ML110680090
| ML110680090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/2011 |
| From: | Boska J Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Boska J, NRR, 301-415-2901 | |
| References | |
| G20100655, OEDO-2010-0854, TAC ME4920, TAC ME4921, NRC-760 | |
| Download: ML110680090 (30) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Docket Number:
50-247, 50-286 Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Thursday, March 3, 2011 Work Order No.:
NRC-760 Pages 1-29 Edited by John Boska, 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
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 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL RE:
6 INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 7
+ + + + +
8 THURSDAY, 9
MARCH 3, 2011 10
+ + + + +
11 The above-entitled teleconference was 12 held at 9:00 a.m., TED QUAY, Petition Review Board 13 Chair, presiding.
14 PETITIONER: PAUL BLANCH 15 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
16 TED QUAY, Chair, Deputy Director, Division of Policy 17 and Rulemaking, NRR 18 JOHN BOSKA, Petition Manager, Division of Operating 19 Reactor Licensing, NRR 20 TANYA MENSAH, PRB Coordinator, Division of Policy 21 and Rulemaking, NRR 22 RAO TAMMARA, Office of New Reactors 23 BRICE BICKETT, Division of Reactor Projects, Region 24 I
25 26
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
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
9:03 a.m.
2 MR. BOSKA: I'd like to thank everybody 3
for attending this meeting.
4 My name is John Boska, I'm the NRC's 5
Petition Manager for this petition.
6 We're here today to allow the Petitioner, 7
Mr. Paul Blanch, to address the Petition Review Board, 8
which we may also refer to as PRB, regarding his 2.206 9
petition on the gas pipeline at Indian Point Nuclear 10 Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3.
11 The Indian Point reactors are located just 12 north of New York City on the Hudson River and are 13 operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Incorporated, 14 who may also be referred to as the licensee or 15 Entergy.
16 I
am the Petition Manager for the 17 petition.
18 The Petition Review Board Chairman is Ted 19 Quay.
20 This meeting is scheduled to conclude by 21 10:00 a.m.
22 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 23 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 24 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement 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 3
the petition, and the transcript will also be made 1
publicly available.
2 I'd like to open this meeting with 3
introductions. As we go around the room, please 4
clearly state your name, your position and the office 5
that you work for within the NRC for the record.
6 I'm John Boska. I'm a Project Manager in 7
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation which is also 8
referred to as NRR.
9 MS. SALGADO: This is Nancy Salgado. I'm a 10 Branch Chief in the Division of Operating Reactor 11 Licensing, NRR.
12 MS. LEE: I'm Erika Lee, Administrative 13 Assistant in NRR Division of Operating Reactor 14 Licensing.
15 MS. SEXTON: Kimberly Sexton, Office of 16 the General Counsel.
17 MR. GULLA: Gerry Gulla, Office of 18 Enforcement.
19 MS. SCHNETZLER: Bonnie Schnetzler, Office 20 of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Division of 21 Security Policy. I'm the Team Leader.
22 CHAIRMAN QUAY: Ted Quay, Deputy Director, 23 Division of Policy and Rulemaking, NRR.
24 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah. I'm the 2.206 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
Coordinator, Division of Policy and Rulemaking.
1 MR.
TAMMARA:
Rao Tammara Technical 2
Reviewer for Siting and Accidents Branch in NRO.
3 MR. BOSKA: All right. We've completed 4
introductions in this room. At this time are there 5
any other NRC participants from NRC Headquarters on 6
the phone?
7 Hearing
- none, are there any NRC 8
participants from the Regional Office on the phone?
9 MR. BICKETT: Yes. This is Brice Bickett, 10 NRC Region 1. I'm a Senior Project Engineer.
11 MR. BOSKA: All right. Are there any 12 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
13 MR. PRUSSMAN: Stephen Prussman. I'm from 14 Indian Point.
15 MR. BOSKA: All right. Mr. Blanch, would 16 you please introduce yourself for the record.
17 MR. BLANCH: Yes. My name is Paul Blanch.
18 I reside in West Hartford, Connecticut. I'm the 19 Petitioner. I filed this petition on behalf of myself 20 and only myself.
21 MR. BOSKA: Thank you.
22 Are there any others, such as members of 23 the public on the phone?
24 MR. BLANCH: I don't think that's a fair 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
question.
They are not required to identify 1
themselves.
2 This is Paul Blanch making that statement.
3 MR. BOSKA: All right. Yes, it's optional 4
if they wish to identify themselves or not, so --
5 MR. BLANCH: You didn't make that clear.
6 MR. BOSKA: All right. Sorry. We will 7
continue on.
8 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 9
speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 10 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
11 If you do have something that you would 12 like to say, please first state your name for the 13 record.
14 For those dialing into the meeting, please 15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 16 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 17 a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys 18 star-six. And to unmute your phone, just press the 19 star-six keys again.
20 Please do not place this call on hold 21 since many phone systems play music when a call is on 22 hold, which is distracting for the other callers.
23 Thank you.
24 At this time I'll turn it over to the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6
Petition Review Board Chairman, Ted Quay.
1 CHAIRMAN QUAY: Good morning. I'm Ted 2
Quay, the Petition Review Board Chairman.
3 Welcome to this meeting regarding the 4
2.206 petition submitted by Mr. Blanch.
5 The PRB has made an initial recommendation 6
that your petition met the criteria for rejection 7
because the issues raised have already been the 8
subject of NRC review for which a resolution has been 9
achieved for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3.
10 Specifically the NRC has previously evaluated the gas 11 pipelines at Indian Point and concluded the pipelines 12 do not endanger the safe or secure operation of the 13 facility.
14 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 15 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 16 additional explanation or support for the petition 17 before the Petition Review Board makes a final 18 recommendation on whether or not to accept this 19 petition for review.
20 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 21 an opportunity for the petitioner to question or 22 examine the Petition Review Board on the merits or the 23 issues presented in the petition request.
24 No decision regarding the merits of this 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
petition will be made at this meeting. Following this 1
meeting the Petition Review Board will conduct its 2
internal deliberations. The Petitioner will be 3
informed of the outcome of the internal meeting.
4 The Board members remain the same as 5
stated in the previous call.
6 We also have legal advice from Kimberly 7
Sexton of NRC's Office of the General Counsel, and 8
advise from Gerald Gulla from the NRC's Office of 9
Enforcement.
10 As described in our process, the NRC staff 11 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 12 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 13 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 14 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 15 process.
16 I'd like to summarize the scope of the 17 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 18 date.
19 On October 25, 2010, Mr. Blanch submitted 20 to the NRC a petition, ML #103020293, under 10 CFR 21 2.206 regarding the potential hazards to the Indian 22 Point Nuclear Generating Unit Number 2 and 3 from the 23 gas pipelines that cross the site.
24 The Petitioner requests that the NRC order 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
the license to demonstrate that the licensee has the 1
capability to protect the public in the event of a 2
rupture, explosion or fire on the gas pipelines. The 3
Petitioner also requests that the NRC review all 4
available information, including demanding necessary 5
information from the licensee, to ensure compliance 6
with all regulatory requirements.
7 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 8
date. On October 25, 2010, the NRC received this 9
petition. This petition was assigned to the NRC's 10 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for evaluation.
11 On November 2, 2010, the Petition Review 12 Board held a call with the Petitioner.
13 On November 5,
- 2010, the Petitioner 14 submitted a supplement to his petition.
15 On November 9, 2010, the Petition Review 16 Board held a second call with the Petitioner.
17 On February 18, 2011 the Petitioner was 18 informed of the PRB's initial recommendation to reject 19 the petition.
The Petitioner requested this 20 opportunity to communicate with the Petition Review 21 Board.
22 As a reminder for the phone participants, 23 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 24 this will help in the preparation of the 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
transcript that'll be made publicly available.
1 Thank you. At this point, Mr. Blanch, I'm 2
going to turn it over to you.
3 MR. BLANCH: Thank you, Ted.
4 It is my understanding, although it is not 5
mentioned in the regulations or within Management 6
Directive 8.11, that the NRC will not respond to any 7
of my questions, be they technical, procedural. Is 8
that an accurate statement?
9 CHAIRMAN QUAY: Yes, it is. But if we can 10 answer something very quickly, we may choose to do so.
11 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Is this meeting being 12 transcribed, and will I have a copy of the transcript 13 in a timely fashion?
14 CHAIRMAN QUAY:
They are always 15 transcribed. And, yes, you will get a copy of it.
16 MR. BLANCH: Okay. The first objection I 17 have is timeliness. I believe that the timeliness of 18 a response to a petition is normally 35 days. It's 19 been well over 120 days. Two, you're adding formal or 20 written response to my petition. I would like an 21 explanation as to why that occurs?
22 Secondly, I would like to know in writing 23 or reference to your regulation, or an internal 24 procedure, as to why the NRC refuses to conduct a 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 dialogue on technical issues for clarification and 1
potential protection to the general public. And I 2
will be asking some of those questions and you can 3
refuse to answer, that is your choice. If you refuse 4
to answer, and if you decide after my asking the 5
questions, to still reject my 2.206 petition, I would 6
like and request that you respond to my questions if 7
and when you reject the petition.
8 I
have information, maybe even more 9
information than the Petition Review Board may have.
10 And in your statement, John, you stated -- let me see 11 if I can find the actual words here. Where basically 12 the NRC said they have not identified any violation of 13 any NRC requirements.
14 There's a huge difference between making a 15 statement "we have not identified anything" and a 16 statement along the lines "we have reviewed the 17 applicable regulations and the current licensing basis 18 and found no issues warranting further action by the 19 NRC."
20 I would like to see a statement by the NRC 21 stating that they have reviewed the regulations that 22 are applicable to Indian Point's Units 2 and 3 and 23 found no violations of regulations. I don't want a 24 statement that says "we haven't looked and we haven'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 11 seen any violations."
1 Specifically, you can say yes or no to the 2
following questions, it's your choice.
3 Has all the statements with respect to the 4
gas line, the SER, FSAR, UFSAR been reviewed per 50.9 5
on completeness and accuracy of information? You can 6
answer a yes or no, or no answer, Ted or John, if you 7
want to respond to that.
8 MR. BOSKA: This is John Boska.
9 And Mr. Blanch is referring to an NRC 10 regulation which says that the licensee shall submit 11 information which is complete and accurate. And there 12 is one area that we reviewed which was associated with 13 their license renewal submittal where there was not 14 completeness in the license renewal submittal in the 15 areas of describing the pipeline. And we brought this 16 to the attention of the licensee, and the licensee 17 corrected this on the docket.
18 Our judgment was that it did not rise to 19 the level where we needed to pursue a violation or a 20 fine, but that has been corrected on the docket. That 21 was the only instance that we found that was not 22 directly in accordance with 10 CFR 50.9.
23 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I'm well aware of that, 24 being involved in all sides of that particular thing.
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 I was aware of that beforehand. So can you state 1
that you have reviewed all information supplied by the 2
licensee to the NRC related to the gas lines and all 3
information is complete and accurate? Are you making 4
that an affirmative statement then?
5 MR. BOSKA: Well, that's a very broad 6
statement. I would prefer to say I have reviewed the 7
references that you supplied in your petition, and 8
that I found no violations of 10 CFR 50.9 in those 9
references.
10 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Some time, I'm not 11 exactly sure when it occurred, but the gas lines had 12 automatic shutoff valves. And at some time, according 13 to NRC documentation or ADAMS documents, those check 14 valves or automatic shutoff valves were removed. When 15 was that done, and was that done, and were the 16 requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 committed and completed 17 when that change was made?
18 MR. BOSKA: This is John Boska.
19 The automatic shutting feature was 20 removed. The valves were not removed. There are 21 still shutoff valves, but they're controlled from the 22 gas company's control center rather than happening 23 automatically now.
24 The license updated the UFSAR in 2009, 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 13 the NRC considers that a sufficient update to provide 1
us with that information. So, we do consider that the 2
licensee is in accordance with the regulations on 3
this.
4 MR. BLANCH: That didn't answer my 5
question. First of all, in the FSAR I didn't see a 6
discussion of the automatic feature of the valves 7
being removed, is number one. That is a safety 8
feature, a safety feature that affects core damage 9
frequency, or could. And my reading of 50.59 is that 10 an evaluation, a documented evaluation would be 11 required to be conducted for that type of change that 12 affects the safety of the public. Was that done?
13 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, there is a 14 reference in the UFSAR which references an analysis of 15 the pipeline. And in that analysis there is 16 sufficient information for the NRC to conclude that 17 the regulation has been met.
18 MR. BLANCH: Does that include a 50.59 19 evaluation?
20 MR. BOSKA: The analysis itself does not 21 include a 50.59 evaluation. But the NRC is satisfied 22 that the regulation has been met.
23 MR. BLANCH: Even though the regulation 24 hasn't been met for doing a 50.59 evaluation? When--
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 MR. BOSKA: I did not say that, Mr.
1 Blanch.
2 MR. BLANCH: Okay. When was this 3
automatic feature removed?
4 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, I do not know the 5
exact year, but it's immaterial because the --
6 MR. BLANCH: No, it's not immaterial 7
because the SER of 1973 was based upon, I believe, the 8
fact that there was an automatic feature for 9
terminating those valves. So it is material. It's 10 material for me, it's material to the public health 11 and safety.
12 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, the Final Safety 13 Analysis Report is updated periodically and can 14 supersede any old information. That old information 15 has been superseded by the updated FSAR.
16 MR. BLANCH: However, the plant is never 17 inspected to the requirements of the FSAR. And it is 18 periodically inspected to the requirements of the SER.
19 And unless the SER has been supplemented, the 20 inspectors have no idea what the requirements are.
21 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, we do not agree 22 with that statement. The inspectors read the UFSAR 23 before their inspections; they're familiar with the 24 requirements of the UFSAR.
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 MR. BLANCH: Well, they might be familiar 1
with the requirements, but they are not allowed to 2
cite violations for noncompliance with statements in 3
the FSAR.
4 MR. BOSKA: However, if they notice such a 5
requirement, they can cite the licensee for having the 6
UFSAR not reflect the plant condition.
7 MR. BLANCH: They're discouraged from 8
doing so.
9 I have knowledge of the October 2008 10 analysis and that the ability, this is assuming a San 11 Bruno fire or the recent fires in Pennsylvania, 12 Oklahoma, Texas, wherever you want to, that the 13 capability for either the onsite or offsite fire 14 fighting capability to deal with such a fire is 15 nonexistent. Has the NRC satisfied itself that should 16 there be an explosion that causes release of all the 17 potential energy in the gas lines, and that's a two-18 way flow, that they can extinguish the fire prior to 19 any significant increase in the probability of core 20 melt?
21 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, it is the NRC's 22 understanding that the San Bruno pipeline fire was 23 fought by the local fire department and they were 24 successful in bringing it under control. We view 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--
1 MR. BLANCH: After the gas was terminated 2
for -- it was well over an hour.
3 MR. BOSKA: We agree that it is necessary 4
for the pipeline company to isolate the gas flow, and 5
the pipeline company is prepared to do that. And it 6
is also our understanding, although we haven't 7
inspected this and we have no requirement to inspect 8
this, that the local fire departments are capable of 9
fighting this type of fire.
10 MR. BLANCH: Prior to the gas being 11 terminated?
12 MR. BOSKA: I'm sure that they will arrive 13 on site. But it's also probably true that they can't 14 actually put out the flames until the gas is 15 terminated.
16 MR. BLANCH: Sure, and the media will show 17 up at the same time, and they can't do it either.
18 And so the fire will persist until the gas 19 is terminated, both sides, which is typically greater 20 than one hour. And we don't know what happens to 21 communication at the time of the fire explosion, if 22 there is any communication. We don't know what 23 happens to power supplies, telephone lines; whatever 24 else is an established means of communication.
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 MR. BOSKA: Well, the NRC does not support 1
the one hour time frame. But, you know we agree there 2
can be local effects from such a large fire.
3 MR. BLANCH: Can you expound on you don't 4
agree with the one hour time frame that was just your 5
statement?
6 MR. BOSKA: There are mechanisms in place 7
for the gas company to detect abnormal conditions on 8
the pipeline and to take corrective actions.
9 MR. BLANCH: Well, we know from experience 10 and it doesn't matter where it is, be it San Bruno, be 11 it -- I forget where it was in Pennsylvania. There 12 was one in Philadelphia a month ago, one somewhere 13 else in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. And I have never 14 seen a case where the fire or the gas is terminated 15 and the fire extinguished shorter than one hour. You 16 can go on the web and take a look at that. Take a 17 look at the San Bruno information.
18 MR. BOSKA: The NRC has reviewed the 19 situation, and even for a fire lasting one hour we are 20 convinced there will be no impact on the safe and 21 secure operation of the facility, the safe shutdown 22 operation. It may not continue at full power 23 operation, but the safe shutdown operation will not be 24 impacted.
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 MR. BLANCH: So you just said one hour, or 1
at least one hour. How long did the NRC assume that 2
the fire would persist?
3 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, we're not prepared 4
to answer that directly, but it was on the time frame 5
of several hours.
6 MR. BLANCH: Okay. So you told me that 7
there was no 50.59 review conducted on the removal of 8
the --
9 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, I did not tell you 10 that.
11 MR. BLANCH: Well, I'll ask you that: Was 12 a 50.59 review conducted?
13 MR. BOSKA: I do not know the direct 14 answer to that question. But I do know that the 15 superseding documents currently in the UFSAR meet the 16 current regulations.
17 MR. BLANCH: You reference the 1993 Safety 18 Evaluation Report. Is that still complete and 19 accurate, which is part of the current licensing 20 basis?
21 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, I'm not familiar 22 with what you're referring to in 1993.
23 MR. BLANCH: You referenced it. The 24 Safety Evaluation Report of 1993 you referenced in one 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 of the letters.
1 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, perhaps you're 2
referring to a 1973 document.
3 MR. BLANCH: Yes, I am. I'm sorry. Did I 4
say '93?
5 MR. BOSKA: Yes, you did.
6 MR. BLANCH: Oh, I'm sorry. My error.
7 Let me restate the question. Is the NRC 8
prepared to state that the 1973 Safety Evaluation 9
Report that is part of the current licensing basis is 10 complete and accurate?
11 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, the 1973 document 12 is part of the historical record of the plant, but it 13 has been superseded by newer documents.
14 MR. BLANCH: No. If you read the 15 regulations it defines -- somewhere it defines current 16 licensing basis, I think you'll find it in 10 CFR 54, 17 and any safety evaluation commitments, orders, are 18 part of the current licensing basis. So therefore, my 19 review or my understanding of the definition of a 20 current licensing basis includes any Safety Evaluation 21 Reports unless they've been supplemented. And I 22 haven't seen a concise statement that supplements the 23 1973 Safety Evaluation Report.
24 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, I don't believe 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 you're correctly describing the NRC regulations in 1
this area. The 1973 Safety Evaluation Report was the 2
initial safety evaluation for the operation of this 3
plant. If that were to continue in force forever, the 4
licensee would never be able to make changes to the 5
plant facility.
Obviously, the licensees are 6
permitted to make changes to the plant facility --
7 MR. BLANCH: Under 50.59.
8 MR. BOSKA: That is correct. And if they 9
follow that process, then changes are permitted. And 10 there have been changes since 1973.
11 MR. BLANCH: So you're saying these 12 changes are have been done in accordance with the 13 regulations?
14 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, we do not go and 15 inspect directly that process.
- However, we 16 periodically do inspect the licensee's process for 17 making changes using 50.59 and we have identified no 18 discrepancies in that area.
19 The 2.206 petition process is not a 20 process where the Petition Review Board goes out and 21 starts inspecting large areas of the licensee's 22 documentation. The 2.206 process is designed for you, 23 the Petitioner, to tell us which regulations the 24 licensee is in violation of, and then we will explore 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 that.
1 MR. BLANCH: Okay. I believe the licensee 2
is in violation of 10 CFR 50.59 for not conducting an 3
evaluation to remove the automatic feature of the 4
valves associated with the gas line. If you'd like me 5
to document that, to be more specific, I can easily do 6
that.
7 MR. BOSKA: We understand your statement.
8 But in response, I will say that the licensee has 9
updated the UFSAR --
10 MR. BLANCH: I didn't ask that question.
11 I'm asking about the regulation of 50.59.
12 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, the process is for 13 you to tell us that there is definitely a violation of 14 a regulation. You can't just ask us to go inspect 15 more and more areas of the plant. That's not the --
16 MR. BLANCH: Okay. So if I write a 17 letter, supplement my 2.206 again and say I believe 18 there's a violation of 50.59 and in that the licensee 19 failed to conduct the proper evaluation on the removal 20 of an automatic feature to protect the plant, and 21 therefore is in violation of 50.59, I'm allowed to do 22 that?
23 MR. BOSKA: But, Mr. Blanch, we have 24 already reviewed the historical information and we 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 have stated to you that considering the current UFSAR 1
the licensee is in conformance with the regulations.
2 MR. BLANCH: But you didn't specifically 3
tell me that they are in accordance -- that everything 4
was done in accordance with the regulations, 5
specifically 5.9 and 50.59.
6 MR. BOSKA: But, Mr. Blanch, you're still 7
telling us that you suspect a problem and you want us 8
to go and inspect broad areas of the licensee's 9
operation.
10 MR. BLANCH: No, I'm being very specific 11 now.
12 MR. BOSKA: We have our own inspection 13 process. We follow our current inspection process.
14 MR. BLANCH: Inspection process is not 15 regulation.
16 MR. BOSKA: We understand that, but you 17 have not supplied us any direct evidence of a 18 violation of regulations.
19 MR. BLANCH: I don't have to supply 20 evidence of a violation. All I have to do is contend 21 that there is a violation. And I am presently 22 contending that a proper evaluation in accordance with 23 the requirements of 50.59 was not conducted for the 24 removal of the automatic feature of the gas valves.
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 Now, I will put that in writing if you want me to.
1 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, you don't have to 2
put it in writing. This transcript is an official 3
record.
4 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Then consider that as 5
a very specific, not an allegation, because this is 6
2.206 process, but a very specific shortcoming in 7
compliance with the regulation. And I stated it, and 8
I believe I stated it twice.
9 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, would you hold the 10 line for a moment? We're going to go on mute for a 11 short discussion?
12 (Whereupon, at 9:34 a.m. until 9:36 a.m, 13 for an off the record discussion.)
14 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, this is John 15 Boska.
16 MR. BLANCH: Yes.
17 MR. BOSKA: We have concluded that the 18 plant is currently in accordance with the regulations 19 and that the 2.206 process is not designed to go back 20 and inspect historical records. Therefore, we feel 21 that we should end this line of discussion and move 22 forward.
23 MR. BLANCH: Well, I'm contending that the 24 licensee violated the regulation and I am in strong 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 disagreement with you.
1 CHAIRMAN QUAY: All right. We have that, 2
Mr. Blanch. Is there any other additional information 3
you'd like to provide us?
4 MR. BLANCH: No, I think that's it for 5
right now. But I am very dissatisfied with the length 6
of time it took to respond.
7 CHAIRMAN QUAY: We have that.
8 MR. BLANCH: And I will write you a quick 9
note, and it's in the transcript. It is official that 10 I'm alleging -- not alleging. I'm stating that I 11 believe the licensee is not in compliance with the 12 regulations, particularly 50.59 in that it did not 13 conduct a
proper evaluation when the automatic 14 features of the gas line termination were removed and 15 it changes the analysis. So, that is what I am 16 contending.
17 CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. Do you have any 18 other information that would be pertinent to this 19 discussion?
20 MR. BLANCH: The fact that other plants, 21 other facilities not necessary power facilities, but 22 other facilities that have either gas lines or other 23 external events that could impact the operation of the 24 facility discussed under 10 CFR 100.10 or 11 have been 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 subjected to a more complete evaluation of the 1
dangers. For instance, Fort St. Vrain and an 2
enrichment facility in New Mexico. Indian Point is 3
totally inconsistent with the analysis that was 4
conducted under Part 100. So that's what I have for 5
now.
6 And I am not pleased with the timeliness.
7 I think the basis for rejection that, you know the 8
2.206 says it can demand enforcement action, it refers 9
to another regulation under Part 2, or any other 10 action. And I think it is the NRC's responsibility to 11 make a demand for information from the licensee, 12 Entergy, to demonstrate that they have done a proper 13 analysis as I requested in my original petition, and 14 that analysis, -- if the NRC doesn't look, they're not 15 going to find any violations. But they should demand 16 the information from the licensee to show that they 17 have provided an analysis under 50.59 that shows that 18 there is no significant safety hazard and that the NRC 19 agrees with that.
20 If you don't look, you're not going to 21 find anything. And that's the feeling I have about 22 this whole draft response to this 2.206; "we have not 23 found any violation of regulations."
24 A sleeping policeman along the highway 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 could say the same thing: "I didn't see anyone 1
speeding along, but I didn't look." And I'm not 2
pleased at all.
3 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Blanch, we understand your 4
point.
5 This is John Boska.
6 I would like to say a few words about 7
timeliness. The record in this situation on the gas 8
pipelines goes back 42 years to 1968. And the 9
Petition Review Board asked that the record be 10 reviewed and discussed with them, and therefore this 11 added more to the length of time than the average 12 2.206 petition takes. And I know it's somewhat of an 13 excuse, but it's associated with workload and things 14 like that. So, that's all I wanted to say in that 15 area.
16 MR. BLANCH: Okay.
17 MS. MENSAH: And this is Tanya Mensah.
18 I'm the 2.206 Coordinator.
19 I just want to elaborate on what John was 20 saying in that we do have circumstances where we do 21 have to go beyond our typical 30 to 35 day review 22 period to provide the final recommendation to the 23 Petitioner. In those cases we request approval from 24 our EDO to extend. And it's my understanding that the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 Petition Manager always communicates that basic fact 1
to the Petitioner to say we're going to need 2
additional time.
3 So, I just wanted to confirm with you, 4
were you not informed that there would be additional 5
time needed?
6 MR. BLANCH: I was informed there was 7
going to be additional time needed.
8 MS. MENSAH: Okay. I just wanted to 9
clarify that.
10 MR. BLANCH: Correct.
11 MS. MENSAH: And also, you raised another 12 process question at the beginning about, -- I think 13 you said the NRC refuses to conduct a dialogue. The 14 Management Directive does allow that the PRBs may have 15 dialogue with the Petitioners. They would call them 16 Technical Review Meetings. But those are generally at 17 the request of the PRB. So if the PRB reviews your 18 information and they feel they need additional 19 dialogue with your clarification, we can request a 20 call with the Petitioner as well.
21 So, I just wanted to elaborate on that, 22 because that is in the Management Directive.
23 MR. BLANCH: That's not what I call a 24 dialogue. If the NRC decides they have questions, 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 they can call a Petitioner and ask questions. But 1
it's a one-way street. It's not like other licensing 2
action where the NRC and the licensee have an open 3
dialogue on issues, such as license renewal and buried 4
pipes with Indian Point. We've recently seen meetings 5
and letters as a result of dialogue both ways, 6
everyone asking questions about buried pipes and 7
cables on Indian Point. That's a public document that 8
was transmitted.
9 So, it seems as though the public can only 10 ask questions, not get any firm answers, but yet 11 licensees and the NRC can have an open dialogue that 12 goes both ways. So, Im not pleased about that.
13 And in conclusion, I'm going to the 14 Regulatory Information Conference next week. If 15 anybody wants to stop and say hi, I'll be around.
16 CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay.
17 MR. BLANCH: Okay. Thanks very much, 18 ladies and gentlemen.
19 CHAIRMAN QUAY: At this time does anyone 20 here in Headquarters have any questions for Mr.
21 Blanch?
22 Mr. Blanch, are you still on? I guess 23 not.
24 With that, we're going to terminate the 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 phone call. Thank you.
1 (Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m. the Conference 2
Call was adjourned.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18