my attention in this 12 article was it says, "Where concrete degradation 13 incidents have occurred, they have generally done so 14 early in the life of the structure and were corrected.
15 Causes were primarily related to improper material 16 selection, construction/design deficiencies, or 17 environmental effects."
18 It says examples of some degradation 19 occurrences include cracking in basements -- base mats 20 (Waterford, Three Mile Island, North Anna, and Fermi);
21 and it says voids under the vertical tendon bearing 22 plates resulting from improper concrete placement as 23 in -- reference Calvert Cliffs plant; failure or pre-24 stressing wires, again Calvert Cliffs; cracking of 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 post-tensioning tendon anchor heads due to the stress, 1
corrosion, or embrittlement they point to 2
Bellefonte, Byron, and Farley plants.
3
- And, finally, they talk about the 4
containment dome delaminations due to low quality 5
porous aggregate material and absence of radio[radial]
6 reinforcement, and they specifically refer to the 7
Crystal River Nuclear Power[ ]pPlant.
8 So these -- this delamination event has 9
apparently occurred before, maybe not to the same 10 degree, but it has apparently occurred before at the 11 licensee's Crystal River Nuclear Plant. It goes on to 12 say that, on balance[unbalanced], pre-stressing forces 13
-- and they referenced the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; 14 corrosion of steel reinforcement and water intake 15 structures -- again, Turkey Point and San Onofre; 16 leaching of tendon concrete -- again, Three Mile 17 Island. And it goes on and on, and it is giving 18 reasons that these failures were likely to have 19 occurred in the past.
20 There is no definitive root cause found in 21 my research into any of these events. But it is 22 noteworthy that Crystal River has, in the past, 23 experienced containment dome delamination due to the 24 quality of the porous aggregate materials. I mean, 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 there was something wrong with the concrete apparently 1
that was poured in the formation of that structure 2
that has -- in the past that has caused delamination.
3 And the NRC does have regulations at 4
10 CFR Part 54 which states to licensees like Florida 5
Power -- or Florida -- excuse me, Progress Energy 6
Corporation, in its operation of the Crystal River 7
Nuclear Power[ ]pPlant with respect to the structural 8
integrity of the Containment Building.
9 The article also references -- it says 10 here that the most significant information came from 11 inspections performed by the NRC staff of six plants 12 licensed before 1977. And it says most of the 13 information on degraded conditions of the containment 14 structures was submitted by licensees under LERs, or 15 licensee event reports, under 10 CFR 50.73. That went 16 to the inspections by licensees, voluntary 17 inspections, to try to do some type of long-term 18 surveillance of any type of corrosion or defects.
19 But the article says -- points out here 20 that -- this is very significant. It says further, 21 "Based on the results of inspections and audits, the 22 NRC was concerned because many licensee containment 23 examination programs didn't appear to be adequate to 24 detect degradation that could potentially compromise 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 the containment leak-tight integrity."
1 So what -- in other words, you know, the 2
status quo of the nuclear industry in their -- their 3
current surveillance programs doesn't appear to be 4
adequate to make detections, like the delamination 5
event we're talking about here at the Crystal River 6
Nuclear Power[ ]pPlant in its Containment Building.
7 NRC regulations at Appendix J, under 8
10 CFR Part 50, requires a general inspection of the 9
accessible interior and exterior surface of 10 containment structures like that at Crystal River and 11 components to uncover any evidence of structural 12 deterioration that may affect either the containment 13 structural integrity or leak-tightness.
14 So, you know, how do you -- how do you 15 inspect a containment structure at a Crystal River 16 facility on a routine basis to make sure that you 17 don't have a delamination?
18 My concerns are that, you know, you -- the 19 current visual inspections are not satisfactory, 20 obviously, and the current inspection techniques being 21 used by the licensee for the remaining structure of 22 the containment facility at Crystal River, in my 23 opinion, aren't sufficient to determine if there 24 exists more cracks, more fissures, more voids, more 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 delaminations of the Crystal River Containment 1
Building.
2 So, you know, the -- this research article 3
that I've been pointing to here throughout this 4
discussion, they are talking about different 5
volumetric methods to make determinations of 6
delaminations and cracks and fissures and voids, and 7
they talk about ultrasonic testing, eddy current 8
testing, radiographic testing.
9 And it even points to some of the 10 standards that are defined in Article IWE-3000 of the 11 ASME Code, but all of these tests which this article 12 speaks to, and all of the tests that the licensee has 13 done to date, are more or less non-destructive 14 testing, meaning there is some means to inject some 15 certain type of signals and the resultant feedback to 16 make a reasonable determination whether or not other 17 delaminations exist at the Crystal River containment 18 structure. And those determinations are not proof 19 positive, in my view, that other fissures or cracks 20 are not present.
21 Now, in my opinion, the only way to make 22 certain that there are no other delaminations, cracks, 23 fissures, voids, or separations in the containment 24 structure itself is to remove 10 inches of concrete 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 from the perimeter of that facility, from the top to 1
the bottom, 360 degrees around.
2 And when I -- the reason I quote [in10]
3 inches is because you have peripheral tendons, the 4
peripheral tendons that surround the Crystal River 5
containment structure from top to bottom. They are 6
five and a
quarter inches in diameter.
The 7
containment wall itself -- containment wall itself is 8
42 inches thick from inside to the outside.
9 If you look at the pictures that are 10 already on record of these -- of the cut-away of the 11 opening, you can see that the horizontal tendons, 12 which are five and a quarter inches in diameter, are 13 very near the outer edge of that 42-inch thick wall, 14 so much so, if you visually can place two of them side 15 by side, you could see that it is -- there is less 16 than a foot of concrete between the exposed tendon and 17 that -- where the licensee has cut an opening in the 18 containment wall, you will see the exposed tendon.
19 Well, that top [poroushorizontal] tendon 20 is within 10 inches of the exterior of that 21 containment wall. So that means there is a tremendous 22 amount of force being applied to a very small part of 23 that 42-inch thick wall. It may or may not have 24 something to do with the delamination in this case.
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 You know, I can't say.
1 But on the other hand, what we may have 2
here is a design -- design flaw, meaning the actual 3
design of this containment structure having those 4
tendons placed so close, within 10 inches of the 5
exterior part of that 42-inch thick concrete wall, 6
that design may itself be flawed and subject the 7
entire structure to other cracks and fissures and 8
voids, which the licensee simply cannot detect with 9
any type of instrumentation to make certain that -- of 10 their non-existence.
11 Therefore, the only way to protect public 12 health and safety is to remove 10 inches of concrete 13 all around the building, from top to bottom, so you 14 would expose all of the tendons from top to bottom.
15 And with that concrete removed, you could reform that 16 structure, and in my view it should be reformed so 17 that you would add additional concrete when you repour 18 it, so that you would have -- so that you would have 19 those tendons, which are now within 10 inches of the 20 exterior perimeter of that concrete structure, you 21 should reform it so that when the new concrete is 22 poured that those tendons are in the middle of the 23 wall.
24 So you would have to add concrete so 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 the entire thickness of the wall places the steel 1
perimeter tendons exactly in the middle of that wall, 2
so that you won't have a repeat of this situation, 3
because you would have the extra structural support of 4
the concrete outside the tendons, and it wouldn't be 5
mere 10 inches.
6 Now, the FSAR required licensee to build 7
this containment structure with a model with a thick 8
model -- model a thick perimeter wall, meaning it is 9
one -- one solid structure. So this delamination 10 obviously violates the safety margins of the FSAR and 11 the site-specific technical specifications for 12 operation of a Crystal River nuclear reactor under its 13 current license.
14 So, therefore, what I would like the NRC 15 to focus on is the -- eventually, you know, we need to 16 get the plant back online, of course, because although 17 we have numerous avenues of renewable energy 18 available, or at our disposal in this current day, we 19 have a viable nuclear power[ ]plant here that should 20 be brought back into service as soon as possible with 21 safety foremost of course.
22 So to that extent, if we are going to 23 bring this reactor back online -- and we need to make 24 certain to protect public health and safety and 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 27 protect the environment that this containment building 1
not only meets but exceeds its original design basis 2
which is delineated in the FSARs.
3 And the only way to do that is to make 4
certain there aren't any more flaws in that -- in that 5
building. And you have -- and the only way you are 6
going to do that is through destructive removal of the 7
10 inches -- of the remaining 10 inches of concrete 8
around the entire building, top to bottom, until you 9
can visually inspect it.
10 And in addition to that, when the licensee 11 arrives at the point where repairs are actually going 12 to be made, it makes -- it is just common sense that 13 you reform the containment building with additional 14 concrete. And with the existing -- with the existing 15 10 inches removed, as I spoke to earlier, you are 16 going to have a higher degree of adhesion from the old 17 concrete to the new concrete, because it is going to 18 be uniform, you are going to -- you are going to have 19 a -- you are going to form that -- put new forms 20 around the facility to pour the new concrete, and you 21 are going to have a higher degree of success and 22 reasonable assurance that the concrete perimeter wall 23 of the Containment Building has been restored to 24 monolithic status.
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 Otherwise, if the NRC allows the licensee 1
to merely remove 20 or 30 feet around the existing 2
defect, and to do a patch, there is no reasonable 3
assurance, number one, that that patch adequately 4
adhered to the existing concrete or that other 5
fissures and voids and delaminations do not exist.
6 So those are my concerns, and I have given 7
the NRC some direction through reference of this 8
document I spoke to earlier, which has covered a lot 9
of these areas. But, you know, what the NRC should be 10 concerned with is that the containment building 11 eventually be returned to its original design basis, 12 if not better, and that the licensee has provided 13 reasonable assurance through removal of the perimeter 14 concrete that there are no more fissures or voids, and 15 that recurrence through the method of repair assures 16 that these defects won't again occur in the future.
17 And if there is any questions, I will 18 certainly do my best to answer them at this time.
19 CHAIR BLOUNT: Mr. Saporito, this is Tom 20 Blount. I do have a question. Could you go back to 21 the title of the article that you were using as a 22 reference, please, and give me the --
23 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Yes, it's entitled 24 "Detection of Aging [of] Nuclear Power[.][pP]lant 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 Structures." And underneath that it says "draft," and 1
underneath that it says D as in David, J as in Jack, 2
Naus, N as in Nancy, A-U-S, Oak Ridge National 3
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and underneath that 4
it has H as in Henry, L as in Lucy, Graves, G-R-A-V-E-5 S,
- III, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6
Washington, D.C.
7 CHAIR BLOUNT: Does that -- this is Tom 8
Blount again. Does that document have a number 9
associated with it?
10 MR. SAPORITO: I don't -- I don't see a 11 document number.
12 CHAIR BLOUNT: Okay. What I'm asking is, 13 is it an NRC document?
14 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I believe it -- I 15 believe it is. It is -- well, there is a -- going to 16 the very end of it here, it looks like it's 36 -- 36, 17 37 pages. It's -- well, I'm trying to find you a 18 reference. Okay. There is no -- I mean, there's a 19 bunch of NRC -- it references a bunch of NRC documents 20 at the very end of the document, but there is no --
21 there is no telling the NRC database number for this.
22 CHAIR BLOUNT: Okay. So it is the NUREG, 23 then. That's what I'm asking you. Is it --
24 MR. SAPORITO: No, it's not a -- I don't 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 believe it's a NUREG. No, I think -- I believe this 1
is a
document that was drafted by these two 2
individuals for the benefit of the NRC. And whether a 3
NUREG was developed from this I -- I can't say at this 4
point. I haven't had enough time to do further 5
research.
6 CHAIR BLOUNT: Okay. All right. That's 7
-- I was just trying to understand the genesis and the 8
basis of the document, and I think you told me 9
somewhat that it is a draft document.
10 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
11 CHAIR BLOUNT: Okay. And it was developed 12 by an NRC employee.
13 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, it appears to be.
14 H.L. Graves, III, appears to be an NRC employee, and 15 D.J. Naus appears to be an employee of the Oak Ridge 16 National Laboratory.
17 CHAIR BLOUNT:
Okay.
Gotcha.
I 18 appreciate that.
19 Let's see. At this time, does anyone at 20 the headquarters staff have any questions for Mr.
21 Saporito?
22 (No response.)
23 Okay. Looking around the table, seeing no 24 questions here, does anyone for the region have any 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 questions for Mr. Saporito?
1 MR. SYKES: No, we don't in Region II.
2 CHAIR BLOUNT: And from Crystal River NRC 3
staff?
4 MR. LAKE: No questions from Crystal River 5
NRC staff.
6 CHAIR BLOUNT: Thank you. Does the 7
licensee have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
8 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Who was 9
that from the region, the Crystal River staff? This 10 is the transcriber.
11 MR. SYKES: This was Marvin Sykes in 12 Region II.
13 MR. LAKE: This is Louis Lake down here, 14 NRC, at Crystal River.
15 MR. McCABE: Thanks, Tom. This is Brian 16 McCabe from Progress Energy. Progress Energy has no 17 questions.
18 CHAIR BLOUNT: I understand no questions.
19 Do we have any members of the public on 20 the line?
21 (No response.)
22 Is the gentleman from the press still on 23 the line?
24 MR.
DANIELSON:
- Yes, this is Rick 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 Danielson with the St. Pete[rsburg] Times. I don't 1
have any questions.
2 CHAIR BLOUNT: Before I conclude, members 3
of the public may provide comments regarding the 4
petition and ask questions. I understand you have no 5
questions at this time. Do you have any comments?
6 (No response.)
7 Understanding that there are no questions 8
or comments, Mr. Saporito, thank you very much for 9
taking the time to provide the NRC staff with 10 clarifying information on the petition you submitted.
11 Before we close, does the Court Reporter 12 require or need any additional information for the 13 meeting transcript?
14 THE COURT REPORTER: I do.
15 (Whereupon, some spellings and clarifications of 16 technical terms were provided by Mr.
17 Saporito.)
18 CHAIR BLOUNT: Very good. With that, the 19 meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating the 20 phone connection. Thank you very much for your time, 21 everyone. Have a nice day.
22 (Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the proceedings in the 23 foregoing matter were concluded.)
24 25