ML111520469
| ML111520469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC/OE, NRC/OGC, Office of Public Affairs, NRC Region 1 |
| To: | |
| Pickett D, NRR/DORL/LPL1-1, 415-1364 | |
| References | |
| 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2011-0226, G20110221, NRC-876, OEDO-2011-0226 | |
| Download: ML111520469 (37) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Indian Point Docket Numbers: 05000247, 05000286 Location:
Rockville, MD Date:
Monday, May 9, 2011 Edited by Douglas Pickett Work Order No.:
NRC-876 Pages 1-36 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
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE 6
INDIAN POINT ON FIRE PROTECTION 7
+ + + + +
8 MONDAY 9
MAY 9, 2011 10
+ + + + +
11 The conference call was held, Timothy G.
12 McGinty, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding, 14 PETITIONER: NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 16 TIMOTHY McGINTY, Director, Division of Policy 17 and Rulemaking 18 TANYA MENSAH, 2.206 Coordinator 19 DOUG PICKETT, Petition Manager 20 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 21 BRIAN METZGER, NRR Fire Protection Branch 22 DAN FRUMKIN, NRR Team Leader, Fire Protection 23 BRICE BICKETT, NRC Region 1 24 (Continued) 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2
1 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF (Continued) 2 KEITH YOUNG, NRC Region 1 3
JOHN ROGGE, NRC Region 1 4
NEIL SHEEHAN, NRC Region 1 5
NANCY SALGADO, NRR 6
JOHN BOSKA, NRR 7
BRETT KLUKAN, OGC 8
GERRY GULLA, OE 9
SCOTT BURNELL, Office of Public Affairs 10 LEE BANIC, NRR 11 STACY ROSENBERG, NRR 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
1 2
P R O C E E D I N G S 3
(1:00 p.m.)
4 MR. PICKETT: Good afternoon. I'd like to 5
welcome everyone here that's attending this meeting.
6 My name is Doug Pickett and I am a Senior Project 7
Manager at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 We are here today to allow the Petitioner, 9
the Attorney General of the State of New York, 10 represented today by Mr. John Sipos, to address the 11 Petition Review Board, also referred to as the PRB 12 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted on March 28th, 13 2011.
14 I
am the Petition Manager for the 15 petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Tim 16 McGinty on my right.
17 As part of the PRB's review of this 18 petition, John Sipos has requested this opportunity to 19 address the PRB. This meeting is scheduled for two 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />, from one o'clock to three o'clock.
21 This meeting is being recorded by the NRC 22 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 23 reporter.
24 Also I
understand that we have 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 4
representative of the press recording this meeting 1
today. The transcript will become a supplement to the 2
petition, and the transcript will also be made 3
publicly-available.
4 We have public meeting feedback forms that 5
you are welcome to fill out. These forms are 6
forwarded to our internal communications specialist 7
and you may either leave them here following the 8
meeting or mail them back. They are already postage 9
paid.
10 I would like to open the meeting with the 11 introductions. As we go around the room, please be 12 sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 13 the office that you work for within the NRC for the 14 record.
15 I'll start off. I am Doug Pickett, the 16 Petition Manager.
17 MR. McGINTY: I am Tim McGinty, the 18 Petition Review Board Chair.
19 MS. MENSAH: I am Tanya Mensah. I am the 20 2.206 Coordinator.
21 MR. METZGER: Brian Metzger. I'm a 22 technical reviewer with NRR.
23 MR. FRUMKIN: Dan Frumkin, Fire Protection 24 Team Leader in the Office of NRR.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5
MS. SALGADO: I'm Nancy Salgado. I'm a 1
Branch Chief in the Division of Operating Reactor 2
Licensing.
3 MR. BOSKA: I'm John Boska, the NRR 4
Project Manager for Indian Point.
5 MR. DOBSON: Adam Dobson, New York 6
Assistant Attorney General.
7 MR. SIPOS: Hi. Good afternoon. This is 8
John Sipos -- it's S-i-p-o-s, Assistant Attorney 9
General for the State of New York.
10 MR. GULLA: Gerry Gulla, NRC Office of 11 Enforcement.
12 MR. OSTROFF: I'm Jim Ostroff. I'm a 13 senior editor with Platts Nuclear Publications.
14 MS. ROSENBERG: Stacy Rosenberg. I am a 15 Branch Chief, of Generic Communications.
16 MS. BANIC: Merrilee Banic of Generic 17 Communications and Power
- Uprate, Petitions 18 Coordinator.
19 MR. BURNELL: Scott Burnell, NRC Office of 20 Public Affairs.
21 MR. BESSETTE: Paul Bessette, Morgan, 22 Lewis & Bockius.
23 MR. GLEW: Bill Glew, Entergy Legal.
24 MR.
WALPOLE:
Bob
- Walpole, Licensee 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
Manager at Indian Point.
1 MR. PICKETT: Okay. We have completed 2
introductions at the Entergy Headquarters. At this 3
time are there any NRC participants from Headquarters 4
that are on the phone?
5 MR. KLUKAN: Well, this is Brett Klukan 6
from the NRC Office of General Counsel. I'm the 7
Attorney Advisor to the PRB.
8 MR. PICKETT: That was Brett Klukan.
9 Are there any NRC participants from the 10 Regional Office on the phone?
11 MR. BICKETT: Yes. This is Brice Bickett, 12 Senior Project Engineer, NRC Region 1.
13 MR. PICKETT: Any others?
14 MR. YOUNG: Keith Young, NRC, Inspector, 15 Region 1.
16 MR. SHEEHAN: Neil Sheehan, NRC Public 17 Affairs, Region 1.
18 MR. ROGGE: John Rogge, Branch Chief from 19 Region 1.
20 MR. PICKETT: Okay. And are there any 21 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
22 (No response.)
23 MR. PICKETT: Okay. Mr. Sipos, would you 24 please introduce yourself for the record.
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
MR. SIPOS: Sure. Good afternoon. This 1
is John Sipos, S-i-p-o-s, Assistant Attorney General.
2 MR. PICKETT: Thank you.
3 It is not required for members of the 4
public to introduce themselves for this call, however 5
if there are any members of the public on the phone 6
who would like to introduce themselves, please state 7
your name for the record.
8 MR.
SNOOK:
This is Robert
- Snook, 9
Assistant Attorney General for the State of 10 Connecticut.
11 MR. WEBSTER: And I'm Richard Webster from 12 Public Justice.
13 MR. ROISMAN: And this is Anthony Roisman.
14 I'm a consultant to the New York State Attorney 15 General's Office.
16 MR. PICKETT: Not hearing any more.
17 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 18 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 19 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 20 you do have something that you would like to say, 21 please first state your name for the record.
22 For those dialing into the meeting, please 23 mute your phone to minimize any background noise or 24 distractions. If you do not have a mute button, 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 8
can be done by pressing the keys "star, 6." To 1
unmute, press the "star and 6" keys again.
2 At this time I'll turn it over to the PRB 3
Chairman, Tim McGinty.
4 MR. McGINTY: Thank you, Doug. Good 5
afternoon. Welcome to this meeting regarding the 6
2.206 Petition submitted by the Attorney General of 7
the State of New York. Representing the Attorney 8
General's Office is Mr. John Sipos.
9 I
would like to first share some 10 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 12 Petition Process, the primary mechanism for the public 13 to request enforcement by the NRC in a public process.
14 This process permits anyone to petition 15 the NRC to take enforcement type action related to NRC 16 licensees or licensed activities.
17 Depending on the results of this 18 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an 19 NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate 20 enforcement action to resolve a problem.
21 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 22 of the 2.206 Petition Request is in Management 23 Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.
24 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 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
the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 1
additional explanation or support for the petition 2
before the Petition Review Board's initial 3
consideration and recommendation.
4 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 5
an opportunity for the Petitioner to question or 6
examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented 7
in the Petition Request. No decisions regarding the 8
merits of this Petition will be made at this meeting.
9 Following this meeting the Petition Review 10 Board will conduct its internal deliberations. The 11 outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed 12 with the Petitioner.
13 The Petition Review Board typically 14 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the 15 senior executive service level at the NRC. It has a 16 Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
17 Other members of the Board are determined 18 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 19 information in the Petition Request.
20 At this time I'd like to introduce the 21 Board. We previously went around the room. I'm Tim 22 McGinty, the Petition Review Board Chair. Doug 23 Pickett is the Petition Manager for the Petition under 24 Discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the Office's PRB 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 Coordinator.
1 Our technical staff includes Brian Metzger 2
from the Office of NRR's Fire Protection Branch.
3 Gerry Gulla from the Office of Enforcement. Brice 4
Bickett and Keith Young you heard from NRC Region 1 on 5
the phone. They are up in King of Prussia, 6
7 Dan Frumkin, Team Leader for the Office of 8
Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Division of Risk 9
Assessment. And on the phone also we obtain our legal 10 advice from the Office of General Counsel, represented 11 by Brett Klukan.
12 As described in our process, the NRC staff 13 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 14 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 15 a reasoned decision as to whether to accept or reject 16 the Petitioner's Request for Review under the 2.206 17 process.
18 I would like to summarize the scope of the 19 Petition under consideration and the NRC's activities 20 today.
21 On March
- 28th, 2011, Mr.
Eric 22 Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New 23 York who will be referred to as the Petitioner, 24 submitted a Petition under Title 10 of the Code of 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 Federal Regulations, Part 2.206, regarding fire 1
protection requirements at the Indian Point Nuclear 2
Generating Unit Number 1, 2 and 3.
3 The Petitioner describes the proximity of 4
Indian Point to population centers within a 50-mile 5
radius of the site. The Petitioner states that the 6
population density within the 10-mile and 50-mile 7
radius of the site is greater at Indian Point than any 8
site in the country.
9 Furthermore, the Petitioner states that 10 the site was selected in March 1955 which was before 11 the Atomic Energy Commission, AEC, or NRC established 12 siting criteria.
13 The Petitioner described how approximately 14 one-half of all core damage risk at operating reactors 15 result from accident sequences that initiate with fire 16 events.
17 The Petitioner described the Browns Ferry 18 fire of 1975 and the subsequent development of fire 19 safety regulations found in 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix 20 R.
21 The Petitioner describes these 22 prescriptive requirements found in Appendix R. The 23 Petitioner states that Indian Point is required to 24 comply with the fire safety requirements of Appendix R 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 because the reactors were licensed to operate prior to 1
January 1st, 1979.
2 The Petitioner describes past 3
investigations by the NRC's Office of the Inspector 4
General and the Government Accountability Office 5
surrounding fire barriers, most specifically, Thermo-6 Lag and Hemyc.
7 The Petitioner implies that the NRC staff 8
has neither been aggressive in resolving fire barrier 9
issues, nor has it taken meaningful enforcement action 10 with regards to Indian Point.
11 The Petitioner focuses on the exemptions 12 to Appendix R that were submitted by the licensee in 13 March of 2009. The exemptions include operator manual 14 actions and a large number of fire areas at Indian 15 Point.
16 The Petition states that the regulations 17 do not authorize operator manual actions as a means of 18 protecting a redundant system from fire. The 19 Petitioner references the current situation in Japan 20 and questions whether plant operators would be 21 physically able to perform these duties.
22 In conclusion, the Petitioner states that 23 the exemptions should be reserved for extraordinary 24 circumstances. The NRC should not approve 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 13 exemptions and that Entergy has not made a serious 1
effort to comply with Federal regulations.
2 With regard to the enforcement action, the 3
Petitioner requested the following immediate actions.
4 Number one, identify the violations of 10 CFR 50.48, 5
Appendix R, Paragraph III, F and G that exist as of 6
the date of this Petition, that is, March 28th, 2011 7
at Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3.
8 Number
- two, compel Entergy Nuclear 9
Operations and its affiliates to comply on or before 10 September 20th, 2011 with the requirements contained 11 in 10 CFR 50.48, Appendix R, Paragraph III, F and G, 12 for all the fire zones in Indian Point Unit 2 and 13 Indian Point Unit 3, and any Indian Point Unit 1 fire 14 zone or system, structure or component relied on by 15 Indian Point Unit 2 or Indian Point Unit 3.
16
- And, thirdly, convene an evidentiary 17 hearing before the Commission to adjudicate the 18 violations by Entergy Nuclear Operations and its 19 affiliates of 10 CFR 50.48, Appendix R, Paragraph III, 20 F and G at Indian Point Unit 1, Unit 2 and Indian 21 Point Unit 3.
22 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 23 date. On April 1st, the Petition Manager contacted 24 you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and offer you 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 an opportunity to address the PRB by phone or in 1
person.
2 You requested to address the PRB in person 3
prior to the PRB's internal meeting to make the 4
initial recommendation to accept or reject the 5
Petition for Review.
6 On April 5th the PRB met internally to 7
discuss the request for immediate action. On April 8
12th you were informed that the PRB denied your 9
request for immediate action because the licensee 10 submitted a request for exemptions in accordance with 11 NRC guidance and enforcement policy as described in 12 Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-10.
13 Enforcement discretion is applicable 14 during the staff review of the exemptions, which are 15 currently being evaluated against the criteria of 16 NUREG 1852 entitled "Demonstrating the Feasibility and 17 Reliability of Operator Manual Action in Response to 18 Fire."
19 Also, the licensee evaluated the credited 20 Operator Manual Actions against the acceptance 21 criteria of NRC Inspection Procedures 71111.05T and 22 confirmed them to be feasible and reliable operator 23 actions during the post fire coping scenario.
24 And lastly, the PRB concludes that: 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 15 the licensee's actions are within an NRC-defined 1
process; two, enforcement discretion is applicable; 2
and, three, there are no immediate safety concerns.
3 Therefore, there is no basis to take immediate action.
4 As a reminder for the phone participants, 5
please identify yourselves if you make any remarks, as 6
this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 7
transcript that will be made publicly-available.
8 At this point, Mr. Sipos, I will turn it 9
over to you to allow you to provide any information 10 you believe the PRB should consider.
11 MR. SIPOS: Thank you very much, Mr.
12 McGinty. I appreciate your opening remarks and, on 13 behalf of the Petitioner, the Attorney General of the 14 State of New York, Mr. Eric Schneiderman, I appreciate 15 all the arrangements that have taken place to bring 16 about this meeting, and we're appreciative of being 17 able to speak with you today.
18 With me is my colleague, Assistant 19 Attorney General Adam Dobson, D-o-b-s-o-n, who will be 20 assisting me today at today's hearing.
21 Before I get into some of the detailed 22 comments that we have for today, I thought it would be 23 good to discuss some procedural issues, as well.
24 First, that the Attorney General's request to 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 16 Petition Review Board is that this Board accept the 1
Petition for enforcement.
2 As we understand it, that can then result 3
in a
- hearing, in a
proceeding before the 4
Commissioners, themselves, as was done in the case 5
back in 1978 involving some other fire protection 6
matters. And I refer the Board to 7NRC400, April 13, 7
1978 ruling in the matter of Petition for Emergency 8
and Remedial Action which was filed by the Union of 9
Concerned Scientists in the wake of Browns Ferry.
10 Secondly, we would like an opportunity to 11 review the transcript just for typographical errors if 12 one is generated from today. We find that that can 13 often times lead to clarity and resolve some 14 unintended typographical
- issues, things of that 15 nature.
16 And third, in connection with Management 17 Directive 8.11, Part III B, I guess the Petitioner 18 would note, since we can't ask a question, that 19 there's potentially an issue of whether or not anyone 20 on the Board had, in the past, worked on Indian Point 21 specific fire-related issues.
22 Again, I'm not asking a question because I 23 understand I can't, but I just -- I note that there is 24 a reference in the Management Directive to that, and I 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 just wanted you to apply to that.
1 MR. McGINTY: Thank you.
2 That would turn into a conflict of 3
interest by working on it?
4 MR. SIPOS: Not necessarily a conflict of 5
interest in a financial sense or anything like that, 6
but there may be --
7 MR. McGINTY: Maybe employed by Indian 8
Point? Maybe they worked on -
9 MR. SIPOS: I hadn't thought of being 10 employed by Indian Point, although I guess that would 11 be -- that could be an issue.
12 Mr. Pickett: Where is that?
13 MS. MENSAH: [If you refer to page 8 of 14 Management Directive 8.11, it states] In assigning 15 technical staff members to the petition, management 16 will consider any potential conflict from assigning 17 any staff person who was previously involved with the 18 issue that gave rise to the petition.
19 MR. SIPOS: I don't know of one. I'm not 20 asking a question. I'm just flagging it as a 21 potential --
22 MR. McGINTY: Thank you. We appreciate 23 it.
24 MR. SIPOS: I'm sure you've taken that 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 into account.
1 The Attorney General's Petition, simply 2
stated, is a straightforward request for enforcement 3
action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are 4
the Federal regulator that has responsibility for the 5
fire protection regulation.
6 The Attorney General, as set forth in the 7
Petition, sees it as a very straightforward regulation 8
that contains specific proscriptive requirements and, 9
furthermore, based on Entergy's regulatory submissions 10 to NRC, it is apparent that there are violations of 11 the Appendix R, Paragraph III G2 requirements, and 12 that these violations have continued for quite some 13 time. It appears for as long as the plant has been 14 owned and operated by Entergy, and likely before that 15 time.
16 So, it is not the type of Petition for 17 Enforcement Action where there are some vagaries or 18 there's some question. It's a straightforward, simple 19 regulation. I believe the present Chairman of the NRC 20 has characterized the regulations in that manner, and 21 Entergy's filings, which we take at face value, show 22 that there are violations.
23 I'm sure folks are familiar with the 24 regulations. I'm not going to belabor them. They are 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
-- they were developed in the wake of Browns Ferry.
1 They were developed after General Design Criteria 3 2
had been around, and there was a decision to 3
promulgate and have specific proscriptive standards 4
for fire protection in the wake of Browns Ferry and in 5
the wake of investigations and internal NRC review of 6
fire risk and fire safety.
7 That provision uses the mandatory word 8
"shall,"
s-h-a-l-l,
- which, you
- know, requires 9
compliance. And also that regulation does not use the 10 term "operator manual action." That term is not used 11 in the regulation and does not -- it's not on the face 12 of the regulation, it's not contained in the 13 regulation.
14 NRC's position, as the Attorney General's 15 Office has been able to determine is that not only is 16
-- or not only are OMA's not mentioned, not only is 17 the term OMA not mentioned or the term "operator 18 manual action" not mentioned in the regulation, but 19 that Entergy has recognized that NRC's position is 20 that OMA's are not explicitly or implicitly permitted 21 by the regulation.
22 And I'm referring back to the March 2009 23 exemption request filed by Entergy Nuclear Operation.
24 Moreover, that reliance on operator manual actions 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 without specific review and approval is a violation of 1
Appendix R. Again, that is, as we understand it, the 2
NRC's
- position, and we understand that Entergy 3
understands that to be NRC's position.
4 And there have been discussions recently 5
that the Attorney General's Office is aware of, of the 6
standard called NFPA 805, National Fire Protection 7
Association, Standard Number 805, but that issue or 8
that -- that mechanism is not at issue at Indian Point 9
because as the Attorney General's Office understands 10 things, that is, that Indian Point has elected not to 11 go down the NFPA 805 route and, therefore, again, the 12 Appendix R, Paragraph III, G2 standards apply.
13 Entergy's 2009 filing with the Commission 14 where it sought Commission approval for what had been 15 going on in an unauthorized manner at the plant 16 identified various zones, various fire areas, various 17 fire zones and various OMA's.
18 By the count -- by our count it identified 19 more than a hundred operator manual actions in that 20 filing and it also identified approximately 270-plus 21 fire zones within Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point 22 Unit 3 that rely on operator manual action.
23 Those numbers are objectively high, but 24 that is a high number, and it was -- there was 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21 supplemental information provided, and I'm referring 1
to a document that came in about a year ago, May 4, 2
2010.
3 This was in response to a request for 4
additional information by the NRC staff in response to 5
RAI-02.2 which asked for "List the requirements of 6
Paragraph III in G2 that are not met for the OMA's in 7
the -- at issue."
8 Entergy responded on May 4, 2010, and 9
identified, by our count, 50 fire zones, 50 separate 10 fire zones where there was a lack of compliance with 11 Paragraph III G2.
12 In other words, in that filing, Entergy 13 identified 50 zones where there were violations of the 14 fire safety regulations that had been in place since 15 1980. That is NL-10-042 for Indian Point Unit 2 and 16 NL-10-043 for Indian Point Unit 3.
17 The ML on the latter is ML101320263, and 18 that -- the zones are identified in a series of tables 19 in the back of that document and it starts off, for 20 Indian Point Unit 2, a table, RAI-GEN -- G-E-N-1, and 21 it goes through to GEN 27.
22 That would be for Indian Point Unit 2 and 23 I believe for Indian Point Unit 3 it's a similar title 24 for the table. I think it goes from GEN-21 to GEN 23, 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 totalling together, 50 separate zones.
1 The Attorney General's Office believes 2
that it's important to emphasize that these regs were 3
promulgated 30 years ago and that the facility should 4
have been in compliance.
5 These 50 zones identified in the 6
correspondence a year ago, the more than 100 OMA's 7
identified two years ago, that this should have been 8
-- this facility, this operator should have been in 9
compliance and, again, that the term "operator manual 10 action," is not contained in the Federal Regulation.
11 It probably doesn't need to be 12 overemphasized or said too often that these are 13 important regulations. I'm sure NRC takes the view 14 that all its regulations are important, as any 15 regulatory body would.
16 These regulations go to ensuring the 17 safety, the workability of cables that operate safety 18 systems at power reactors and ensuring that these 19 cables can operate during the events or in the event 20 of a fire. They are -- they go to the heart of what's 21 going on within the power reactor.
22 Mr. McGinty summarized the Petition and 23 some of the other -- some of the other components in 24 Petition and I would just like to reiterate or expand 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 on a couple of them.
1 Indian Point is unique. It has the 2
highest surrounding population by far and away of any 3
power reactor in the country, whether you're looking 4
at it at ten miles or 50 miles, no plant, no reactor 5
site in the country comes close.
6 There are more than 17 million people that 7
live with 50 miles. That number is expected to grow 8
by 2035 and the facility is within five miles of one 9
reservoir of the New York City watershed, that is the 10 New Croton Reservoir, and 15 miles within another 11 important reservoir, a little further to the south in 12 Westchester County.
13
- Again, that watershed provides the 14 drinking water for the New York -- for New York City 15 and its citizens.
16 New
- York, it bears
- noting, is the 17 financial center of the
- country, provides a
18 transportation hub and it is a very critical area 19 within the States -- within the United States.
20 Seismicity has got some attention 21 recently, and in the -- in the latter part of March 22 there was a report about ongoing seismic analysis, 23 perhaps in consultation with the United States 24 Geologic Service, and there was a report in the New 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 York newspapers and also on television discussing the 1
core damage frequency for Indian Point Unit 3 as well 2
as the CDF for Unit 2.
3 Unit 3 apparently has a very high core 4
damage frequency according to the media reports and 5
also Unit 1, which has been around since the late 6
Fifties, came on line in the early Sixties, it is not 7
clear that there is a seismic spectra for that 8
facility at all and it is seismically more fragile --
9 I don't think there's any dispute as to that -- than 10 the two facilities which are next to it.
11 For sure, that is not generating power 12 now. Unit 1 is not generating power, but it is still 13 there and there are shared or interconnected systems 14 identified by Con Edison several years back, so there 15 is a seismic concern.
16 The Petition did cite a Sandia report that 17 noted that seismic events can be a contributor to fire 18 or fire initiators, so the Petition would ask that 19 that be taken into account.
20 There's also the issue of security. I'll 21 keep my remarks on this brief and limited to publicly-22 available material, but NRC, itself, has acknowledged 23 that there is a,
- quote, "high-level threat 24 environment," close quote, in the wake of 9/11.
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 That's in 67 Federal Register 9792, March 1
4, 2002. There -- the Petition identifies concerns 2
that, if taken -- that have to come to fore in the 3
wake of 9/11, including what happened on that date.
4 The 9/11 report goes into additional detail about the 5
plans of the terrorists at that time and we would note 6
that as well for the Board.
7 The State of the Union, which came a year 8
after that also confirmed publicly the threat 9
situation that exists, there was a reference in that 10 to power plant diagrams.
11 And just last week the Daily News reported 12
-- and we have a copy of it here, I'll be happy to 13 hand it out at the end -- that there appeared to be 14 surveillance at the Sellafield facility in England in 15 which people were arrested for that.
16 It is -- the Attorney General's Office 17 position is that at a time of increased threat, given 18 the design basis threat, given interim compensatory 19 measures and given concerns about aircraft impact 20 analysis and B.5.b issues, that it is certainly 21 appropriate for the fire safety regulations that were 22 promulgated in 1980 to be enforced and for Entergy to 23
-- to comply with those regulations.
24 We've talked about remedies 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 26 Petition seeks. Again, we would like this Board to 1
accept the Petition for Review. We think it's a 2
straightforward Petition in terms of an evidentiary 3
matter, and that there really is -- there's really no 4
excuse for the lack of compliance with these 5
regulations.
6 As we noted earlier, what Entergy now 7
seeks to have authorized at this facility is not 8
specifically mentioned.
Entergy said it's not 9
prohibited, but it's very clear that it's not 10 authorized operator manual action.
11 It appears that this is a case where 12 Entergy simply disagrees with the application of 13 Appendix R, that it's not to its liking, and that it 14 does not wish to comply with the plain meaning of that 15 regulation.
16 The Petition and the Attorney General's 17 Office believes it's appropriate for NRC to compel 18 compliance of those regulations at this facility, that 19 the regulations are on the books.
20 They've been on the books for 30 years, 21 and it's there appears to be widespread 22 noncompliance, widespread violations at the site and 23 it's now time to compel compliance.
24 One -- one other -- one other fact before 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 I conclude. The Price-Anderson Act provides for 1
taxpayer financed response to a nuclear incident.
2 That's been around since 1957. Congress determined 3
that that was necessary.
4 But, in exchange for that arrangement it 5
is essential that the Indian Point facility comply 6
with the fire safety regulations. An accident at 7
Indian Point would likely be quite expensive, 8
certainly relative to other facilities in the country 9
given the dense population and the highly-developed 10 and built-out infrastructure within the 50-mile area.
11 We understand the existence, and we 12 understand the program behind Price-Anderson, but 13 Entergy should comply with the fire safety regulations 14 which have been around since 1980.
15 I think that concludes my comments. I'd 16 like to thank you all for your time and for arranging 17 today's meeting. And again, we would request that 18 despite Entergy's request for an exemption, that the 19 Petition Review Board accept the Attorney General's 20 Petition for enforcement action at this area.
21 Thank you very much.
22 MR. PICKETT: Thank you.
23 At this time, based on what you've heard, 24 does the staff here at Headquarters have any 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 for Mr. Sipos regarding --
1 Any of the staff on the phone from the 2
Regions, do you have any questions?
3 MR. KLUKAN: This is Brett Klukan, the 4
attorney advisor to the PRB. I have one question, a 5
quick question for the Petitioner.
6 The Petition characterized the violations, 7
but certainly the basis for the Petition as being 8
apparent. Is that the case -- and I just want to be 9
able to understand this so that I can accurately 10 advise the PRB on moving forward on how the 11 disposition or position.
12 If the violations are apparent, what would 13 be the point of the requested evidentiary hearing?
14 MR. SIPOS: There could be two purposes.
15 One would be: Are there any further violations? We 16 have the tables that were referred to before, the RAI-17 GEN, G-E-N tables as well as the 2009 submission.
18 As to those -- as to the zones and OMA's 19 identified in there, there need not be an evidentiary 20 hearing. There -- it is possible that there are 21 additional zones, given the breadth or the shear 22 volume of violations, but I mean, there's also, you 23 know, the potential of civil penalties that could come 24 up at a hearing. You know, the Attorney General's 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 Office is interested in ensuring compliance and 1
ensuring that this facility complies with these 2
regulations.
3 We recognize that, you know, the licensee 4
might request a hearing although, you know. We don't 5
know how it could contest the violations that are 6
already identified in this, in the filing.
7 MR. KLUKAN: Thank you.
8 That's all for me.
9 MR. McGINTY: Thank you, Brett.
10 And once again, I'll ask, any questions 11 from any of the staff in the Region -- in the Regions?
12 (No response.)
13 MR. McGINTY: Also there's -- we have some 14 representatives of the licensee here. Do you have any 15
-- does the licensee have any questions or comments?
16 MR. BESSETTE: We have no comments or 17 questions, thank you.
18 MR. McGINTY: As I previously stated, the 19 licensee is not part of the PRB's decisionmaking 20 process. Before I conclude the meeting, members of 21 the public may provide comments regarding the Petition 22 and ask questions about the 2.206 Petition process.
23 However, as stated at the opening, the 24 purpose of this meeting does not include 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 30 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 1
question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 2
the Petition Request.
3 With that stated, are there any questions 4
from members of the public?
5 MR. SNOOK: This is Robert Snook from the 6
State of Connecticut, S-n-o-o-k. We just want to go 7
on record supporting the position of the Attorney 8
General of New York in this, in urging the PRB to 9
accept this Petition.
10 MR. McGINTY: Mr. Snook, that is so noted.
11 MR. SNOOK: Thank you.
12 MR. WEBSTER: And this is Richard Webster 13 from Public Justice. I'd like to ask how long has 14 this lack of compliance existed and has the NRC staff 15 taken any moves to correct the lack of compliance.
16 MR. KLUKAN: Mr. Webster, as was just 17 pointed by the Petition Chairman, and this, in fact 18 can echo through the substance of the Petition.
19 If you have any questions regarding the 20 2.206 process or the contents of Management Directive 21 8.11 which guides the staff execution of the process, 22 we'd be happy to answer those here.
23 But again, the purpose of this public 24 meeting today is not for the staff or for members of 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31 the public or the Petitioner to ask any questions, 1
factual or otherwise regarding the substance of the 2
Petition.
3 But -- so thank you.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Well, could I ask a question 5
about the enforcement process?
6 MR. KLUKAN: Yes. You are more than 7
welcome to ask a question about the enforcement 8
process as it relates to the 2.206 process.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Well, can I ask does the 10 NRC have any guidelines for correcting noncompliance 11 at nuclear power plants?
12 MR. KLUKAN: That is a very general, broad 13 question, so it's difficult to come to through, and 14 the answer is yes. The licensees are required to have 15 corrective action programs and as part of the NRC 16 enforcement
- process, the staff does take into 17 consideration what corrective actions the licensee has 18 taken in response to identified violations.
19 I mean, that's a very broad answer --
20 MR. WEBSTER: Right.
21 MR. KLUKAN: -- but, it's difficult to 22 summarize it otherwise.
23 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I understand that but 24 I think the question -- my question is more about 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 timing. Is there any limit, time limit for how long 1
the corrective action could
- occur, or is the 2
correction --
3 MR. GULLA: This is Gerry Gulla with 4
Enforcement. There are documents publicly-available 5
on our website. You might want to look into the 6
Enforcement Manual and the Enforcement Policy and if 7
you read those documents you should be able to get 8
those questions answered.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Well, could you possibly 10 answer them for me now?
11 MR. McGINTY: Mr. Webster, pertaining to 12 the question -- this is Tim McGinty, the PRB Chair.
13 As Brett Klukan mentioned
- earlier, 14 questions that are directly applicable to the 2.206 15 Petition Request are what you have an opportunity to 16 address the PRB on, and so I think he's then pointed 17 to information that will be helpful to your general 18 curiosity, but we really don't need --
19 MR. WEBSTER: Right.
20 MR. McGINTY: But we really don't need, at 21 this point, to take the entire time of all the staff 22 and the Board to address that question.
23 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Well, can I ask 24 another question, then, which is just -- does -- if 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 33 the PRB finds lack of compliance does it have -- does 1
it then analyze the time for which that lack of 2
compliance has existed?
3 MR. McGINTY: So that would also -- so 4
that would be a question -- if I could rephrase your 5
question. And again, this is actually what I consider 6
to be more of a question about our enforcement process 7
as opposed to this Petition Request.
8 But, within the enforcement process, time 9
is a factor, yes.
10 MR. KLUKAN: And I would point out the 11 purpose of the PRB, Mr. Webster, is whether to accept 12 or reject the Petition. It's not -- the purpose of 13 the PRB at this stage is not to determine what the 14 outcome would be or even how it would be disposition, 15 were it to be accepted.
16 The really -- under the 2.206 process the 17 purpose of this PRB and this Petition Review Board is 18 to determine whether to accept or reject into the 19 process, the 2.206 process the Petition as stated by 20 the Petition of the State of New York.
21 So, it's that -- that goes just further on 22 down the line, which is not necessarily the purpose of 23 the PRB at this stage in this area.
24 MR. PICKETT: Okay. Thanks, Brett.
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 34 Are there any other questions?
1 (No response.)
2 MR. PICKETT: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
3 Webster. Any other questions or any other individuals 4
that are on the line listening in?
5 (No response.)
6 MR. PICKETT: Okay. Before we -- I don't 7
believe that the court report -- I did get a report 8
that the court reporter was having trouble dialing in.
9 Does the court reporter happen to be on 10 the line?
11 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, I am on the line 12 now.
13 MR. PICKETT: As we discussed prior to 14 your joining us, that the NRC's Operations Center has 15 the capability -- and we confirmed -- that the 16 Operations Center was recording these this 17 particular discussion.
18 Did you -- however, not knowing exactly 19 when you
- joined, do you have any additional 20 information for the meeting transcript that you need 21 repeated or anybody's name to be identified? Is there 22 any way we can help you?
23 THE COURT REPORTER: I think I'll be able 24 to get most of it from -- is Mr. Boska on the line?
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 35 I've worked with him before.
1 MR. PICKETT: Yes, Mr. Boska is here with 2
us in the room.
3 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. I can get the 4
NRC participants from him and I'm confident of that.
5 But if the representatives from the New York Attorney 6
General's Office can identify themselves, I would 7
appreciate it.
8 MR. SIPOS: We will do that one more time.
9 Would you like us to do that now? Okay. We will do 10 that now.
11 Adam, why don't you speak first.
12 MR.
DOBSON:
Adam
- Dobson, Assistant 13 Attorney General, State of New York. And that's D-o-14 b-s-o-n.
15 MR. SIPOS: And this is John Sipos, S-i-p-16 o-s, Assistant Attorney General.
17 THE COURT REPORTER: And who was the 18 gentleman who was making the presentation when I came 19 in, which was about 1:25?
20 MR. SIPOS: That was probably me. It may 21 have been Mr. McGinty.
22 THE COURT REPORTER:
No.
It was 23 definitely the New York Attorney General Office's --
24 MR. SIPOS: Okay.
25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 THE COURT REPORTER: -- presentation on 1
the Indian Point factors.
2 MR. SIPOS: That would be me, John Sipos.
3 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Sipos.
4 I appreciate that.
5 MR. McGINTY: Okay. This is Tim McGinty 6
again, the PRB Chair. So, without any further adieu,
7 this meeting will be concluded and we'll be 8
terminating the phone connection.
9 (Whereupon, the conference call was 10 concluded at 1:55 p.m.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25