ML102290198
| ML102290198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 08/09/2010 |
| From: | Richard Guzman Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Guzman R, NRR/DORL, 415-1030 | |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20100454, NRC-385, OEDO-2010-0589, TAC ME4266 | |
| Download: ML102290198 (36) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Monday, August 9, 2010 Work Order No.: NRC-385 Pages 1-34 Edited by Rich Guzman, NRC 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
1 1
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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE 7 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 8 + + + + +
9 MONDAY 10 AUGUST 9, 2010 11 + + + + +
12 The conference call was held, Theodore 13 Quay, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.
15 PETITIONER: MARY ELIZABETH LAMPERT 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
17 THEODORE QUAY, Deputy Director 18 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 19 RICHARD GUZMAN, Petition Manager for 2.206 petition 20 TANYA MENSAH, Petition Review Board Coordinator 21 22 23 24 25 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
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 1 SHELDON STUCHELL, Office of Nuclear Reactor 2 Regulations, Licensing Process Branch 3 MATTHEW MCCONNELL, Office of Nuclear Reactor 4 Regulations, Electrical Engineering Branch 5 DOUGLAS DODSON, NRC Region 1, Division of Reactor 6 Projects 7 LAURA GOLDEN, Senior Attorney, Office of General 8 Counsel.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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
3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (2:01:57 p.m.)
3 MR. GUZMAN: I'm going to kickoff the 4 discussion for today. And I guess before we get into 5 introductions, I'll just say a couple of introductory 6 remarks.
7 My name is Rich Guzman, Project Manager in 8 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or NRR. I'd 9 like to thank everybody for their coordination 10 efforts, and attending this meeting.
11 The purpose of today's conference call is 12 to allow the Petitioner, Mary Lampert, to address the 13 Petition Review Board regarding the 2.206 Petition 14 dated July 19th, 2010, which is titled "Pilgrim Watch 15 2.206 Petition Regarding Inadequacy of Entergy's 16 Management of Non-Environmentally Qualified 17 Inaccessible Cables and Wiring at Pilgrim Station." I 18 am the Petition Manager for the Petition.
19 MS. LAMPERT: And, also, you'll be 20 discussing the Supplement, I presume.
21 MR. GUZMAN: We did receive the 22 Supplement, Mary Elizabeth. We have distributed it 23 amongst the group here. The Petition Review Board, or 24 PRB Chairman is Ted Quay. And before I briefly go 25 over the agenda, if we can go through introductions.
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 1 So, I'd like to open this meeting, we'll start at our 2 end of the room of the bridge line. I ask that you 3 clearly state your name, your position, and your 4 office or organization for the record. So, I'll start 5 off. Again, it's Rich Guzman, Project Manager in the 6 Office of NRR.
7 MR. McCONNELL: I am Matthew McConnell.
8 I'm a Senior Electrical Engineer in NRR.
9 MR. STUCHELL: I'm Sheldon Stuchell, 10 Senior Project Manager in the Office of NRR.
11 MS. UTTAL: Susan Uttal, Senior Attorney, 12 OGC. I'm observing.
13 MS. GOLDEN: Laura Golden, Attorney, OGC.
14 CHAIR QUAY: Ted Quay, Office of Nuclear 15 Reactor Regulation.
16 MS. REGNER: Lisa Regner, Senior Project 17 Manager.
18 MS. POPOVA: I'm Alex Popova, and I'm from 19 NRR, just observing.
20 MR. GUZMAN: And that's introductions here 21 at NRC Headquarters. And, at the time, are there any 22 NRC participants from Headquarters on the Bridge Line?
23 MS. MENSAH: This is Tanya Mensah. I'm 24 the 2.206 Coordinator. And before I pass it on, I 25 just wanted to clarify that the meeting is being 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 1 recorded by the NRC Operations Center, and it will be 2 transcribed, and the transcript will become a 3 supplement to the Petition. And the transcript will 4 also be made publicly available.
5 MS. LAMPERT: How long will it take to get 6 on ADAMS?
7 MS. MENSAH: As soon as Rich Guzman is 8 provided with the transcript by the court reporter.
9 He sends it out for comment so everyone can clarify 10 any - if there are any errors, or anything, as far as 11 typos for names. Generally, he can put it in ADAMS 12 immediately, it just depends on how fast everyone can 13 review it. You'll receive a copy of the transcript, 14 as well, but it will be public.
15 MR. GUZMAN: Mary, I expect it to be 16 within the week, but I'll certainly notify you once we 17 get it through the transcription service. Is there 18 anyone else, Tanya? I guess that -- well, actually, 19 from the Region, you can go through.
20 MR. DODSON: Hi, Doug Dodson, Project 21 Engineer, Region I.
22 MR. GUZMAN: All right. Are there any 23 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
24 MR. LYNCH: This is Joe Lynch, Licensing 25 Manager, Entergy/Pilgrim.
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 1 MS. CHOE: And this is Jeannie Choe from 2 Entergy Legal.
3 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Ms. Lampert, if you 4 could just introduce yourself, and also your 5 colleagues or associates that plan on supporting the 6 presentation today.
7 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert, Pilgrim Watch 8 Director, and why doesn't everybody who's on introduce 9 themselves? I think that would be easier.
10 MR. BLANCH: Yes. My name is Paul Blanch.
11 I'm an energy consultant, I'm an electrical engineer.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Serving as an expert witness 13 for us.
14 MR. GUNTER: This is Paul Gunter, Beyond 15 Nuclear in Tacoma Park, Maryland. I'm just listening 16 in, and I will be on mute.
17 MS. CHIN: This is Rebecca Chin. I Co-18 Chair the Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, and we 19 join the Petitioner in this case. And I will mostly 20 be observing and listening.
21 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Is there anyone else 22 for the public on the bridge line?
23 Okay. I'll go ahead and provide a brief 24 overview of the agenda. Again, the meeting is 25 scheduled from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. And as 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 1 Ms. Mensah mentioned, it is recorded by the NRC 2 Operations Center, and will be transcribed by a court 3 reporter.
4 Following my introduction, I'll turn it 5 over to the PRB Chairman for his introduction. And 6 then followed by Ms. Lampert's presentation, which is 7 scheduled to be about 30-35 minutes, and finally hand 8 it back over to the PRB Chairman, who will conclude 9 the meeting with closing remarks.
10 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 11 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 12 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. And 13 if you do have something that you would like to say, 14 please first state your name for the record. And, Mr.
15 Gunter, you mentioned you were going to mute. For 16 those dialing into the meeting, if you could remember 17 to mute your phones to minimize any background noise.
18 If you do not have a mute button, this can be done by 19 pressing the keys *6, and then to unmute press *6 keys 20 again. Thanks.
21 So, at this time, I'll turn it over to the 22 PRB Chairman, Ted Quay.
23 CHAIR QUAY: Good afternoon. Welcome to 24 this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by 25 Mary Lampert. I'd like to share, first, some 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 1 background information on our process.
2 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 3 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 4 the primary mechanism for the public to request 5 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
6 This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take 7 enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees, or 8 licensed activities.
9 Depending on the results of its 10 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an 11 NRC-issued license, or take any other appropriate 12 enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC 13 staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition 14 requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is 15 publicly available.
16 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 17 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 18 additional explanation or support for the petition 19 before the Petition Review Board's initial 20 consideration and recommendation. This meeting is not 21 a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioner 22 to question or examine the Petition Review Board on 23 the merits, or the issues presented in the petition 24 request. No decision regarding the merits of this 25 petition will be made at this meeting.
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 1 Following this meeting, the Petition 2 Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.
3 The outcome of this internal meeting will be 4 discussed with the Petitioner. The Petition Review 5 Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually a 6 Manager at the Senior Executive Service Level at the 7 NRC, and has a Petition Manager, and a Petition Review 8 Board Coordinator. Other members of the Board are 9 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 10 the information in the petition request.
11 At this time, I would like to introduce 12 the Board. I am Ted Quay, the Petition Review Board 13 Chairman. Rich Guzman is the Petition Manager for the 14 petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 15 Office Petition Review Board Coordinator. Our 16 technical staff includes Sheldon Stuchell from the 17 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Licensing 18 Process Branch; Matt McConnell from the Office of 19 Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Electrical Engineering 20 Branch; Douglas Dodson from NRC Region I, Division of 21 Reactor Projects. We also obtain advice from our 22 Office of General Counsel, represented by Laura 23 Golden.
24 As described in our process, the NRC staff 25 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 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 1 understand the Petitioner's presentation, and to reach 2 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 3 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 4 process.
5 I would like to summarize the scope of the 6 petition under consideration, and the NRC activities 7 to-date. On July 19th, 2010, Ms. Lampert submitted to 8 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding Entergy's 9 management of non-environmentally qualified 10 inaccessible cables and wirings in the Pilgrim 11 Station. In this request, Ms. Lampert requested the 12 NRC to issue a demand for information and order for 13 Entergy to demonstrate that all inaccessible cables at 14 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, referred to 15 subsequently as Pilgrim, are capable of performing 16 their intended function, be it safety or non-safety 17 related, certify that all cables inaccessible or 18 accessible have been identified as to their location, 19 age, repair history to both the NRC and public at 20 Pilgrim. And (B), monitored by the licensee prior to 21 continued operation to demonstrate that the cables can 22 perform their designed functions. And (C), includes a 23 monitoring program that incorporates various DOE and 24 EPRI guidelines, and NRC generic communications.
25 Also, asked that commits to verifying the licensee 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 1 renewal period that Entergy's implementation through 2 the routine baseline inspections and commits to a 3 timely upgrade of regulatory guidance to provide 4 guidance for maintaining the cable qualification and 5 verification that the cables can perform their design 6 functions.
7 As the basis for this request, Ms. Lampert 8 states that Pilgrim, like all other nuclear power 9 plants, have thousands of submerged/underground 10 internal electric wiring and cables throughout the 11 plant that support safety and non-safety systems.
12 These systems are dependent upon electrical power to 13 perform its function to prevent major accidents.
14 The Petitioner is also concerned that the 15 loss of electrical power will increase the likelihood 16 of major radioactive releases to the environment.
17 Also, the Petitioner states that Pilgrim has a long 18 history of cables being submerged and/or wedded with 19 no verification of long-term operability of these 20 cables.
21 In addition, the Petitioner states that 22 Entergy and the NRC have ignored regulations that 23 provide reasonable assurance that these wires/cables 24 will function when required during reactor 25 emergencies.
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 1 As a reminder for the phone participants, 2 please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as 3 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 4 transcript that will be made publicly available.
5 Thank you.
6 At this point, I'm going to turn it over 7 to Ms. Lampert.
8 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Good afternoon.
9 Number one, at this time, does NRC see any 10 shortcomings in the petition that would provide a 11 basis for its rejection? And, if so, could you please 12 enumerate shortcomings you see at this point. That's 13 a procedural question.
14 CHAIR QUAY: We're not going to do that, 15 because we're here to gather information from you 16 today.
17 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Next point is, you 18 did a good job outlining the scope, and what we are 19 saying is that Pilgrim is currently in violation of 20 regulations today. And that the Aging Management 21 Program for the license renewal period does not 22 provide reasonable assurance. And, as importantly, 23 neither NRC or Entergy know the extent of violations, 24 because the necessary information that we requested is 25 not there. In particular, we understand that non-EQ 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 1 inaccessible cables, and when we said cables and 2 wiring, we were including, and I want to make that 3 clear, cable splices and connectors in the package, so 4 it's the cable, cable splice, and connectors that is 5 the focus of this petition. That they are potentially 6 exposed to submergence or moisture; therefore, it's 7 very important for NRC and the public to know the 8 location of every single component under scope to 9 determine the probability of moisture.
10 This is particularly important at Pilgrim 11 because they have not performed an updated hydro geo 12 study using -- investigating the subsurface since the 13 pre-operational Dames & Moore study in 1967. This is 14 a concern of the Massachusetts Department of Public 15 Health, a concern in a contention brought forward for 16 license renewal on buried components, and a large 17 concern here.
18 There has been a change in climate 19 affecting tidal surges, and it's very important, as 20 the Brookhaven report pointed out at 4-18, that there 21 be real specific information on water table depth, and 22 how the water table is affected by tides, by the Bay, 23 by storms, by rain, by snow. Pilgrim is adjacent to 24 Cape Cod Bay, and moisture is a clear and present 25 issue.
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 1 Also, we would like to know and the age 2 provided of all of these components, because the 3 Brookhaven report pointed out that they are 4 experiencing problems short of their 40-year license, 5 as early as 11 to 20 years, and so we want to know are 6 these original cables, how much has been replaced or 7 added, what the material is of these components, are 8 they qualified for submerged operation. Brookhaven 9 said they should be specifically procured as submarine 10 cables, and we would like to know a detailed 11 assessment of what the monitoring and testing 12 inspection history has been, and exactly what is 13 projected for the future.
14 For example, in the inspection report 15 which was provided in the supplement, we saw that 16 there are three samples of manholes, period. We would 17 like to know in that, for example, what percent that 18 is of the number of manholes that would be applicable.
19 Are there 30, are there 40, are there five? How many 20 are there? So, to understand how representative that 21 sample was.
22 We were told -- we read in that report 23 that one of the manholes was periodically found 24 submerged or partially submerged, and the other two 25 were always found submerged. And, more important, 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 1 they identified that this was an ongoing problem, and 2 that Entergy has not been following the protocol. So, 3 I could go on, but I'd like to turn this over at this 4 point to Paul Blanch, who has recently retired from 5 the Millstone, a Nuclear Engineer specializing in 6 electrical engineering. So, Paul, why don't you 7 carry, and then I'll chime in, as others might also 8 want to do.
9 MR. BLANCH: Thank you, Mary. This is 10 Paul Blanch, again. Ted, it's been a few years since 11 we've had any conversations, I think, and Sheldon, we 12 talked last week about the submerging topic.
13 What I'd first like to do is, I wasn't 14 totally pleased about one of the responses the NRC 15 staff provided. And my concern is, did we meet the 16 legal threshold, or did we omit anything from the 17 requirements on the 2.206 petition. Now, I've read 18 Management Directive 8.11, I've read 2.206, and I just 19 wanted to make sure that there's not a shortcoming 20 within the verbiage of the petition and the 21 supplements that will say well, you forgot to do this.
22 I want to make sure that from your perspective, 23 there's not a legal shortcoming in the submission 24 that's just going to throw it out because every I is 25 not dotted, and T crossed. And I think that's a 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 1 reasonable request at this time.
2 MS. MENSAH: This is Tanya Mensah. I'm 3 the 2.206 Coordinator. I think your question is fair, 4 and you're actually ahead of us. There are two 5 opportunities that are offered for the Petitioner to 6 address the PRB. The first is before the Petition 7 Review Board even meets internally to address that 8 question. So, at this point we're gathering 9 information from the Petitioner. We have the actual 10 petition, the supplement, and when we meet internally, 11 we're going to be looking at the criteria to determine 12 that, as well as if it meets the criteria for review, 13 or the criteria for rejection. So, at this point, I 14 don't think we can answer that question, because Ms.
15 Lampert indicated that she wanted to address the 16 Petition Review Board before we met internally to 17 address that.
18 MR. BLANCH: Okay. I was just wondering 19 whether there were any clear shortcomings, and from my 20 review in dealing with this Agency for many years, it 21 seems to be complete.
22 But, anyway, I would like to just start o 23 page 1 of the July 19th petition. I assume everyone's 24 got a copy. And it starts out in Paragraph 1, 25 "Inaccessible Cables." And I want to make sure that 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 1 inaccessible cables is understood to mean the same 2 thing. It's those cables that are not readily 3 viewable by a normal person on his normal rounds.
4 This does not only mean buried cables, but it could be 5 cables within conduit, within buildings, and so and so 6 forth. So, it goes beyond just those cables that are 7 buried underground. It's inaccessible cable, and 8 these are cables that are, again, primarily covered 9 under 10 CFR Part 54, and 10 CFR 50.65, which is the 10 Maintenance Rule. And I want to make sure it's very 11 clear, because the Gall report is not very clear that 12 it covers high voltage, medium, low voltage, power 13 cables, control cables, and instrumentation cables, 14 and indicating cables for those systems that are 15 covered either under Part 54 or the Maintenance Rule.
16 And the second -- the first line of the 17 second paragraph, that "The NRC certifies," I'm not 18 sure certifies is the right word here, but I think the 19 intent here was to demonstrate that the plant is in 20 compliance with the Federal Regulations stated in 10 21 CFR.
22 Third line up from the bottom, there's 23 reference to "Regulatory Guidance." The intent there, 24 Mary, correct me if I'm wrong, it says, "Timely 25 upgrade to Regulatory Guidance." It's really meant to 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 1 mean upgrades to demonstrate compliance with 2 Regulatory Requirements. We're talking requirements 3 here, not guidance.
4 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, that's correct.
5 MR. BLANCH: Guidance is not enforceable, 6 only regulations are enforceable.
7 Switching over to page 3, the bottom of 8 page 3 under "Degradation of conduits and submerged 9 cables," I want to makes sure where it says "moist or 10 submerged environment," that the Staff takes into 11 consideration that it's not only moist and/or 12 submerged, that it could contain very, very high 13 concentration of salts, which is different from a lot 14 of plants that are located inland, Pilgrim, Seabrook, 15 Millstone, we all know that they're in a very 16 chemically corrosive environment, which makes them 17 different from somewhere like Palo Verde, or Wolfe 18 Creek.
19 Footnote Five at the end of page 3, where 20 it says, "General Design Criteria 4 within Appendix A 21 and 10 CFR 50." Now, Appendix B has to be included in 22 there, and it's intended to be included. Now, it says 23 in here, "General Design Criterion 4," and I know the 24 NRC has switched around the criterion, and I know it 25 normally refers to Criterion 4, but the NRC has this 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 1 interpretation that some plants prior to July 17th of 2 1971. But whatever General Design Criteria it is, is 3 the one that's intended here. It's General Design 4 Criteria now as stated in Appendix A to 10 CFR 50.
5 The applicability of 50.49 is in question.
6 I believe that is covered by Environmental 7 Qualification, but I don't think that we're 8 questioning, Mary, correct me if I'm wrong, 50.49, 9 which is the Environmental Qualification Rule. We're 10 talking about non-environmentally qualified cables.
11 I'm just going through this. Again, as 12 Mary said before, we said wires, cables, but 13 connections, splices, and any other sealant material 14 that is used in connection of cables that are 15 inaccessible.
16 I'm on page 5 now. At the top of page 5, 17 the first full paragraph, it starts out, "The age and 18 degradation of wires is commonly the result of 19 deterioration of wiring insulation." There are 20 different aging mechanisms here, and one of the aging 21 mechanisms is just environmental exposure of the 22 insulation to the environment, whether it be just 23 normal environment, or moist, or wet, or salt. But 24 there's also another aspect of this that has to be 25 considered, that there's another aging mechanism, and 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 1 I Sheldon and I discussed this in a conference call 2 last week, and that is when cables are energized and 3 carrying large amounts of current, there's a heating 4 factor that actually accelerates aging, sometimes 5 referred to as Ohmic Heating, O-H-M-I-C, or I Square R 6 Losses. Heating due to the current passing through 7 the wire, which is a different mechanism.
8 Let me see. I'm going through this.
9 Okay. The NRC typically responds -- I'm on page 6 now 10 under Item 14. And this is what I find totally 11 unsatisfactory, as far as a resolution to a regulatory 12 problem. If we look at number 14 it says, "The NRC 13 made its Information Notice 2002, 12 submerged 14 electrical cables they identified at Oyster Creek, 15 Pilgrim, Brunswick, Davis-Besse." Sheldon and I 16 discussed this at a conference call last week. I have 17 problem with the issuance of Regulatory Guides, 18 Information Notices, and any other transmissions of 19 NRC documents that don't require compliance, or 20 demonstrate incompliance with regulations.
21 We've living with regulations, and I just 22 found out today that the NRC issued an Information 23 Notice, and I think it was Information Notice 2010-12 24 that had to do with a containment. And it's an 25 Information Notice, like they put out on electrical 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 1 cables, "This Information Notice is for information 2 purposes only, requires no response, and requires no 3 action." An Information or a Regulatory Guide to 4 solve a regulatory problem is unsatisfactory. These 5 plants need to be in compliance with the regulations, 6 with all the regulations that are applicable. And if 7 they're not in compliance, they specifically need an 8 exemption under 50.12 to that particular requirement.
9 Information Notices, Regulatory Guides, Bulletins 10 unless they require compliance, or specify compliance 11 with a particular regulation may not, necessarily, do 12 the trick.
13 So, the key here -- the key of all these 14 issues is the NRC has a job to do, and its job is to 15 assure that these plants are compliant with 16 regulations. And for the NRC to state that the risk 17 of these cables, or any other system is low because 18 its probability of being needed is, essentially, not 19 regulatory-based, we don't have risk-based regulations 20 at this time. Maybe in the future, we will. But when 21 the NRC cites in a non-cited violation like at 22 Vermont, where their non-compliance for the 23 regulation, they cannot -- they don't have, as far as 24 I'm concerned that I'm aware of, any regulatory basis 25 without an exemption to allow that plant to continue 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 1 to operate without compliance with the regulations.
2 MS. LAMPERT: And there's also a fine that 3 should be kicked in. When they're not -- when they're 4 found not in compliance with the regulations, then 5 there's a clause for a fine, so many dollars a day 6 until they get into compliance. And that certainly is 7 an incentive for the licensee to provide the safety 8 that the public deserves, and that the regulations aim 9 to assure. Go on, Paul.
10 MR. BLANCH: Yes. And, again, I'm still 11 on page 6 of the original petition, and I look at the 12 next paragraph where it starts out, "The NRC 13 inspection reports for the last 10 years identified 14 cable performance." Now here's the NRC, itself, 15 identifying violation of regulations, and they're 16 doing nothing. They give them a slap on the wrist, 17 and say you're a bad boy. We're going to give you a 18 green non-cited violation like they did at Vermont.
19 They've done it at Pilgrim, they've done it at every 20 plant. There is no incentive for a licensee to take 21 any action to fix any problem if all it receives is a 22 green non-cited violate.
23 The NRC has to do its job and enforce 24 those regulations, or change the regulations.
25 Actually, you said -
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 1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. I said in our 2 supplement there was a prime example that they were 3 given a green, and some gobbledygook on -- to justify 4 the green.
5 MR. BLANCH: Yes. I'm switching over now 6 to page 7. And under number 17, it's non-EEQ 7 inaccessible medium voltage cable." Now, here's an 8 example. This is probably the grossest example I've 9 seen of NRC accepting NEI proposed systems.
10 It says at the bottom of 17, or the first 11 paragraph of 17, "Significant voltage exposure is 12 defined as being subject to a system voltage for more 13 than 25 percent of the time." This is the most 14 ludicrous statement that has been accepted by the NRC 15 as I've ever seen in my life. We have emergency 16 motors, valves, pumps, generators that are all 17 operating less than 25 percent of the time. So, what 18 this paragraph is saying is, we are only going to test 19 those cables that are energized more than 25 percent 20 of the time. What this paragraph is saying is, I 21 don't have to ever test any of the emergency cables 22 that are only used in an emergency. This is 23 incredible that I see that in a license renewal 24 application, and then it gets accepted by the NRC that 25 it's okay. It's like saying I don't have to test my 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 1 brake lines, or visually inspect them because they're 2 only used 1 percent of the time; therefore, they're 3 exempt. So, when the NRC can accept a program where 4 you don't have to test cables because they're used 5 less than 25 percent of the time is not -- the NRC is 6 not performing its proper regulatory function.
7 Also, in the LRA for Pilgrim, there are no 8 programs for low-voltage cables. This is anything 9 under, I'm not sure how low-voltage is defined, but 10 it's either under 2,000 or 1,000 volts, so this 11 excludes all those safety-related cables that are less 12 than either 1,000 or 2,000. And this is most of the 13 motor-operated valves, and it may be some of the 14 pumps, and control systems. That needs to be 15 resolved.
16 On the top of page 8, it says, "A 17 representative sample of accessible insulated cables."
18 That is, to me, a meaningless statement. How do we 19 assure that it's a representative sample? Again, the 20 LRA is referring to Section -- to an EPRI document, TR 21 109619, not totally familiar with that. I'm not 22 totally assured that it will detect degraded cables.
23 It's the NRC's responsibility to assure that these 24 cables can be detected.
25 I mean, I can go on, and on. I think the 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 1 petition was put together very well. The Sandia 2 Report 960344 is a reasonable program. On page 10, 3 again, I just -- it stated that Pilgrim has no program 4 whatsoever for low-voltage cables, however they're 5 defined. A lot of this -- let's see.
6 Again, I've got a comment, it just 7 reinforces a comment I made before. Again, accessible 8 has got to mean everything that is not visible. Okay.
9 Well, again, Mary says there's no reason to believe 10 that accessible cables were representative of 11 inaccessible cables. That is an absolute true 12 statement, because accessible cables will not be 13 submerged in water, so evaluating accessible cables, 14 which are not involved, submerged in water or 15 moisture, is not representative.
16 Again, Paragraph 21, "Pilgrim should 17 operate in compliance with Federal Regulations, or not 18 at all." That is a stronger statement there. We have 19 regulations that were approved by Congress, they're 20 approved through a Rulemaking process, and the plants 21 have to operate within regulations.
22 Paragraph 22 says, "Therefore, we 23 respectfully request that the NRC certifies,"
24 certifies is not really something I think that the NRC 25 does, but that it identifies and issues some type of 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 1 SER that says these cables are capable of performing 2 their function during an accident.
3 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Well, let me just add 4 right there, this is Mary on the telephone, that as 5 far as monitoring, inspecting, testing, let's remember 6 we're focusing on two parties, focusing on the 7 licensee doing that, and being required to, and 8 demonstrating they have, and that the NRC also 9 monitors, inspects, tests, so there is oversight, and 10 we cannot have a situation where the NRC, essentially, 11 takes the word of, or reads some report, and that's 12 the end of the game. Go ahead, Paul.
13 MR. BLANCH: Okay. I'd like to -- again, 14 I'm just going over -- I mean, I've got some editorial 15 comments, but if we go to the August 6, page 3, it 16 talks about the inspection report. And down at the 17 bottom it reads, "The NRC staff evaluated the findings 18 described in the foregoing with a green to indicate 19 low safety, despite describing a finding that it was 20 limiting the likelihood of those events." Likelihood, 21 probability has little play within the regulations.
22 Again, we don't have risk-based regulation 23 yet, and by the NRC knowing there is a violation of 24 the regulation, and not willing to bring the plant 25 into compliance with that regulation, and saying it's 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 1 not significant, is not responsible regulation, as far 2 as I'm concerned.
3 And then on page 4, Paragraph 3, where 4 it's titled "Enforcement," the NRC gave four reasons 5 for not administering enforcement action. They said 6 that, "Traditional enforcement did not apply as the 7 issue did not have actual or potential safety 8 consequences." That I don't believe, unless I'm 9 wrong, my reading of the regulations, but it is not in 10 there as far as the potential consequences, but I've 11 been wrong before.
12 And then it goes on at the end of 13 Paragraph 3, "This finding did not involve enforcement 14 action because no regulatory requirement violation was 15 identified." You know, it's circular logic. And, 16 perhaps, they said it violates Appendix B, a violation 17 of General Design Criteria, but now they're saying no 18 regulatory violation. And, again, I want to make sure 19 it includes low-voltage cable, all the way down to 20 instrument, and indicating light cable. Again, it's 21 more repetitive.
22 Oh, the other thing I have. Because a 23 cable is operating in an environment that it is not 24 designed or specified for, and let's say I have a 25 cable that's in the conduit, and that conduit or 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 1 manhole is full of water. And if that cable has not 2 been specified to operate in that environment, when I 3 say specified, I mean per the procurement 4 specification, and the Quality Assurance, then it is 5 my opinion, based on the technical specification, 6 based on the definition of operability that the 7 components that are powered, or energized by that 8 cable that is operating in an environment that it was 9 not designed for cannot be considered operable until 10 proper testing is done to ascertain that that cable 11 is, in fact, operable because of its design documents.
12 And simple testing, a 10-minute test once a month, 13 once a quarter is not sufficient, and that is for the 14 reason I stated before, that one of the major aging 15 factors is due to the heating of the current caused by 16 the energization of the connected components.
17 I'm not sure where I am on time. Again, 18 I've got to note that the salt environment must be 19 considered. During the construction of Millstone III, 20 and Millstone II, I actually witnessed the pulling of 21 cables. I have seen splices in cables, in conduits, 22 and those must be identified, whether they're 23 documented or not. We don't -- I'm not sure Pilgrim 24 is aware if there are splices in cables that are 25 buried and submerged within conduits.
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 1 Let's see. Again -
2 MS. LAMPERT: That was one of the 3 questions -- this is Mary. That was one of the 4 questions that we asked to be answered, the repair 5 history. So, that should be answered, and that 6 question flows.
7 MR. BLANCH: Yes.
8 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. This is the 9 court reporter. There's some sort of feedback coming 10 through, or sound coming from someone's phone.
11 MS. LAMPERT: It's static on the line.
12 COURT REPORTER: Okay. The static is 13 gone. Okay. You can continue.
14 MR. BLANCH: Well, I would just like --
15 again, on page 14 of the supplement. This is Paul 16 Blanch, again. Where it says under Paragraph 5.2 of 17 Mary's supplement, "Unless the installed cables have 18 been procured specifically for continuous submergence 19 or submarine operation," basically, they have not --
20 are not capable, or not have been demonstrated to be 21 operable; and, therefore, the components that they're 22 supplying power should be considered inoperable. And 23 it is, in my mind, a clear violation. We don't need 24 Regulatory Guides, we don't need Generic Letters, we 25 don't need Information Notices, we need the NRC to do 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 1 its job; and that is to enforce the existing 2 regulations. We're not asking for a rule change.
3 We're asking for enforcement, and we're asking not 4 only for the identification that will explain the 5 degree of enforcement or non-compliance, but if after 6 that's identified then we're just going to see what 7 happens, as far as enforcement action. But the first 8 step is to identify the degree of non-compliance with 9 the regulations.
10 So, with that, I'll turn it over to anyone 11 else that has any questions. Thank you.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Paul, or Rebecca Chin, do 13 you have any comments?
14 MS. CHIN: I guess not at this time. I'm 15 taking notes, and perhaps later. Thank you.
16 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, Paul's on mute.
17 MR. GUNTER: This is Paul. I have no 18 comments at this time.
19 MR. BLANCH: That was Paul Gunter.
20 MS. LAMPERT: Right. Now, does the NRC 21 have any questions of the Petitioners?
22 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. I'm going to ask here, 23 does anybody in Headquarters have any questions for 24 the Petitioner? Seeing none.
25 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. With that being the 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 1 case -
2 MR. GUZMAN: Mary?
3 MS. LAMPERT: For clarification, we want 4 to be sure that it is understood what is meant by 5 "inaccessible," and that cables and wiring include the 6 splices and the connectors. And for aging, we also 7 add, in particular, the salt in our environment, and 8 we also add the issue of heating, because of the 9 amount of electricity being carried for analyzing 10 degradation. And low-voltage, it's stated in the 11 petition, but we wanted to emphasize its importance.
12 Is there anything else you want to sum up, Paul?
13 MR. BLANCH: Yes. I just wanted to say 14 that EPRI is a great organization. I worked with 15 them, I worked for them. However, I want everyone to 16 realize that EPRI is fully funded by the utilities.
17 Obviously, their independence is somewhat 18 questionable. I put more credence in the Brookhaven 19 document that has a little independence, because it is 20 sponsored by both the Department of Energy, and the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And, also, in Sandia, 22 these studies are not, necessarily, funded by the 23 utilities. And as far as the priority, believability 24 of documents, you know, I put Brookhaven and Sandia on 25 top, EPRI down, third-level, very credible, 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 1 independent organization. And as far as NEI 2 documents, I won't even comment on the independence of 3 those documents, but their guidance is certainly 4 influenced by their motivation.
5 MR. GUZMAN: At this time, I'd like to ask 6 if the Region has any questions for the Petitioner?
7 MR. DODSON: No questions from the Region.
8 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Does the licensee have 9 any questions?
10 MR. LYNCH: No questions.
11 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Before I conclude the 12 meeting, members of the public may provide comments 13 regarding the petition, and ask questions about the 14 2.206 petition process. However, as stated at the 15 opening, the purpose of this meeting is not to provide 16 an opportunity for the Petitioner or public to 17 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 18 the petition requested. Does any member of the public 19 have any comments?
20 MS. LAMPERT: My only question would be, I 21 assume we do not have to put into writing the 22 clarifying statements or other statements made during 23 this teleconference, that they are automatically 24 included, or not?
25 MR. GUZMAN: This is Rich Guzman. That's 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 1 correct. So, at the conclusion of this call, we'll 2 have a transcribed document that will be included as 3 part of your petition package. And that will -- I'll 4 provide you a copy of that, and will be publicly 5 available.
6 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. And here's just a 7 comment. I will not have any email capability for the 8 next probably 12 hours, because, ironically, an 9 electric fence was being put into our property because 10 my grand-dog is, of course, now my dog, and they -- in 11 putting in the electric fence for the dog, they 12 managed to cut the wire for the cable. So, I think 13 that was an example of what can happen.
14 MR. BLANCH: Was it buried, Mary?
15 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, it was buried.
16 MR. BLANCH: Inaccessible -
17 mS. LAMPERT: Do I believe this or not?
18 MR. GUZMAN: I don't have any clarifying 19 questions to that -
20 mS. LAMPERT: Neither do I.
21 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Ms. Lampert, thank you 22 for your taking the time to provide the NRC staff with 23 clarifying information on the petition you've 24 submitted.
25 MS. LAMPERT: Well, look, thanks for the 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 1 opportunity, and I've enjoyed your emails and efforts 2 to get it all together. Thank you.
3 MR. GUZMAN: Before we close, does the 4 court reporter need any additional information for the 5 meeting transcript? Is the court reporter on line?
6 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I'm here. Just give 7 me a second.
8 MS. LAMPERT: You don't really need to put 9 the grand-dog story in.
10 (Laughter.)
11 COURT REPORTER: There was someone named 12 Alex. I didn't get his last name.
13 MS. POPOVA: Oh, Popova, P-O-P-O-V-A.
14 COURT REPORTER: That's P-O-P -
15 MR. GUZMAN: O-V-A.
16 (Off the record comments.)
17 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. Is that it?
18 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I believe so.
19 MR. GUZMAN: Okay. With that, this 20 meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating the 21 phone connection. Thank you, everybody.
22 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 23 record at 2:51 p.m.)
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