ML110310378
| ML110310378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/20/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-670, G20100694, OEDO-2010-0941 | |
| Download: ML110310378 (29) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board Vermont Yankee Docket Number:
50-271 Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, January 20, 2011 Work Order No.:
NRC-670 Pages 1-27 ORIGINAL NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) x IN THE MATTER OF:
Vermont Yankee 10 CFR Petition from Raymond Shadis Docket No.
50-271 x
Thursday, January 20, 2011 The above-entitled oral replay was conducted at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
TED QUAY JAMES KIM RAYMOND SHADIS PAUL BLANCH CHRIS HOTT Chairman, Petition Review Board Vermont Yankee Petition Manager Petitioner New England Coalition Senior Enforcement Specialist, Office of Enforcement NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE (CONTINUED):
BRETT KLUKAN TANYA MENSAH NANCY SALGADO THOMAS SETZER AMELIA SHEA SUSAN SMALLHEER CLAY TURNBULL JAY WALLACE Office of General Counsel Division of Policy and Rulemaking, NRR Branch Chief, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Division of Reactor Projects New England Coalition Rutland Herald New England Coalition Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com
3 1
P RO C E E D I NG S 2
(9:00 a.m.)
3 MR.
KIM:
Good morning.
I'd like to thank 4
everybody for attending this meeting.
5 My name is James Kim.
And I'm the Vermont 6
Yankee Petition Manager.
7 We are here today to allow the Petitioner, 8
Mr.
Raymond Shadis, to address the Petition Review 9
Board regarding the proposed petition dated November 10 17th, 2010.
11 I
am the Petition Manager for the 12 petition.
The Petition Review Board Chairman is Ted 13 Quay.
As part of the Petition Review Board's review 14 of this petition, Mr.
Raymond Shadis has requested 15 this opportunity to address the PRB.
16 This meeting is scheduled from 9:00 to 17 10:00 a.m.
The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 18 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 19 reporter.
The transcript will become a supplement to 20 the petition.
The transcript will also be made 21 publicly available.
22 I'd like to open this meeting with 23 introductions.
As we go around the room, please be 24 sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 25 the office that you work for within the NRC 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
4 1
record.
2 I'll start off.
This is James Kim.
I'm 3
a Project Manager for the Division of Operating 4
Reactor Licensing in NRR.
5 MS.
SALGADO:
This is Nancy Salgado.
I'm 6
the Branch.Chief in the Division of Operating Reactor 7
Licensing.
8 MR.
HOTT:
This is Chris Hott.
I'm a 9
Senior Enforcement Specialist in the Office of 10 Enforcement.
11 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
- Jim, just for your 12 records, Hott is spelled H-O-T-T.
13 This is Ted Quay.
I'm in the Division of 14 Policy and Rulemaking in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 15 Regulation.
16 MR.
WALLACE:
This is Jay Wallace.
I'm a 17 Materials Engineer also in NRR.
18 MS.
MENSAH:
This is Tanya Mensah.
I'm 19 the T206 Coordinator in the Division of Policy and 20 Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
21 MR.
KIM:
Okay.
At this time, are there 22 any NRC participants from the headquarters on the 23 phone?
24 (No response.)
2'5 MR.
KIM:
Hello, Regional Office on 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
5 1
phone?
2 MR.
SETZER:
- Yes, hello.
This is Tom 3
Setzer.
I'm a Senior Project Engineer for Region I, 4
Division of Reactor, Projects.
5 MR.
KIM:
We have another gentleman that 6
just joined us.
7 MR.
KLUKAN:
Hi, this is Brett Klukan.
8 I'm the Attorney Representative from the Office of 9
General Counsel.
10 MR.
KIM:
At this time, are there any 11 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
12 MR. DeVINCENTIS:
Yes, Jim DeVincentis, D, 13 as in
- David, E-V as in Victor-I-N-C-E-N-T-I-S.
I'm 14 with Entergy Nuclear Operations.
15 MR.
KIM:
Mr.
- Shadis, would you please 16 introduce yourself for the record?
17 MS.
SHEA:
Amelia Shay, I'm with the New 18 England Coalition.
19 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Mr.
Shadis?
20 (No response.)
21 MR.
TURNBULL:
And this is Clay Turnbull 22 with the New England Coalition.
23 MR.
BLANCH:
This is Paul Blanch.
I'm an 24 energy consultant to New England Coalition.
They must 25 have an ice storm up in Maine.
We lost Mr.
Shadis.
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
CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Yes, we'll hold on for a 2
couple of minutes while he tries to rejoin us.
3 MR.
KIM:
Is this Mr.
Shadis?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Who just joined the phone 6
call?
7 MS.
SMALLHEER:
Susan Smallheer from the 8
Rutland Herald in Vermont.
9 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Thank you.
We're waiting 10 for Mr.
Shadis to join the line.
He was on and I 11 think he dropped off.
12 MR.
KIM:
Do we have Mr.
Shadis on the 13 line?
14 MR.
SHADIS:
Yes, this is Ray Shadis.
15 MR.
KIM:
- Okay, Mr.
- Shadis, will you 16 please introduce yourself for the record?
17 MR.
SHADIS:
- Yes, my name is Raymond 18 Shadis.
I am with New England Coalition in 19 Brattleboro, Vermont.
20 MR.
KIM:
Okay.
Thank you.
21 I'd like to emphasize that we each to 22 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 23 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
If 24 you do have something that you would like to say, 25 please first state your name for the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
For those dialing into the meeting, please remember to mute your phone to minimize any background noise or distraction.
If you do not have a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.
To unmute, press the *6 keys again.
Thank you.
At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB Chairman, Ted Quay.
CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Good morning.
Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Mr.
Shadis.
I would like to first share some background information on our process.
Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
This process permits anyone to petition the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem.
The NRC's staff guidance for disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
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
The purpose of today's meeting is to give 2
the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 3
additional explanation or support for the petition 4
before the Petition Review Board's initial 5
consideration and recommendation.
6 This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 7
opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 8
the Petition Review Board on the merits or the issues 9
presented in the petition request.
No decisions 10 regarding the merits of this petition will be made at 11 this meeting.
12 Following this
- meeting, the Petition 13 Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.
14 The outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed 15 with the Petitioner.
16 The Petition Review Board typically 17 consists of a chairman, usually a-manager at the
.18 Senior Executive Service level at the NRC.
And has a 19 Petition Manager and a
Petition Review Board 20 Coordinator.
Other members of the Board are 21 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of 22 the 'information in the petition request.
23 At this time, I'd like to introduce the C
24 Board.
I am Ted Quay, the Petition Review Board 25 Chairman.,
James Kim is the Petition Manager for the K
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
petition under discussion today.
Tanya Mensah is the 2
Office Petition Review Board Coordinator.
3 Our technical staff includes Jay Wallace 4
from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Piping, 5
and Non-Destructive Examination Branch, Thomas Setzer 6
'from NRC's Region I, Division of Reactor Projects.
7 As described in our process, the NRC staff 8
may ask clarifying questions in order to better 9
understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 10 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 11 Petitioner's request for a review under the 2.206 12 process.
13 I would like to summarize the scope of the 14 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 15 date.
16 On November 17, 2010, Mr. Shadis submitted 17 to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the 18 feedwater inspection port leak at Vermont Yankee 19 Nuclear Power Station.
In this petition request, Mr.
20 Shadis requested that the NRC:
21
- One, require Entergy Nuclear. Vermont 22 Yankee to do a thorough root cause analysis of Vermont 23 Yankee's recent reactor feedwater piping system 24 inspection port leak; 25
- Two, require Entergy Nuclear Vermont 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
Yankee to perform a comprehensive extent of condition 2
review regarding the condition of all feedwater 3
piping.
4 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 5
date.
6 On November 23rd, 2010, you requested to 7
address the Petition Review Board prior to its initial 8
meeting to provide supplemental information for the 9
Board's consideration.
10 By teleconference on December 8th, Mr.
11
- Shadis, you provided information to the Petition 12 Review Board as further explanation and support for 13 your petition and a
copy of the transcript was 14 forwarded to you.
15 The Petition Review Board met on December 16 20th to discuss your petition and make an initial 17 recommendation that the petition did not meet the 18 criteria for review.
The petition did not contain a 19 request for enforcement-related actionbecause there 20 was no underlying violation associated with your 21 request.
22 On December 21st, you were informed of the 23 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation that 24 the petition did not meet the criteria for review.
25 The petition did not contain a
request for 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
enforcement-related action because there was no 2
underlying violation associated with your request.
3 You requested a
root cause analysis/extent of 4
condition review of the feedwater piping system at 5
Vermont Yankee but this is not required by regulation.
6 The original leak was in a non-safety-related piping 7
and, therefore, 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion 16, 8
Corrective Action, did not apply.
9 On January 4th, you requested another 10 opportunity to address the Petition Review Board to 11 provide any relevant information to support your 12 petition.
This phone call is for you to provide that 13 information.
14 As a reminder for the phone participants, 15 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 16 this will help in the preparation of the meeting 17 transcript that will be made publicly available.
18 Thank you.
19 And at this point, Mr. Shadis, I'll turn 20 it over to you.
21 MR.
SHADIS:
Thank you very much.
22 I
would like to break this into' two 23 sections, one dealing with the question of whether or 24 not there was any violation of regulation.
And the 25 second dealing with the question of the relevance 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
12 1
this system in terms of safety.
2
- Firstly, the NRC has discretion in terms 3
of actions it will take to protect public health and 4
safety.
So on that basis, rather than on enforcement 5
of a given regulation, we ask that the PRB reconsider 6
it's preliminary decision.
7 The provision of accurate information 8
regarding plant condition is basic to safety review.
9 And so the correction action program is an inspection 10 target.
I believe there is actually an inspection 11 module in the ROP that is the corrective action 12 program.
13 When a material defect is found and is 14 relegated to the corrective action program, essential 15 elements of that filing are to determine the cause of 16 the defect and to determine where else in the plant 17 that defect may occur.
In other words, the root cause 18 analysis and the extent of the condition review are 19 essential elements of having any issue properly 20 addressed in the corrective action program.
21 I would suggest that, you know, if you 22 need a regulatory enforcement handle outside of the 23 run of discretion, then the licensee's responsibility 24 to operate a effective, credible corrective action 25 program is one place where that would attach.
And I 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
think the other is in providing accurate and complete 2
information to NRC with respect to the material 3
condition of the plant.
4 The question of and I take it that it 5
was the maln point really in the preliminary decision 6
that the feedwater system is not a safety system.
And 7
I would point out, however, that the feedwater system 8
is within the scope for license renewal for aging 9
management review and for aging management itself.
10 And this could be --
reference to this 11 could be found in the staff's final safety evaluation 12 report for the Vermont Yankee license renewal 13 amendment, Section 2.3.1, the reactor coolant system.
14 In the summary of technical information in that SER, 15 there's a description of the nuclear boiler system.
16 And it points out that the feedwater 17
- system, the integrity of the feedwater system may 18 interplay, may be essential, in fact, to the operation 19 of the reactor core isolation cooling system and the 20 high pressure coolant injection system.
The feedwater 21 lines are there for the injection of the HIPC and the 22 RCIC.
23 This goes to NRC's acknowledgment that 24 non-safety-related systems that may impact safety-25 related systems or interact with safety-related 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
systems are subject to aging management review and to 2
So, you know --
and I know that 3
when the LRA --
when the license renewal is actually 4
finally issued, that NRC has it in its program to do 5
a follow-up inspection that presumably would confirm 6
aging management on all of these systems.
7 It is you know we don't understand how 8
one can assert that they have an adequate aging 9
management program when defects are found in these 10 systems and there is no effect, discernible effect
.11 from the original root cause analysis and extent of 12 the condition review.
13 In other words, if an aging management 14 program was in place, if this is being considered in 15 terms of aging management as an interrelated system, 16 then it is beyond us that the first root cause 17 analysis and extent of the condition review conducted 18 in 2009 should not have precluded the leak event in 19 2010.
And additionally, it's
-- we cannot understand 20 the lack of professional curiosity that would drive a 21 company and a regulatory agency to find out where else 22 in the system similar conditions might exist that 23 would proceed a leak.
24 That's one part of the failing of the 25 extent of the condition review.
But as we read 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
15 1
licensee's protocols for root cause analysis and 2
extent of the condition review, you know, we see them 3
as probing and comprehensive.
But we don't see that 4
carry through when they actually perform their root 5
cause analysis.
6 For
- example, the when you have a
7 defect, according to their protocols, you then look 8
for similar physical conditions in similar material 9
throughout the plant, not just in the same system.
So 10 where assumptions have been made about the sealing 11 capability of, you
- know, threaded fittings where 12 assumptions have been made about the quality of seal 13 welds put over threaded fittings, where carbon steel 14 has been subjected to a similar environment as that of 15 the feedwater system, wherever it is throughout the 16 plant, Entergy's protocols for extent of the condition 17 review would require that the company examine these 18 areas.
And there is no evidence that that has 19 happened either.
20 So in the least, in the context of aging 21 management, as we're now pushing to the end of this 22 license, I believe that NRC does have a handle on this 23 in terms of regulation, that NRC has good cause to 24 want to be certain that the conditions that effected 25 the leak at plug number one in 2009 and plug number 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
two in 2010 do not exist elsewhere and will not result 2
in another leak elsewhere.
3 The question of barriers comes up.
This 4
is this feedwater. system is part of the pressure 5
boundary.
I'm fully aware that --
or at least I've 6
been informed that there are check valves in place so 7
that the leaks which have occurred in the outer 8
reaches of the feedwater system would not effect 9
performance of safety-related systems during a design 10 basis event.
11 But that is relying on the single boundary 12 of a check valve.
And I'm not sure that that's where 13 NRC wants to go in terms of providing assurance of 14 public health and safety in the design basis event.
15 I think that concludes my statements.
I 16 hope that, you know, you've recorded them and can sort 17 them out and make them a little more clear as you go 18 along.
And that you will consider them in making your 19 final recommendation to your executive.
20 And I guess that completes my comments.
21 MR.
BLANCH:
- Ray, this is Paul Blanch.
22 May I make some statements?
23 MR.
SHADIS:
I'm sorry.
I should have 24 introduced Mr. Paul Blanch is with me today.
And has 25 some comments with respect to the root cause analysis 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
review.
2
,MR. BLANCH:
Okay.
I have -- this is Paul 3
Blanch, energy consultant for New England Coalition.
4 And I have a few comments, comments, first of all, on 5
Mr.
Quay's introduction where he clearly made the 6
statement that the 2.206 petition has to require 7
enforcement action.
8 I think if one reads 2.206 and 10 CFR 9
2.202, a 2.206 petition can request enforcement action 10 or any other action such as a demand for information 11 or any other things.
I think it was a misleading 12 statement when Mr.
Quay said a 2.206 petition must 13 request enforcement action.
And that seems to be the 14 basis for the proposed rejection of this 2.206 15 petition.
16 It does not, in my interpretation, require 17 a request for enforcement action.
That's point number 18 one.
19 I
have personally looked at previous 20 Entergy root cause analysis reports.
And I
have 21 actually a
copy of their root cause analysis 22 procedure.
I think it is ENII8.
And I have looked at 23 a root cause analysis report on Vermont Yankee, on the 24 augmented off-gas tritium leak.
And from my 25 experiences and my training as a root cause expert, I 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
think that the NRC clearly should have recognized the 2
deficiencies in that root cause analysis report that 3
they said the root cause of that particular event 4
where the tritium leaked into the groundwater, that 5
the root cause was the fact that the drains were 6
plugged.
7 Anyone with any knowledge about root cause 8
analysis would know that that event, that's certainly 9
one of the root causes, and there's more than one, was 10 a design deficiency of the pipe.
And the pipe failed.
11 But yet the NRC accepts that.
12 I have a copy of the root cause analysis 13 report done for the February 15th event by Entergy at 14 Indian Point Unit
- 2.
This was a
vital system 15 condensate storage tank, had an 18-gallon permitted 16 leak in a pipe that had been leaking for years.
And 17 the root cause analysis said the hole was caused 18 because of soil around the pipe was wet.
19 Circular logic here.
And, in my opinion, 20 the NRC will not challenge the root cause analysis 21 report.
22 With respect to the importance of 23 feedwater, and I fully recognize that Vermont Yankee 24 is a boiling water reactor, but if we look at one of 25 the root causes of the TMI event, it was caused by 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
perturbations in the feedwater system -- feedwater and 2
condensate system.
3 And for the NRC to stick its head in the 4
sand and say that's not safety related is 5
inappropriate.
I think that the NRC, and again, this 6
is not a demand for enforcement action, the NRC needs 7
to do a review of how Entergy conducts root cause 8
analysis.
9 It always seems to center that the root 10 cause analysis was someone else's fault, construction 11 problem, not our fault, so we don't have to fix it.
12 That's the case in Vermont Yankee plugging of the pipe 13 drain.
Same for the Indian Point.
And I haven't seen 14 the root causes analysis on this particular event, but 15 I would assume it would be similar --
that is, blame 16 it on someone else.
17 But again, I'd like to conclude that it 18 looks like the proposed rejection of Mr. Shadis' 2.206 19 petition is, and I could be wrong on this, is that it 20 failed to request enforcement action.
And I know 21 there is someone from the Of.fice of General Counsel on 22 the line.
I think they would support the fact that a 23 2.206 petition does not have to request enforcement 24 action, as inferred by Mr.
Quay.
And that was, his 25 limit of the 2.206 petition.
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
And I would like to conclude that this is 2
a significant issue, as Mr. Shadis said.
We have no 3
idea if a proper extent of condition has not been 4
conducted where the next leak is going to occur.
5 It could-occur in the feedwater system.
6 It could occur in any piping under -- of those systems 7
that are covered under 10 CFR 54, safety-related 8
systems.
9 And I think that the NRC really needs to 10 take a close look at Entergy's procedure EN118 and --
11 which is not a bad procedure -- and compare the actual 12 root cause analysis to Entergy's requirement and also 13 those requirements that are in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
14 And I think a very --
the two examples I 15 provided totally show that Entergy is unwilling or 16 incapable of doing a proper root cause analysis.
17 Thank you.
18 MR.
SHADIS:
This is Ray Shadis again.
19 If I may, I was reviewing my notes during 20 Mr.
Blanch's presentation.
And there is something I 21 forgot to mention which may be helpful to the Petition 22 Review Board.
23 In terms of the interaction of non-safety 24 systems with safety-related
- systems, the license 25 renewal application and the SER mention specifically 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
the potential effects of leakage and spray on safety-2 related systems.
3 And I'm presuming here that they are 4
talking about the effect of leakage and spray on 5
instrumentation, on control systems, on wiring that 6
may not be qualified for accident conditions or 7
qualified for wetting.
8 And but that is certainly one mechanism 9
that intuitively presents itself with respect to leaks 10 in the feedwater system.
And I'm fully aware that the 11 two leaks that took place were just dripping in 12 nature.
13 These were not spray leaks.
But there's 14 no doubt that had they progressed further, there would 15 have resulted in failure of the plug and spray at 16 about 1,000 psi.
So, you know, I think this is a very 17 obvious interconnection between the feedwater system 18 and any safety-related systems that might have been 19 effected.
20 And with
- that, I
would conclude my 21 comments and open to any questions that the for 22 clarification that the Petition Review Board might 23 have.
24 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Okay.
At this time, does 25 the staff here at headquarters have any questions for 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
Mr.
Shadis?
2 MR.
KLUKAN:
This is Brett Klukan from --
3 again, from the Office of General Counsel.
4 Mr.
- Shadis, it is proposed by Mr. Blanch 5
that what you are asking for is not necessarily a 6
request for enforcement action.
And so, if you would, 7
how would you characterize your request?
8 MR.
SHADIS:
This is a request for the NRC 9
to provide assurance of public health and safety 10 within their discretion for action.
11 MR.
KLUKAN:
So you're arguing that this 12 event -- this leak event caused or should have caused 13 the NRC not to have reasonable assurance in Vermont 14 Yankee's operations of the feedwater systems as it 15 relates to other safety-related systems or as it 16 becomes a
safety-related system.
Is that your 17 argument?
Am I 18 MR.
SHADIS:
- Well, that is part of it.
19 But certainly -- certainly at the base of this is the 20 failure of the corrective action program at Vermont 21
- Yankee, including the root cause analysis and extent 22 of condition review that was done in 2009 with the 23 first feedwater leak to identify the possibility of 24 additional feedwater leaks and to preclude the one 25 that took place in 2010 and potentially the one 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
23 1
is going to take place in
- 2011, either in the 2
feedwater system or elsewhere where similar conditions 3
exist.
4 So, you know, what's lacking here is the 5
assurance that would be gained by a proper response 6
from the company and from NRC to conditions of 7
material degradation.
8 MR.
KLUKAN:
All right.
Again, this is 9
Thank you for your response, Mr.
10 Shadis.
11 Recognizing that you are speaking with an 12 attorney and not an engineer right now, what exactly 13 was lacking in that event condition report and root 14 cause analysis?
What should have the licensee done?
15 And as such, had they done that, would have precluded 16 the occurrence of this later leak?
17 MR.
SHADIS:
- Sure, in narrow focus, okay, 18 the licensee should have conducted a detailed and 19 comprehensive inspection of all similar physical 20 situations on the feedwater system, one, and then in 21 a more diffuse manner, on similar systems, that is 22 carbon steel piping carrying liquid that could 23 potentially fail throughout the plant.
24 So --
but the first, you know, the first 25 item there, the first criteria really is to determine 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
the root cause of the original leak.
We don't know 2
that they did that.
We don't have access to that 3
original root cause analysis.
4 And -- but we do know that the resulting 5
extent of condition review was not adequate because 6
had it been adequate, they would have precluded or 7
anticipated the second leak.
And that was clearly not 8
the case.
9 So yes, that would have been -- that would 10 have been the first thing.
And am I being responsive 11 to your question?
12 MR.
KLUKAN:
Yes, thank you, Mr.
Shadis.
13 MR.
BLANCH:
This is Paul Blanch again.
14 And, again, I'm an engineer and not a lawyer.
15 But I believe under 2.206, the NRC has the 16 authority to issue some type of request to the 17 licensee, maybe it is a demand for information under 18 50.54(F) or request a clarification or the extent of 19 condition, or provide reasonable assurance that the 20 extent of condition covered all potential defects.
21 Certainly the NRC has that authority.
22 And, you.know, while I don't have the 2.206 in front 23 of me, I think that's what Mr. Shadis is identifying 24 as the deficiencies in this process that was 25 undertaken by Vermont Yankee personnel.
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
Is that correct, Ray?
2 MR.
SHADIS:
Correct.
3 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Okay.
Thank you.
4 Are there any questions from the Region?
5 MR.
SETZER:
No, thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Before I
conclude the 7
- meeting, members of the public may provide comments 8
regarding the petition and ask questions about the 9
2.206 petition process.
10 However, as stated at the beginning, the 11 purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 12 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 13 question or examine the Petition Review Board 14 regarding the merits of the petition request.
15 Are there any members of the public that 16 wish to comment?
17 MR.
TURNBULL:
- Hello, this is Clay 18 Turnbull.
19 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Go ahead, Clay.
20 MR.
TURNBULL:
It's actually a question.
21 How would one obtain the transcript from this meeting?
22 And if that's not appropriate to ask online here --
23 MR.
KIM:
Your question, this is James 24 Kim.
Actually it is published in ADAMS and it is 25 publicly available.
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
MR.
TURNBULL:
Thank you.
2 MR.
BLANCH:
This is Paul Blanch.
3 In the past on these meetings, I've had a 4
transcript from the NRC within two days of the 5
meeting.
So it's possible to get a transcript.
The 6
Project Manager for the petition has sent out a
7 transcript for review within two or three days.
And 8
it's not necessary, as dictated by the past, to wait 9
until it gets posted in ADAMS.
10 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Okay.
Are there any other 11 members of the public that wish to comment?
12 (No response.)
13 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
Hearing none, Mr. Shadis, 14 thank you taking time to provide the NRC staff with 15 clarifying information on the petition you've 16 submitted.
17 Before we close, does the court reporter 18 need any additional information for the meeting 19 transcript?
20 COURT REPORTER:
I don't believe so at 21 this time.
- Actually, Mr.
- Kim, if it wouldn't be 22
- problem, if I may be give you a call in 15 or 20 23 minutes like if I
couldn't find something on the 24 internet.
25 MR.
KIM:
Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTER:
Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN QUAY:
- Okay, with that, the meeting is concluding and we will be terminating the phone connection.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled oral reply was concluded at 9:43 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
Ii CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Vermont Yankee Name of Proceeding:
Docket Number:
Location:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition of:
Raymond Shadis (n/a)
(teleconference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
James Coýes OJ Official Reporter Neal R.
Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com