ML111990427
| ML111990427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/2011 |
| From: | Boska J Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Boska J, NRR/DORL, 301-415-2901 | |
| References | |
| G20110218, OEDO-2011-0223, TAC ME5930, TAC ME5931, NRC-995 | |
| Download: ML111990427 (49) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DRAFT
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Indian Point Fuel Peak Docket Number:
50-247 and 50-286 Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Monday, July 11, 2011 Work Order No.:
NRC-995 Pages 1-48 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
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE 6
INDIAN POINT FUEL PEAK CLAD TEMPERATURE 7
DOCKET NOS. 50-247 + 50-286 8
+ + + + +
9 MONDAY 10 JULY 11, 2011 11
+ + + + +
12 13 The conference call was held, Fred Brown, 14 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
15 PETITIONERS:
16 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS AND MARK
- LEYSE, representing 17 Riverkeeper 18 19 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
20 FRED
- BROWN, Chairperson;
- Director, Division of 21 Inspection and Regional Support, NRR 22 BRICE BICKETT, Region I Division of Reactor Projects 23 JOHN BOSKA, Project Manager, NRR 24 RICHARD DUDLEY, Rulemaking Branch, 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 2
TANYA MENSAH, PRB Coordinator, NRR 1
SHIH-LIANG WU, Nuclear Performance and Code Review 2
Branch, NRR 3
PRB ADVISOR:
4 BRETT KLUKAN, Office of General Counsel 5
6 ALSO PRESENT:
7 NANCY SALGADO, Branch Chief, Division of Operating 8
Reactor Licensing, NRR 9
WILLIAM DENNIS, Entergy 10 BOB WALPOLE, Entergy 11 JOHN SIPOS, State of New York 12 ADAM DOBSON, State of New York 13 TOM COCHRAN, National Resources Defense Council 14 MATTHEW McKINZIE, National Resources Defense Council 15 JON McLAUGHLIN, National Resources Defense Council 16 CHRISTOPHER PAINE, National Resources Defense Council 17 GEOFFREY FETTUS, National Resources Defense Council 18 JORDAN WEAVER, National Resources Defense Council 19 BOB LEYSE 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
Welcome and Introductions (John Boska, 4
2 Petition Manager) 3 PRB Chairman's Introduction (Fred Brown, 4
PRB Chair) 14 5
Petitioners' Presentation (Mr. Musegaas, Mr. M.
6 Leyse) 14 7
Comments from Members of the Public 45 8
Adjourn 48 9
10 11 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 4
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:04 P.M.
2 MR. BOSKA: This is John Boska from NRC 3
Headquarters. I'm the NRC's Petition Manager for this 4
petition. I'd like to thank everybody for attending 5
this meeting. We're here today to allow the 6
Petitioners, Ms. Brancato and Mr. Leyse, to address 7
the Petition Review Board. And actually, Mr. Musegaas 8
is sitting in for Riverkeeper today.
9 We're here to allow the Petitioners to 10 address the Petition Review Board on behalf of 11 Riverkeeper regarding their 2.206 petition dated March 12 28, 2011, on the fuel peak cladding temperature at 13 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, 14 which are located about 24 miles north of New York 15 City on the east bank of the Hudson River.
16 I
am the Petition Manager for the 17 petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Fred 18 Brown.
19 As part of the Petition Review Board's 20 review of this petition, Ms. Brancato and Mr. Musegaas 21 have requested this opportunity to address the 22 Petition Review Board which may also be referred to as 23 the PRB.
24 This meeting is scheduled to conclude by 3 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
p.m. The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 1
Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 2
reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to 3
the petition. The transcript will also be made 4
publicly available.
5 I'd like to open this meeting with 6
introductions. As we go around the room, please 7
state your name, your position, and the office that 8
you work for within the NRC for the record.
9 I'm John Boska. I'm a project manager in 10 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which is 11 also referred to as NRR.
12 MS. SALGADO: This is Nancy Salgado. I am 13 a branch chief in the Division of Operating Reactor 14 Licensing in NRR.
15 MR. WU: Shih-Liang Wu. I'm in NRR, 16 Division of Safety Systems, Nuclear Performance and 17 Code Review Branch.
18 MR. DUDLEY: Richard Dudley. I'm in the 19 NRR Rulemaking Branch and I'm the project manager for 20 the review of Petition for Rulemaking 50-93 and 50-95.
21 MR. BOSKA: We've completed introductions 22 in the room here at headquarters. At this time I'll 23 let Fred Brown, the Petition Review Board Chairman 24 introduce himself.
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
CHAIRPERSON BROWN: Thanks, John. This is 1
Fred Brown. I'm the Petition Review Board Chairman in 2
the Office of NRR.
3 MR. BOSKA: Thank you, Fred. We also have 4
a Petition Review Board member from Region I in 5
Pennsylvania and I'll let Brice Bickett introduce 6
himself.
7 MR. BICKETT: This is Brice Bickett, NRC 8
Region 1 and I'm a senior project engineer.
9 MR. BOSKA: We also have assistance from 10 our Office of the General Counsel and I'll let Brett 11 introduce himself.
12 MR. KLUKAN: Hi, this is Brett Klukan.
13 I'm the Office of the General Counsel representative 14 to the PRB.
15 MR.
BOSKA:
Are there any other 16 participants from NRC headquarters on the phone?
17 MS. MENSAH: This is Tanya Mensah. I'm a 18 2.206 coordinator.
19 MR. BOSKA: Are there any other NRC 20 personnel on the phone? All right, hearing none, are 21 there any representatives for the licensee on the 22 phone?
23 MR. WALPOLE: Bob Walpole, licensing 24 manager.
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. BOSKA: Hello, Mr. Walpole.
1 MR. WALPOLE: Hi, John, how are you?
2 MR. BOSKA: Very good.
3 MR. DENNIS: Bill Dennis, Entergy Legal.
4 MR. BOSKA: Welcome, Mr. Dennis.
5 All right, Mr. Musegaas, would you please introduce 6
yourself for the record?
7 MR. MUSEGAAS: Certainly. My name is 8
Phillip Musegaas. It's M-U-S-E-G-A-A-S. I'm an 9
attorney and representing Riverkeeper, Incorporated on 10 this petition. Thank you.
11 MR. BOSKA: All right, Mr. Bob Leyse, will 12 you please introduce yourself for the record?
13 MR. M. LEYSE: Perhaps you mean Mark 14 Leyse?
15 MR. BOSKA: You can go ahead, Mark Leyse.
16 I believe we had Bob on also.
17 MR. BOSKA: Go ahead, Mark.
18 MR. M. LEYSE: Mark Leyse introducing 19 myself for the record.
20 MR. BOSKA: And Mr. Bob Leyse, are you 21 still on? He was on earlier. I think he'll probably 22 come back later, so we'll continue.
23 It is not required for members of the 24 public to introduce themselves for this call.
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
However, if there are any members of the public on the 1
phone that wish to do so, please state your name for 2
the record?
3 MR. Bob LEYSE: This is Bob Leyse, it 4
takes me a while to find #6 and I'm now off.
5 MR. BOSKA: All right, thank you, Mr.
6 Leyse.
7 MR. FETTUS: Hi. This is Geoff Fettus, G-8 E-O-F-F F-E-T-T-U-S. And I'm an attorney for the 9
Natural Resources Defense Council and I'm joined here 10 by Tom Cochran, Matthew McKinzie, Jordan Weaver, and 11 Jon McLaughlin. Thank you.
12 MR. BOSKA: All right, welcome.
13 MR. PAINE: This is Christopher Paine. I 14 direct the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources 15 Defense Council.
16 MR. BOSKA: Welcome, Mr. Paine.
17 MR. DOBSON: This is Adam Dobson. I'm an 18 Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York.
19 MR. BOSKA: Welcome, Mr. Dobson.
20 MR. SIPOS: And good afternoon. This is 21 John Sipos, S-I-P, as in Paul, O-S, as in Sam, also an 22 Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York.
23 Good afternoon, everyone.
24 MR. BOSKA: Welcome, Mr. Sipos. Are there 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
any others on the phone line who wish to introduce 1
themselves? All right, hearing none, we will 2
continue.
3 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 4
speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 5
reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 6
you do have something that you would like to say, 7
please first state your name for the record.
8 For those dialing into the meeting, please 9
remember to mute your phones to minimize any 10 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 11 a mute button this can be done by pressing the keys 12
- 6. And to unmute your phone, press the *6 keys 13 again. Please do not place this call on hold since 14 many phone systems music when a call is put on hold 15 which is very annoying for the other callers. Thank 16 you.
17 The Petition Review Board's initial 18 recommendation is to not accept this petition for 19 review. The reason is that it presents generic 20 concerns that are properly handled through a petition 21 for rulemaking and the NRC is already considering two 22 petitions for rulemaking on these issues, PRM 50-93 23 and PRM 50-95.
24 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1) states 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 10 licensee's LOCA analyses must demonstrate that the 1
calculated maximum fuel element cladding temperature 2
shall not exceed 2200 degrees Fahrenheit. The PRB 3
finds no evidence that Indian Point Units 2 or 3 are 4
in violation of 10 CFR 50.46.
5 Unless the review of PRM 50-93 and PRM 50-6 95 demonstrate the need to revise the regulation or 7
the method of analysis, the PRB's position is that 8
compliance with the existing regulation is sufficient 9
to provide adequate protection of public health and 10 safety.
11 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 12 the Petitioners an opportunity to provide any 13 additional explanation or support for the petition 14 before the Petition Review Board makes a final 15 recommendation on whether or not to accept this 16 petition for review.
17 I would like to summarize the scope of the 18 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 19 date. On March 28, 2011, Riverkeeper submitted to the 20 NRC a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 regarding the fuel 21 peak cladding temperature at Indian Point Nuclear 22 Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 which may also be called 23 IP2 and IP3.
24 This petition is available from the NRC'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 11 public website, www.nrc.gov, from the Electronic 1
Reading Room, under ADAMS documents with the accession 2
number ML110890956.
3 The Petitioners request that the NRC order 4
the licensee of IP2 and IP3 to lower the licensing 5
basis peak cladding temperatures of IP2 and IP3 in 6
order to provide necessary margins of safety, to help 7
prevent partial or complete meltdown in the event of 8
loss-of-coolant accidents, also called LOCAs.
9 The Petitioners state that experimental 10 data demonstrate that IP2 and IP3's licensing basis 11 peak cladding temperatures of 1937 degrees Fahrenheit 12 and 1961 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively, do not 13 provide necessary margins of safety in the event of 14 LOCAs.
15 The Petitioners state that the data 16 demonstrates that IP2 and IP3's licensing basis peak 17 cladding temperatures need to be decreased to 18 temperatures lower than 1832 degrees Fahrenheit in 19 order to provide necessary margins of safety.
20 Second, the Petitioners request that the 21 NRC order the licensee of IP2 and IP3 to determine how 22 far below 1832 degrees Fahrenheit the licensing basis 23 peak cladding temperature values of IP2 and IP3 need 24 to be lowered in order to provide necessary margins 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 12 safety.
1 Third, the Petitioners request that the 2
NRC order the licensee of IP2 and IP3 to lower both of 3
IP2 and IP3's licensing basis peak cladding 4
temperatures to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit until 5
conservative values for IP2 and IP3 are determined.
6 Fourth, the Petitioners request that the 7
NRC order the licensee of IP2 and IP3 to demonstrate 8
that IP2 and IP3 emergency core cooling systems, also 9
called
- ECCS, would effectively quench the fuel 10 cladding in the event of LOCAs and prevent partial or 11 complete meltdowns. Experimental data indicate that 12 IP2 and IP3's ECCS may not effectively quench the fuel 13 cladding in the event of LOCAs if fuel cladding 14 temperatures approached or reached IP2 and IP3's 15 licensing basis peak cladding temperatures of 1937 and 16 1961 degrees Fahrenheit respectively.
17 The Petitioners also state that although 18 revisions to the 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1) limit of 2200 19 degrees Fahrenheit on peak cladding temperature have 20 been proposed in a rulemaking petition, PRM 50-93, 21 this petition has been filed separately under 10 CFR 22 2.206 because the concerns affect IP2 and IP3 and need 23 prompt resolution to protect the lives, property, and 24 environment of the people of New York. The safety 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 issues raised in this petition are of an immediate 1
nature and require prompt NRC review and action.
2 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to 3
date. On March 28, 2011, the NRC received this 4
petition. The petition was assigned to the NRC's 5
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for evaluation.
6 On April 18th, the Petitioners met by teleconference 7
with the PRB. The transcript of that teleconference 8
is in the NRC's Electronic Library under accession 9
number ML111570242.
10 On June 7th, I informed the Petitioners 11 that the PRB's initial recommendation was to reject 12 the petition and offered the opportunity to address 13 the PRB again, to which the Petitioners agreed. That 14 led to this teleconference.
15 As a reminder for the phone participants, 16 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 17 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 18 transcript that will be made publicly available.
19 Thank you.
20 At this time, I'll turn it over to the 21 Petition Review Board Chairman, Fred Brown.
22 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: Thank you, John. And 23 thank you, everyone, for participating this afternoon 24 in this PRB 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 14 I want to remind everybody, as at our 1
previous meeting on this petition, that this is not a 2
hearing nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioners 3
to question or examine the Petition Review Board on 4
the merits of the issues presented in the petition 5
request. This is not a decision-making meeting and no 6
decisions regarding the merits of this petition will 7
be made during the meeting.
8 Following the meeting, the Petition Review 9
Board will conduct a final internal deliberation and 10 the outcome of the internal meeting will be discussed 11 with the Petitioners. The Board members remain the 12 same as stated in our previous call and as indicated 13 by John as he went through introductions a few minutes 14 ago.
15 So with that I'll turn it over, I believe, 16 to Mr. Mark Leyse and Mr. Musegaas, if you're speaking 17 for Ms.
- Brancato, to provide any additional 18 information that you'd like the PRB to be aware of.
19 MR. MUSEGAAS: Thank you, Mr. Brown. This 20 is Phillip Musegaas again representing Riverkeeper on 21 the call. I would like to make a short opening 22 statement and then I will turn it over to Mr. Leyse 23 who will give you additional, he will be providing 24 additional technical comments regarding the petition.
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 To begin, Riverkeeper formally disagrees 1
with the decision by the NRC and the PRB on April 19th 2
of this year to deny our request for emergency action 3
through this petition. Again, for the reasons stated 4
in the petition itself, we believe that Indian Point 5
presents a unique risk to the people of New York and 6
to the property of New York State and the Hudson 7
Valley. Twenty million people live within 50 miles of 8
Indian Point. It's located less than a mile from two 9
active seismic zones. The plant presents a unique 10 risk and unique circumstances apart from any other 11 nuclear plant currently operating in the United 12 States. And so we believe that those circumstances 13 require that out of an abundance of caution the NRC 14 should have acted on our request for emergency action 15 and indeed should have required during the review of 16 our petition and the review of the rulemaking 17 petitions that Indian Point reduce its operating 18 temperature.
19 Second, of course, Riverkeeper formally 20 disagrees with the decision by the PRB, that we were 21 notified of on June 7th via email, to make an initial 22 decision to deny the petition. We again believe that 23 the petition on its merits requires review. We 24 believe the fact that we are discussing Indian Point 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 and concerns about the effects of a LOCA accident at 1
Indian Point puts this in a different and unique 2
framework apart from a generic rulemaking as we have 3
stated in the petition.
4 I would also like to comment on this 5
process. We have serious concerns about the adequacy 6
of this process up to this point and our main concern 7
here is that although we've been given this additional 8
opportunity to address the Petition Review Board, and 9
describe why we believe our petition should be 10 accepted for review, we are doing that without any 11 additional information or specific detail from the 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Petition Review 13 Board as to the specific reasons why this 14 recommendation has been made, both the actual denial 15 of our request for emergency action and the initial 16 decision to deny our petition. Basically those were 17 communicated to us through email communication of a 18 couple of paragraphs each that contained no real 19 detail about the basis for the PRB's decision. And so 20 it's very difficult for us as Petitioners representing 21 the public to present new information and to respond 22 to the NRC's decision when we don't know what the 23 basis for that decision is.
24 One last comment, I just would like 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 17 comment to an email that we received from Mr. Boska, 1
Riverkeeper and Mark Leyse and Deborah Brancato 2
received on June 8th. Mr. Boska was responding to 3
comments made by Mr. Leyse at a June 2nd public 4
meeting regarding Indian Point.
5 In his email, Mr. Boska said, "The format 6
of a PRB meeting does not include the discussion of 7
comments from an annual assessment meeting. We will 8
have to stay with the PRB format." With all due 9
- respect, we very strongly disagree with that.
10 Riverkeeper made comments regarding our emergency 11 petition at the public meeting.
Mr.
- Boska, 12 representing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made 13 the decision to make a substantive response during 14 that public meeting to a room full of the public, full 15 of reporters, with our representatives there. We 16 believe that that opened the door and that allows us 17 the right to respond to the comments made by Mr. Boska 18 and that is what Mr. Leyse did by email. So I would 19 like that to go on the record that we believe that 20 these comments should be included in this record.
21 That concludes my comments on this.
22 Again, we formally disagree with the denial of the 23 request for emergency action. We disagree with the 24 initial decision to deny the petition.
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 I would also like to seek clarification of 1
comments Mr. Boska just made at the beginning of this 2
call regarding the status of the petition. I'm a 3
little unclear on it and I understand the procedure is 4
that I do not ask questions of the PRB, but I would 5
like to seek clarification of the comment. It is 6
unclear to me at this time whether the PRB has made an 7
initial decision to deny the petition or whether the 8
PRB is basically holding the petition in abeyance 9
while it concludes the rulemaking process for PRM 50-10 93 and the other rulemakings that are related to this 11 petition.
12 So if it is possible to have clarification 13 of that issue, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
14 And I will turn it over now to Mark Leyse 15 to continue our comments.
16 MR. M. LEYSE: First, I wanted to see if 17 they wanted to answer you, Phillip, on what you just 18 asked.
19 MR. BOSKA: This is John Boska. Fred, 20 it's up to you. Do you want me to provide an answer 21 or would you like to say a few words?
22 MR. KLUKAN: Why don't you go for it --
23 this is Brett Klukan. Why don't you try to answer it, 24 John, and then I'll supplement, as necessary.
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 MR. BOSKA: Thanks, Brett. All right.
1 This is John Boska. The question had to do with the 2
current status of the petition. The petition is not 3
being held in abeyance awaiting the petition for 4
rulemaking. The NRC is proceeding with dispositioning 5
the petition. The Petition Review Board has made an 6
initial recommendation to the Director of the Office 7
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to reject the petition.
8 And the way the procedure works is the Petitioner has 9
another opportunity for a discussion with the Petition 10 Review Board and then the Petition Review Board makes 11 a final recommendation to the Director of the Office 12 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation who then can agree or 13 disagree with the Petition Review Board at that point 14 in time.
15 So we have done the initial 16 recommendation. We're now having this meeting with 17 the Petitioners and then the Petition Review Board 18 will provide a final recommendation.
19 Mr. Musegaas, do you have any questions on 20 that?
21 MR.
MUSEGAAS:
I appreciate that 22 clarification. Does that mean then that the -- we'll 23 make our statements today. You'll take that under 24 review and will you issue a more substantive response 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 as to the reasons for the denial before you make a 1
final recommendation? Could you explain the process 2
there a little further?
3 MR. BOSKA: The final recommendation is 4
made to the Nuclear Reactor Regulation office managers 5
and if they are in concurrence with the final 6
recommendation then a letter will be issued to 7
Riverkeeper explaining the reasons for the denial of 8
the petition. Or if they decide to accept it for 9
review, then a letter will be issued explaining the 10 reasons for accepting it for review.
11 MR. MUSEGAAS: So I don't mean to belabor 12 this, I am just trying to understand the process.
13 Requesting a subsequent meeting after today from 14 Riverkeeper's perspective, we would not have any 15 additional information from the NRC as to the reasons 16 for the recommendation prior to you making a final 17 recommendation to NRR to assumedly deny the petition.
18 I guess I'm at a loss to what the reason 19 for a subsequent PRB phone conference would be if we 20 don't have additional information to respond to.
21 MR. BOSKA: There is no additional PRB 22 phone conference. This is the final PRB phone 23 conference.
24 MR. KLUKAN: This is Brett Klukan. 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 21 is your opportunity -- we've given you our initial 1
recommendation.
This is your opportunity to 2
supplement that with additional information in 3
response to our initial recommendation or to just 4
directly respond to our initial recommendation and 5
provide your reasoning for why you disagree.
6 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, again, I apologize 7
for the confusion. So this is the final PRB. You 8
send a final recommendation after this. After this 9
call, we would be getting a letter from NRR. Is that 10 correct?
11 MR. BOSKA: This is John Boska. The 12 office director or his representative has to actually 13 make the final decision. So our final recommendation 14 would go to the office director or his representative 15 and they would make the final decision and then the 16 letter would be issued.
17 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you.
18 MR. BOSKA: Mr. Musegaas, this is John 19 Boska again. In my introductory remarks, I did have a 20 section where I talked about the reason why the 21 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation was to 22 not accept the petition for review. It had to do with 23 the generic concerns that are properly handled through 24 a petition for rulemaking.
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 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay. I will review the 1
transcript on those comments and in the interest of 2
timeliness, and if I have specific questions if I 3
could follow up with you on that, that would be great.
4 I'm happy to proceed at this time, if you are.
5 MR. BOSKA: Yes, we are ready to proceed.
6 MR. M. LEYSE: Okay, this is Mark Leyse 7
speaking. First, before I say anything, I would like 8
to give other members of the public or other people 9
who have called in an opportunity to say something 10 first because I'm probably going to be half an hour or 11 so.
12 MR. COCHRAN: This is Tom Cochran. I have 13 a question if I could to John. Is that reasonable?
14 MR. BOSKA: Fred, this is John Boska. Are 15 you willing to take the question now?
16 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: I'm willing to listen 17 to the question.
18 DR.
COCHRAN:
There was in the 19 introduction an indication that a Richard Dudley was 20 in the room and was responsible for PRM 50-93 and 50-21
- 95. And as I understood one of the arguments given 22 for declining this petition was that the issues were 23 covered in those two rulemaking petitions. As I 24 understand it, those rulemaking petitions were filed 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 some years ago and I would like to learn from Mr.
1 Dudley what the prognosis is for the disposition of 2
those two rulemakings. Is that going to be soon or 3
years from now?
4 MR. DUDLEY: This is Richard Dudley.
5 Under the existing petition-for-rulemaking process, 6
the NRC staff would be required to complete its review 7
of all the issues in the petition for rulemaking and 8
then present our recommendations to the Commission 9
itself for decision on that petition. If we were to 10 do that, it would take us about, we believe, we've 11 looked -- there's about 16 different issues in the 12 petition. We prioritized them and we've looked at 13 several already. But if we went through that process, 14 we think we'd be making a recommendation to the 15 Commission in about 10 to 12 months from now.
16 The Commission itself would then take 17 three or four months to review it. And a decision on 18 the petition for rulemaking would be over a year and a 19 half away.
20 We're concerned that by delaying that long 21 it looks like we're not making progress on this 22 review. And so we've requested to the Commission to 23 be allowed to change our petition-for-rulemaking 24 process for this particular petition so that as 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 24 complete our review of each individual category of 1
issues or topics that we could make that information 2
publicly available on an interim basis. It wouldn't 3
be a final determination because no determinations are 4
final until after the Commission has reviewed our 5
recommendations.
6 So we've made that recommendation to the 7
Commissioners by virtue of a meeting with their 8
assistants. Their assistants asked that we meet with 9
them once again to provide them with additional 10 information. And so at this point, it's a possibility 11 that we'll be allowed to release interim results of 12 our petition for rulemaking evaluation, but we're 13 waiting to hear back from the Commissioners' 14 assistants, allowing us to do that.
15 So I guess the long answer to your 16 question is what I gave you. If we use the old 17 process, the complete answers would take at least a 18 year and a half, but we hope to be able to be allowed 19 to release interim conclusions of each category or 20 group of results within the next month or so. We hope 21 we could release some of our interim conclusions.
22 MR. COCHRAN: And also, these issues, it 23 would appear to me have been raised to a new elevation 24 by the Fukushima accident and should be part of 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 25 six-month review by the Commission and the staff of 1
the lessons learned from Fukushima.
2 Do you see these issues being resolved in 3
the context of Fukushima in the next six months?
4 MR. DUDLEY: The Japan review did not 5
consider the PRM 93-95 issues as part of its scope.
6 They're looking at --
7 MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me, that's the 90-day 8
or the 6-month? I thought the scope of the six-month 9
review has not been decided yet.
10 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: This is Fred Brown if 11 I could jump in. The NRC team looking at lessons 12 learned from Japan is aware of the issues in Mr.
13 Leyse's petition for rulemaking. So in that context 14 it is being considered.
15 It would be premature and actually none of 16 us on the phone are in a position to know directly 17 anyway. It would be premature for us to anticipate 18 what recommendations will be made by that review group 19 to the Commission in their 90-day report or their 20 longer-term report. But they are aware of the 21 concerns expressed here.
22 MR. COCHRAN: But NRDC has indicated to a 23 number of the Commissioners that this issue needs to 24 be addressed within the six-month review. So are 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 26 going to get a resolution of this issue within the 1
six-month review of lessons from Fukushima?
2 MR. KLUKAN: This Brett Klukan, again, the 3
attorney representative.
While the public is 4
permitted to ask questions regarding the process or 5
the future process, we kind of veered far off scope 6
into questions that are kind of outside not only the 7
individual knowledge of the members of us here, but 8
the PRB itself. And unless you have questions 9
regarding the 2.206 directly, I would prefer that we 10 move on with the presentation by the Petitioners.
11 MR. COCHRAN: This is Tom Cochran. My 12 questions are directly related to the 2.206 petition 13 because the 2.206 petition, as I understand it, is an 14 emergency -- is a request for emergency action.
15 MR. KLUKAN: This is -- excuse me. I'm 16 going to cut you off there. It's a request for 17 enforcement action which can have a piece of it. A 18 request that the NRC take immediate action as a 19 response to the request for enforcement action.
20 What we're now discussing is in part 21 rulemaking and in part something else, which are not 22 directly related to the scope of the 2.206.
23 MR. MUSEGAAS: I respectfully disagree 24 with that. This is Phillip Musegaas from Riverkeeper.
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 Because the limited basis that you did provide for 1
why you're recommending to deny this petition is that 2
these issues are being dealt with through these 3
generic rulemakings. So that brings us squarely into 4
the framework of this discussion.
5 MR. KLUKAN: What it does is bring in --
6 let me phrase it this way. We're saying that this is 7
a process and the initial recommendation said that 8
this is a process better suited or appropriately 9
suited, excuse me, to the rulemaking process, not the 10 request for enforcement.
11 So what we would ask is that the 12 Petitioners in response provide some information as to 13 why this is properly a request for enforcement as 14 opposed to a request for rulemaking. But if you have 15 questions about the rulemaking, or what's happening, 16 the substance of that rulemaking, the panel is not the 17 appropriate place to raise such issues, but rather 18 through the rulemaking staff, which we only have one 19 representative here and he is not acting in that 20 capacity as part of the PRB.
21 MR. MUSEGAAS: This is Phillip Musegaas.
22 And the reason we made a request for enforcement and 23 request that the NRC order Indian Point and Entergy to 24 lower the operating temperature of the plant is 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 because LOCA accidents don't wait on hold while these 1
rulemakings are being determined and reviewed. They 2
could happen any time. And so the risk is there.
3 Unique circumstances of Indian Point's location are 4
there, currently in force. The plant is still where 5
it's always been. Not to be facetious here, but we 6
believe that this requires an immediate response 7
because of what we've seen at Fukushima, what we know 8
about Indian Point and its location and the concerns 9
around Indian Point. That is the argument we've made 10 repeatedly in this petition. And so to the extent you 11 can respond to that would be appreciated. Thank you.
12 MR. KLUKAN: One thing I'm going to point 13 out, this is Brett Klukan, that this is not an 14 opportunity for members of the public to question the 15 PRB as to their thinking or what their recommendations 16 are going to be to NRC management on the disposition 17 of the petition.
18 But I would add that in brief is that 19 Petitioners and members of the public have a right 20 under the request for rulemaking to request immediate 21 action to be taken. My point was that is different 22 than saying -- what I'm trying to get at is that is 23 still a request for rulemaking. The fact is that you 24 would like us to proceed immediately doesn't in and 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 29 itself make it a request for enforcement action. And 1
that was the point I was trying to make.
2 But again, if we could proceed with the 3
presentation by the Petitioners I think that would be 4
our best use of time at this point.
5 MR. MUSEGAAS: Tom, do you have anything 6
else?
7 MR. COCHRAN: Excuse me, yes, but I'll 8
wait until Mark finishes. It may be mooted by what 9
Mark says.
10 MR. M. LEYSE: Okay, Mark Leyse speaking.
11 Since some things were said, does anyone else want to 12 say anything first? I just want to give someone else 13 the opportunity if they would like.
14 Okay, so I'm now going to proceed. One 15 thing I would like to just point out before I start, 16 what I have in mind to say is, one thing you said is 17 that one of the reasons the initial decision is to 18 deny this petition for an enforcement action is that 19 we present generic concerns. But another point that 20 you made, you said that we have provided no evidence 21 that the units at Indian Point are in violation of 10 22 CFR 50.46(b)(1) which is the 2200 peak cladding 23 temperature limit.
24 Can you provide a foundation for 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 30 statement? I mean if you're going to make an 1
assertion that we've presented no evidence, where's 2
your evidence for that assertion? Because I think 3
we've pointed out that we've presented quite a bit of 4
evidence in this petition, a lot of evidence that 5
shows that very important experimental data has not 6
been incorporated into your ECCS evaluation models.
7 So it just seems to me that if you're 8
going to make a statement and partly base your 9
decision on the fact that you say we have no evidence, 10 please, some of the things Phillip was saying in terms 11 of transparency, it would seem that if you're going to 12 reiterate that in your final decision, please explain 13 why and provide a number of statements as to why we 14 have presented no evidence.
15 Anyway, that being said, I would like to 16 start. In this meeting, I would like to focus on data 17 from thermal-hydraulic experiments that indicates that 18 the Baker-Just and Cathcart-Pawel correlations are not 19 adequate for use in ECCS evaluation calculations that 20 calculate the metal-water reaction rates that would 21 occur in the heat transfer conditions of design basis 22 accidents.
23 These thermal-hydraulic experiments 24 simulated loss-of-coolant accidents, but first, 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 31 would like to make a few points on data from severe 1
fuel damage experiments. During a Petition Review 2
Board meeting on February 17, 2011, on a 2.206 3
petition on Oyster Creek and Nine Mile Point Unit 1, I 4
mentioned the fact that it is reported in an Oak Ridge 5
National Laboratory report from 1991 discussing the 6
CORA-16 experiment, that's a BWR severe fuel damage 7
experiment, that in the CORA-16 experiment oxidation 8
rates were not accurately predicted by analyses using 9
the available zircaloy-steam oxidation correlations.
10 In more detail, another Oak Ridge report 11 stated that the predicted and observed cladding 12 thermal response are in excellent agreement until 13 application of the available zircaloy oxidation 14 kinetics models causes the low temperature (1652 to 15 2192 degrees Fahrenheit) oxidation to be under-16 predicted.
17 Anyway, when I was discussing the CORA-16 18 experiment, Mr. Dudley from the Rulemaking Branch 19 asked me a question. He said, and I quote, "I'd like 20 to ask you a question about your CORA-16 statement.
21 Do you have any evidence to say that the CORA test was 22 made under test conditions that were designed to be 23 consistent with a loss-of-coolant accident?" So I 24 answered Mr. Dudley and at this point I don't want 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 32 reiterate what I said, but that is available in the 1
transcript for the February 17, 2011, meeting.
2 But I would like to make a few points.
3 I'd like to point out that because analyses using the 4
available zircaloy-steam oxidation correlations under-5 predict the oxidation rates that occurred in severe 6
fuel damage experiments, like the CORA and LOFT LP-FP-7 2 experiments, it means that these correlations are 8
inadequate. And one reason these correlations are 9
used in analyses for severe fuel damage experiments is 10 simply that these correlations are supposed to work in 11 analyses for severe fuel damage experiments, just as 12 they are supposed to work in ECCS evaluation 13 calculations for LOCAs.
14 And today, I will discuss data indicating 15 that analyses using the available zircaloy-steam 16 oxidation correlations under-predict the oxidation 17 rates that occurred in thermal-hydraulic experiments 18 that simulated loss-of-coolant accidents.
And 19 this argument goes back quite awhile -- this same 20 issue was brought up about 40 years ago, most likely 21 coming from Henry Kendall of Union of Concerned 22 Scientists. Anyway, in 1971, in the Indian Point Unit 23 2 licensing hearing, intervenors argued that data from 24 the first transient experiment of a zircaloy fuel rod 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 cluster, that's the FRF-1 experiment, indicates that 1
ECCS evaluation models under predict the amount of 2
hydrogen produced in that experiment. This, in turn, 3
meant that ECCS evaluation models would under-predict 4
the amount of hydrogen produced in the event of a 5
LOCA.
6 The FRF-1 experiment was performed with a 7
7-rod bundle of 27-inch long zircaloy-clad uranium 8
dioxide fuel rods in a flowing steam atmosphere in the 9
TREAT facility. It is reported that in the FRF-1 10 experiment, at cladding temperatures of approximately 11 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, the zircaloy-steam reaction 12 generated 1.2 plus or minus 0.6 liters of hydrogen.
13 So it generated anywhere from 0.6 to 1.8 liters of 14 hydrogen.
15 Intervenors argued that the data from FRF-16 1 indicates that ECCS evaluation models using the 17 Baker-Just correlation under-predict zircaloy-steam 18 reaction rates at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. The Atomic 19 Energy Commission had stated that at 1800 degrees 20 Fahrenheit, the zircaloy-steam reaction is predicted 21 to be negligible. And in the Indian Point Unit 2 22 licensing hearing, Westinghouse testified that no 23 zircaloy-steam reaction would be predicted at 1800 24 degrees Fahrenheit.
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 However, Westinghouse also argued that 1
there had been problems with temperature measurements 2
in the FRF-1 experiment and that there had been -- and 3
I'm quoting now, "An uncertainty in the temperatures 4
of the fuel cladding during the experiment and that 5
one cannot make a direct inference on reported 6
temperatures and lead yourself to the conclusion that 7
the extent of the zirc-water reaction was higher or 8
much higher than would have been predicted by Baker-9 Just. "
10 Now I want to point out that instead of 11 conducting a series of more tests in the TREAT 12 facility, really to get to the bottom of the problem 13 to figure out if Westinghouse was correct or if the 14 Intervenors were correct, I mean the Intervenors were 15 stating the data. But Westinghouse had an argument 16 that it hadn't been measured properly.
17 But anyway, rather than conducting a 18 series of tests, they may have conducted one more 19 test, but the transient program in the TREAT facility 20 for zircaloy-clad fuel rods with uranium dioxide fuel, 21 it was terminated due to a lack of funding. And also 22 support of Oak Ridge work on fuel rod failure was 23 terminated at the end of Fiscal Year 1971. These are 24 pretty important issues, but apparently they just 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 didn't want to look into them.
1 In the Indian Point Unit 2 licensing 2
hearing, Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out 3
that the authors of the Oak Ridge report which 4
discusses the FRF-1 experiment, that's ORNL 4635.
5 They contended that the FRF-1 experiment was the most 6
realistic simulation of loss-of-coolant accident 7
conditions up to 1971, when the test was conducted or 8
at the time of the licensing hearing.
9 Westinghouse disagreed with the authors of 10 ORNL 4635. They stated that the four zircaloy tests 11 conducted in the PWR FLECHT program, that they 12 conducted themselves, provided a
more realistic 13 representation of the zircaloy-steam reaction in a 14 LOCA environment and that the PWR FLECHT results were 15 in and I'm quoting "very good agreement with the 16 Baker-Just equation."
17 In the last PRB meeting, I criticized the 18 Westinghouse examinations of the oxide samples that 19 were taken from the rods of the four zircaloy PWR 20 FLECHT tests. Just to repeat, Westinghouse did not 21 obtain samples from the locations of the rods from 22 FLECHT runs 8874 and 9573 that incurred runaway 23 oxidation. And it is likely that the sections of the 24 bundles that Westinghouse did examine from runs 8874 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 and 9573 that they were steam starved.
1 Actually, last time I did not include FLECHT run 2
8874. I only mentioned run 9573. In the PWR FLECHT 3
program, there were four runs conducted with zircaloy 4
multi-rod bundles and two of them incurred runaway 5
oxidation. Those aren't very promising results.
6 Anyway, it is reasonable to assume that, 7
as in the CORA-2 and CORA-3 experiments in which local 8
steam starvation conditions are postulated to have 9
occurred, during PWR FLECHT runs 8874 and 9573 the 10 violent oxidation essentially consumed the available 11 steam that would be in one location. So that time-12 limited and local steam starvation conditions would 13 have existed in other locations, the ones that 14 Westinghouse measured, which cannot be detected in the 15 post-test investigation.
16 So Westinghouse's application of the 17 Baker-Just correlation to the oxide layers on the 18 bundles from FLECHT runs 8874 and 9573 were most 19 likely to locations that were steam starved. And that 20 is not a legitimate verification of the adequacy of 21 the Baker-Just correlation for use in ECCS evaluation 22 models.
23 Now that was 40 years ago, but in recent 24 years, the same data has been used again. In recent 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 37 years, NRC used the same data from the four PWR FLECHT 1
zircaloy runs in its safety analysis of PRM 50-76, 2
which was submitted in 2002. And the NRC basically 3
made the same arguments that Westinghouse made, but 4
included the Cathcart-Pawel correlation, not realizing 5
they were basing their claims on samples that were 6
taken from locations that would have most likely had 7
local steam starvation conditions, which cannot be 8
detected in the post-test investigation. That's for 9
two of the bundles out of the four. Again, this is 10 not a legitimate verification of the adequacy of the 11 Baker-Just and Cathcart-Pawel correlations for use in 12 ECCS evaluation models.
13 In the early 1980s -- on to a new series 14 of experiments -- In the early 1980s, the NRC 15 contracted with National Research Universal at Chalk 16 River, Ontario, Canada to run a series of tests 17 including the Thermal-Hydraulic Experiment No. 1 to 18 evaluate the thermal-hydraulic behavior of a full-19 length zircaloy 32-rod uranium dioxide fuel bundle 20 during the heat up, reflood, and quench phases of a 21 large-break LOCA, in the NRU reactor.
22 The TH-1 experiment was conducted with 23 low-level fission heat to simulate decay heat. The 24 average fuel rod power for the test was 0.37 kilowatts 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 38 per foot and the peak power was 0.55 kilowatts per 1
foot. In a comparison between data from TH-1 and an 2
example of a
prediction using the Baker-Just 3
correlation of the behavior of zircaloy uranium 4
dioxide fuel rods under LOCA conditions, which is 5
discussed in Westinghouse's PWR FLECHT Final Report, 6
it is evident that analyses using the Baker-Just 7
correlation under-predict the amount of heat generated 8
by zircaloy oxidation in TH-1 test 128.
9 In TH-1 test 128 with the peak power of 10 0.55 kilowatts per foot, a reflood rate of 2 inches 11 per second and a PCT at the onset of reflood of 1604 12 degrees Fahrenheit, the overall PCT was 1991 degrees 13 Fahrenheit, an increase of 387 degrees Fahrenheit.
14 And in the PWR FLECHT Final Report example, the 15 uranium dioxide fuel assembly with a peak power of 16 1.24 kilowatts per foot, a reflood rate of 2 inches 17 per second and a PCT at the onset of reflood of 1600 18 degrees Fahrenheit was predicted to have an overall 19 PCT of approximately 1880 degrees Fahrenheit, an 20 increase of 280 degrees Fahrenheit.
21 So with similar parameters, but a lower 22 fuel rod power, TH-1 test 128 had an overall PCT 23 increase that was more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit 24 greater than the overall PCT increase predicted in 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 39 uranium dioxide fuel assembly example that's discussed 1
in PWR FLECHT Final Report. This indicates that 2
analyses using the Baker-Just correlation under-3 predict the amount of heat that zircaloy oxidation 4
generated in TH-1 test 128, a thermal hydraulic 5
experiment simulating LOCA conditions.
6 At the same temperatures, analyses using 7
the Cathcart-Pawel correlation would predict a lower 8
heat generation rate than analyses using the Baker-9 Just correlation. Therefore, analyses using the 10 Cathcart-Pawel correlation, which are used for best 11 estimate analyses like what are used for Units 2 and 3 12 at Indian Point, the Cathcart-Pawel correlation would 13 also under-predict the amount of heat that oxidation 14 generated in TH-1 test number 128.
15 So I think this is a pretty serious issue 16
-- evidence that we are now presenting that wasn't in 17 the original 2.206 petition. It shows that the ECCS 18 evaluation models used for Indian Point would actually 19 under-predict the peak cladding temperature that would 20 occur in a loss-of-coolant accident. And as Phillip 21 had mentioned they don't wait on hold for a rulemaking 22 process to finish, which as Richard Dudley had 23 mentioned could take up to 18 months before there's a 24 final decision.
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 40 And even after that, that can still take 1
longer before it would become a legally-binding rule, 2
so I just want to point out, I think just this alone -
3
- I think is evidence that shows that the Petition 4
Review Board really should consider this petition for 5
review. I will continue.
6 Analyses using the Baker-Just and 7
Cathcart-Pawel correlations would also most likely 8
under-predict the amount of heat that zircaloy 9
oxidation generated in TH-1 test 130 which I discussed 10 in the last meeting. Just to repeat, in TH-1 test 11
- 130, the reactor shut down when the PCT was 12 approximately 1850 degrees Fahrenheit. And after the 13 reactor shut
- down, cladding temperatures kept 14 increasing because of the heat generated from the 15 zircaloy-steam reaction. Of course, there would have 16 been a small amount of actual decay heat, but the peak 17 measured cladding temperature went up to 2040 degrees 18 Fahrenheit.
19 So the peak cladding temperature increased 20 by 190 degrees Fahrenheit after the reactor shut down 21 because of heat generated from the zircaloy-steam 22 reaction. Just to repeat. This test was being driven 23 by a low level of fission heat just to simulate what 24 decay heat would have been and the maximum was 0.55 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 41 kilowatts per foot. So the actual decay heat would 1
have been about 6 percent of 0.55 kilowatts per foot.
2 So that's very negligible. So this was indeed, this 3
increase of 190 degrees Fahrenheit was predominantly 4
from the heat generated from the exothermic oxidation 5
of the zircaloy fuel rods.
6
- Anyway, it is highly unlikely that 7
analyses using the Baker-Just and Cathcart-Pawel 8
correlations would predict the cladding temperature 9
increase of 190 degrees Fahrenheit in TH-1 test 130 10 after the reactor shut down. So data from thermal-11 hydraulic experiments simulating loss-of-coolant 12 accidents indicates that the Baker-Just and Cathcart-13 Pawel correlations are not adequate for use in ECCS 14 evaluation calculations that would calculate the 15 metal-water reaction rates that would occur in the 16 heat transfer conditions of a LOCA.
17 The ECCS evaluation calculations that 18 Entergy uses for Indian Point are seriously flawed and 19 the only recourse the public has to try to get this 20 problem corrected, that should have been corrected at 21 least 40 years ago when Indian Point Unit 2 was 22 originally licensed, the only recourse that the public 23 has is to submit enforcement action petitions and 24 rulemaking petitions. And unfortunately, as we have 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 42 discussed already, the rulemaking process takes years.
1 So right now, we, Riverkeeper and I, we have 2
presented data from the NRC's own experiments that the 3
NRC has failed to evaluate, experiments that were 4
conducted 30 years ago. I'm speaking specifically of 5
the Chalk River NRU experiments now. And the NRC has 6
actually done worse than nothing since these 7
experiments were conducted.
8 I say that the NRC has done worse than 9
nothing because since that time the NRC has approved 10 power uprates for the reactors at Indian Point. And 11 as Phillip pointed out, there are about 20 million 12 people living within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point 13 and the NRC is allowing the reactors at Indian Point 14 to continue operating at unsafe power levels that were 15 qualified by seriously flawed ECCS evaluation models.
16 And given the population density around Indian Point 17 and the fact that Indian Point was built close to 18 fault lines making it particularly vulnerable to loss-19 of-coolant accidents, I think that Riverkeeper's 2.206 20 petition is plant-specific.
21 And in the interest of upholding NRC's 22 congressional mandate to protect the lives, property, 23 and environment of the people of New York, the NRC 24 needs to consider that the data from the TH-1 test 128 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 43 and most likely also TH-1 test 130, as evidence that 1
the Baker-Just and Cathcart-Pawel correlations are not 2
adequate for use in ECCS evaluation calculations that 3
calculate the metal-water reaction rates that would 4
occur in the heat transfer conditions of a LOCA.
5 The NRC should not allow the reactors at 6
Indian Point to continue operating at unsafe power 7
levels, and to help remedy these problems the Petition 8
Review Board should accept Riverkeeper's 2.206 9
petition for review.
10 Thank you. That concludes my remarks.
11 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Leyse.
12 At this time do the staff in headquarters have any 13 questions for Mr. Leyse?
14 (No response.)
15 Other NRC staff, any questions?
16 (No response.)
17 Does the licensee's representatives on the 18 phone have any questions?
19 (No response.)
20 Hearing none, let me attempt to quickly 21 summarize the questions that I heard from the National 22 Resources Defense Council and the staff's response and 23 Mr. Leyse, although before I do that, let me also say 24 that the PRB will reconvene and review the information 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 44 that Mr. Leyse just went through. So this isn't a 1
conclusory statement. But the basic concern that was 2
addressed I believe was one of timeliness with the 3
NRC's process for dispositioning the specific 2.206 4
and the petition for rulemaking with I believe a 5
stated belief that the petition for rulemaking process 6
takes too long. And the 2.206 process should be 7
handled in a more exigent manner.
8 And I think you heard from members of the 9
PRB and our counsel on a basic differentiation under 10 the regulations for those two processes. But the 11 thing that we didn't state very clearly, that I think 12 is important to leave members of the public with, is 13 that in the petition for rulemaking process, as well 14 as in the 2.206 process for licensee specific action, 15 the staff has been evaluating the information provided 16 to us on an on-going basis for the appropriateness for 17 immediate action. And that interest in immediate 18 action response where necessary and appropriate exists 19 in both processes.
20 Clearly, the Petitioner does not agree 21 with the conclusions of the staff, both the PRB and 22 the rulemaking staff at this time on the actions that 23 we have deemed appropriate for immediate action, but I 24 do want to be clear that while there may be 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 45 disagreement, it is part of the process that we are 1
continuously evaluating the necessity for near-term 2
action.
3 So having said that and before I conclude 4
the meeting, members of the public may ask questions 5
about the NRC's process for 2.206 petitions. However, 6
as stated several times, the purpose of the meeting is 7
not to provide an opportunity for the public to 8
question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 9
the petition request. So at this time, are there any 10 process questions for the members of the Petition 11 Review Board?
12 MR. COCHRAN: This is Tom Cochran. I have 13 a comment I'd like to make with respect to the 14 statement that you just made. You just made a 15 statement that the staff, in fact, has a continuing 16 obligation to evaluate whether a
condition or 17 recommendation or petition merits immediate action.
18 And that you are so evaluating the 2.206 and the 19 previous rulemaking petitions in that regard.
20 And I would just say that I don't believe 21 you are correct because since the Fukushima accident, 22 you have been uprating reactors, power reactors. And 23 if, as I believe, Mr. Leyse is correct, you should be 24 derating these reactors. So not only are you not 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 46 examining whether you should take immediate action, 1
but you are, in fact, doing just the opposite and 2
denying the existence of these arguments and 3
continuing to uprate reactors. I imagine you will 4
continue to do so prior to resolving 50-93 and 50-95.
5 So I think you're not acting in the public 6
interest with respect to Indian Point by not derating 7
Indian Point, particularly given the circumstances 8
that were outlined regarding the very high population 9
density around Indian Point. And we have new 10 information, namely the Fukushima accident and the 11 implications of a release into an area following 12 hydrogen generation and meltdown of those reactors, 13 and you see that the new information is in the form of 14 the economic consequences in Japan and we know that 15 because Indian Point has a much higher density 16 population than Fukushima the consequences would be 17 exceedingly higher. So that is new information and it 18 does, in my judgment, justify taking action on this 19 2.206 petition and I think you are wrong to infer that 20 your staff is looking at these issues with respect to 21 whether immediate action should be taken. Thank you 22 for taking my comment.
23 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: Thank you. Are there 24 any questions for the staff on the 2.206 process?
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 47 (No response.)
1 Hearing none, I want to thank Mr. Musegaas 2
and Mr. Leyse for their comments and taking the time 3
to meet with us again.
4 Before we close, does the court reporter 5
need any additional information for the meeting 6
transcript?
7 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 8
reporter. I think I have everything I need.
9 MR. SIPOS: Excuse me, sir, can you hear 10 me? This is John Sipos from the State of New York.
11 MR. BOSKA: Yes, I can.
12 MR. SIPOS: Thank you, I just want to note 13 for the record I did not have a question, so I didn't 14 speak up at that time, but just a comment, which is 15 that earlier today this office filed some brief 16 comments concerning the petition that is before your 17 Board right now. Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: All right.
19 MR. M. LEYSE: This is Mark Leyse. I just 20 want to say one thing. The information that I covered 21
- today, since I
did cite some rather detailed 22 information with references, I will submit that to the 23 Petition Review Board in writing so they have access 24 to the references so they will have that at their 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 48 fingertips. Thank you.
1 CHAIRPERSON BROWN: Thank you. We 2
appreciate that. With that, this meeting is concluded 3
and we will be terminating the phone call. Thank you 4
again to all the participants.
5 (Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m.,
the 6
teleconference was concluded.)
7 8
9 10