ML112160612
| ML112160612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/2011 |
| From: | Peter Bamford Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Chernoff H Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| Bamford, Peter J., NRR/DORL 415-2833 | |
| References | |
| 2.206, NRC-998 | |
| Download: ML112160612 (45) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 8, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO: Harold K. Chernoff, Chief Plant Licensing Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Peter Bamford, Project Manager ~Y'~~~~""'tt:::~
Plant licensing Branch 1-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM TO FILE: TRANSCRIPT FOR 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REGARDING LIMERICK SCRAMS - SECOND TELECONFERENCE WITH PETITIONER The purpose of this memorandum is to provide, and make publically available, a transcript of the second teleconference associated with a petition submitted by Mr. Thomas Saporito regarding the Limerick Generating Station. The petition was submitted pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. The enclosure contains the transcript from the petitioner's second opportunity to address the petition review board (PRB) which occurred on June 30, 2011. The transcript has been corrected based upon review by the NRC staff, as supported by the audio recording of the call. Areas where corrections were made to the original transcript are marked in square brackets.
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353
Enclosure:
As stated
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE Limerick Scrams Docket Number: [50-352, 50-353]
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-998 Pages 1-51 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Enclosure
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWvV.nealrgross.com
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRE)
CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE:
7 LIMERICK SCRAMS 8 +++++
9 THURSDAY 1 JUNE 30, 2011 1 +++++
12 The conference call was held, David Skeen, Chairperson 13 of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
1 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 1 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
16 DAVID SKEEN, Petition Review Board Chairman 17 and Deputy Director, Division of Engineering, Office 18 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 19 PETER BAMFORD, Petition Manager for 2.206 2 Petition 2 MERRILEE BANIC, 2.206 Petition Coordinator 22 AUDREY KLETT, Performance Assessment Branch, 23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2 MUHAMMAD RAZZAQUE, Reactor Systems Branch, 2 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 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 2 NRC REGION I STAFF:
3 ANDREW ROSEBROOK, Senior Project Engineer, Division of Reactor Projects, Region I ALSO PRESENT:
6 GLENN STEWART, Exelon Nuclear Licensing 7
12 13 1
1 16 17 22 23 26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWN.nealrgross.com
3 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:04 a.m.
3 MR. BAMFORD : Hi. This is Peter Bamford wi th the NRC. Before we get started I just want to check and make sure that everybody is on the that needs to be for this call.
I heard Region I and Mr. Saporito.
How about the court reporter?
COURT REPORTER: lIm here. the 1 court reporter.
1 MR. BAMFORD: Okay.
12 How about the licensee?
13 MR. STEWART: Hey, Peter. You've got 1 Glenn Stewart here, [from] Exelon.
1 MR. BAMFORD : Okay. All right. Then I 16 think we'll get started.
17 I would like to thank everybody for 1 attending this teleconference. My name Peter Bamford. I Im the Limerick Generating Station 2 [project] manager here at NRR.
2 We are here today to allow the petitioner, 22 Thomas Saporito, to address the Petition Review Board 23 regarding a 2.206 petition dated June I, 2011, and 2 supplemented by a teleconference held on June 13, 2 2011.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 I'm the petition manager for the petition 2 and the Petition Review Board chairman is David Skeen.
3 As part of the Petition Review Board's review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested this opportunity to address the PRB, Petition Review Board.
This teleconference is scheduled from 10:00 to 11:00 eastern time. It's being recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by a Court Reporter. The transcript will become a 1 supplement to the petition. The transcript will also 1 be made publicly available.
12 I would like to open the teleconference 13 with introductions. As we go around the room, please 1 be sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 1 the office you work for with the NRC for the record.
1 I'll start off. Peter Bamford, Office of 17 Nuclear Reactor Regulation here at the NRC.
18 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: This is Dave Skeen. I'm 19 also with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at 2 the NRC and I'm the Petition Review Board chair.
2 MR. RAZZAQUE: Thi s i s Muhammad Raz zaque 22 from Reactor Systems Branch, NRR.
23 2 MS. KLETT: This is Audrey Klett. I'm a 2 reactor operations engineer with NRR.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 IN'vVIN.nealrgross.com
5 MS. BANIC: Lee Banic, petition 2 coordinator, NRR.
3 MR. BAMFORD: That's it for folks here at headquarters. Is there anybody from headquarters on the phone? Okay.
6 How about NRC participants in the regional 7 office. Could you please introduce yourself?
8 MR. ROSEBROOK: Andy Rosebrook. I'm a 9 senior project engineer for Division of Reactor 1 Projects. That's in Region I.
1 MR. BAMFORD: Okay. Any representatives 12 of the licensee, please introduce yourself.
13 MR. STEWART: Glenn Stewart, Exelon 1 Nuclear Licensing.
1 MR. BAMFORD : Okay. Anybody else from 1 Exelon, Glenn?
17 MR. STEWART: There might have one or two 18 more that I was expecting but they haven't joined the 19 call.
2 MR. BAMFORD: Okay.
2 Mr. Sapori to, would you please introduce 22 yourself for the record?
23 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. My name is Thomas 2 Saporito. I'm a senior consulting associate, 2 Saprodani Associates in Jupiter, Florida, and I'm the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 petitioner in this proceeding.
2 MR. BAMFORD: It's not required for 3 members of the public to introduce themselves for the call. However, if there are any members the public on the phone that wish to do so at this time, please state your name for the record.
7 I would like to emphasize that we need to 8 speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 9 reporter can actually transcribe the teleconference.
1 If you do have something you would like to say, please 1 f state your name for the record.
12 For those dialing into the teleconference, 13 please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 1 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 1 a mute button, you can do this by pressing the *6 key 1 on your telepad and to unmute press the [*] 6 key again. Thank you.
1 At this time I'll turn it over to the PRB chairman Dave Skeen.
2 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Thanks. Good morning and welcome, everyone, to this second teleconference 2 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Mr.
2 Saporito.
2 I would like to first share some 2 background on the process that we follow here. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 2 Regulations describe [s] the peti tion process. It's 3 the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
This process permits anyone to peti tion the NRC to take enforcement type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
Depending on the results of its evaluation, the NRC can modify, suspend, or [r]evoke 1 an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate 1 enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC 12 staff's guidance for the deposition of 2.206 petition 13 request Management Directive 8.11 which 1 publicly available.
1 The purpose of today's teleconference is 1 to give the petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition 1 before the Board makes our final decision.
This teleconference is not a hearing, nor 2 is it an opportunity for the petitioner to question or 2 examine the Petition Review Board on the merits or 22 issues presented the petition request.
23 No decisions regarding the merits of this 2 petition will be made at this teleconference.
2 Following the teleconference the Petition Review Board NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WWN.nealrgross.com
8 will conduct further internal deliberations. The 2 outcome of these internal deliberations will then be 3 discussed with the petitioner.
The Petition Review Board typically consists of a chairman, which is usually a manager at the senior executive service level at the NRC, as well 7 as a petition manager and a PRB coordinator. Other 8 members of the Board are determined by the NRC staff 9 based on the content of the information that is in the 1 petition request.
1 At this time I would like to introduce 12 again the Board here. I'm [D] ave Skeen, Petition 13 Review Board chairman. Peter Bamford is the petition 1 manager and Marrilee Banic is the PRB coordinator.
1 The technical staff that we have includes 1 Muhammad Razzaque from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 17 Regulation, Reactor Systems Branch [,] Andy Rosebrook 18 from NRC Region I in the Division of Reactor Projects, 19 and Audrey Klett from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 2 Regulation, Performance Assessment Branch.
2 As described in our process, the [NR] C 22 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to better 23 understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach 2 a reasoned decision whether to accept or rej ect the 2 petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 process.
2 Now I would like to summarize the scope of 3 the petition that is under consideration and the NRC's activities to date. On June 1, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding two scram events which occurred at the Limerick Generating Station Unit 2 on May 29th and May 30th, 2011.
In this petition request Mr. Saporito 1 requested that the NRC take two actions. One, take 1 escalated enforcement action against Exelon Generating 12 Company, LLC, and suspend or revoke the NRC license 13 granted for operation of the Limerick Generating 1 Station.
1 Two, issue a notice of violation with a 16 proposed civil penalty against the licensee and Mr.
17 John Rowe, the chairman and chief executive of cer of 1 the Exelon Corporation in this matter.
As the basis for this request, Mr.
2 Saporito states that on or about May 30, 2011 Limerick 2 Generating Station experienced an unexpected shutdown, 22 or scram event, at Unit 2 where two reactor 23 recirculation pumps tripped offline during reactor 2 start-up operations.
2 This significant event followed a similar NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 significant event which occurred less than 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> 2 earlier on the very same nuclear reactor where the 3 nuclear reactor experienced the scram event.
He further states that the licensee failed to properly analyze, determine, and correct the root cause of the initial scram event which apparently led 7 to the second scram event which did occur less than 36 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> later.
9 The petitioner is concerned that these 1 unexpected scram events are serious events which 1 challenge nuclear safety systems designed to protect 12 public health and safety from exposure to nuclear 13 particles and contamination.
1 Mr. Saporito states that the fact that the 1 licensee failed to properly analyze, determine, and 16 correct the root cause of the initial scram event 17 prior to restarting the nuclear reactor in question 18 significantly undermines any confidence that the NRC 19 can have that the licensee will comply with the 2 agency's safety regulations in the operation of the 2 Limerick Generating Station under 10 CFR Part 50.
22 Thus, the petitioner's concern that the 23 licensee cannot provide the NRC with any measure of 2 reasonable assurance that it will comply with NRC 2 regulations and requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 YmW.nealrgross.com
11 the operation of the Limerick Generating Station going 2 forward.
3 Now I would like to discuss the NRC activities to date. On June 2, 2011, the petition manager contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss the 10 CFR 6 2.206 process and to offer an opportunity to address 7 the PRB by phone or in person. Mr. Saporito requested 8 to address the PRB by phone prior to its internal 9 meeting to make the initial recommendation to either 1 accept or reject the petition for review.
1 On June 13, 2011, we held this 12 teleconference. At this time Mr. Saporito clarified 13 the amount of the request for the civil penalty at 1 $500,000. The PRB then held it's internal meeting and 1 on June 27, 2011, Mr. Saporito was informed of the 16 PRE's initial recommendation regarding the petition 17 which is to reject the petition for review because it does not provide any element of support beyond the basic assertions to warrant further inquiry.
Part of the Board's rationale for this initial determination is summarized as follows at this 22 time. In both the original petition and in the June 23 13, 2011 teleconference the petition provided a 2 summary of recent events at the Limerick Generating 2 Station.
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 The PRE generally agrees that the events 2 are described correctly. However, the peti tioner ' s 3 primary basis for the requested action is the assertion that the 1 did not perform a proper root cause analysis these various events prior to the reactor restart citing the lack of such information in the 10 CFR 50.72 event reports that were made by the licensee.
I can certainly understand how someone 1 could reasonably assume that the licensee did not 1 perform a root cause analysis of the events based on 12 the reading of the information in the 50.72 event 13 notifications. However, I think it would be 1 worthwhile at this point to explain to the petitioner 1 a little bit about the NRC's reporting requirements 1 and our follow-up process that we do to our reactor oversight process.
1 First, reports made under 10 CFR 50.72 are meant to inform the NRC in a timely manner about 2 events such as the actuation of the reactor protection 2 system at nuclear power plants in order to provide us 22 with immediate notification of significant events 23 where either immediate regulatory actions to protect 2 the public health and safety may be required, or where 2 the NRC needs timely and accurate information to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 respond to a heightened public concern.
2 The licensee is required to report a valid 3 reactor protection system actuation to the NRC within a short period of time. [And f] or scram events the reporting requirement is four hours if the reactor was critical at the time of the [actuation].
As such, these reports are not mean to provide the root cause of an event but just to inform the NRC of the event in case immediate action is 1 warranted, or if the NRC needs to respond to any 1 public concerns.
1 In addition to the 50.72 event notification, licensees are also required to provide a 1 more detailed report of the event to the NRC within 60 1 days of the occurrence of the event. This report 1 called a license event report, or an LER, and the 17 requirements are provided in 10 CFR 50.73.
18 The NRC now has either received, or 19 expects to receive, LERs from Limerick regarding all 2 the scram events that were described in either the 2 original petition or the supplemental 22 teleconference that we held on June 13, 2011.
23 In addition to these reporting 2 requirements that all reactor licensees must follow, 2 the NRC has resident inspectors at all nuclear power NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 plant sites, including Limerick, to work at the site 2 every day and respond to all plant scrams order to 3 monitor the licensee's action to evaluate the cause of the scram prior to the licensee restarting the unit.
The NRC inspectors are contact with the managers in the NRC regional of on a daily basis.
This interaction between the inspector and the NRC regional office ensures that NRC management is aware of the apparent cause of the event prior to the 1 licensee's restart of the reactor so that the NRC is 1 in a position to challenge the licensee about 12 restarting if there is any safety concern.
13 In each of the cases at Limerick described 1 by the petitioner, the resident inspectors monitored 1 the restart process after the plant was scramed 1 including the status of the licensee's investigation of the causes of the event and the inspectors 1 identified no immediate concerns with restarting the units.
2 Therefore, since the petitioner's request 21 based on the information in the 50.72 notifications 22 and no additional facts or information have been 23 provided beyond the description the 50.72 reports, 24 the Petition Review Board made an initial 25 determination that the request should be rejected.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 Hopefully this short explanation helps in 2 understanding part of the rationale for the PRE's 3 initial recommendation.
Now, as a reminder for the phone participants, please identify yourself if you make any remarks as this will help us in the preparation of the teleconference transcript that will be made publicly available and I thank you for that.
At this time, Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to allow you to provide any further information you believe the PRE should consider before we make our final decision.
MR. SAPORITO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name for the record again Thomas Saporito. I'm a senior consulting associate with Saprodani Associates based in Jupiter, Florida. We maintain a website at saprodani-associates.com with a hyphen between those two words spelled S-A-P-R-O-D-A-N-I associates.com.
First of all, let me correct the record that was misrepresented in my view as stated by the 22 NRC this morning. First of all, there was an initial 23 petition filed by myself on June I, 2011 and the 2 enforcement action as stated by the NRC was correct.
2 And there was a subsequent June 13, 2011 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WvVW. nealrgross.com
16 teleconference call.
2 However, the NRC conveniently surmised 3 that the gist of that teleconference call at the NRC was merely to request $500, 000 worth of enforcement action. That's wholly unsupported by the record in 6 this proceeding. It's misleading to the public and to 7 the media who may be attending this meeting.
It calls into question the NRC'S credibility in this matter because the NRC here to 1 protect public health and safety. It's the only 1 government agency charged by the United States 12 congress to serve that function.
13 Now, me clarify the background of this 1 proceeding because it was not properly provided to the 1 public by the NRC this morning. I received an emai 1 1 correspondence from Peter Bamford, B-A-M-F-O-R-D.
He's an NRC employee. I received this on June 27, 1 2011.
The gist of this it says, "Based on 2 information your petition and the supplemental 2 information you provide in a teleconference on June 22 13, 2011, PRB's initial recommendation is that the 23 petition does not meet the criteria for review. Per 2 NRC management directive MD 8.11 the facts that 2 constitute the basis for taking that particular action NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WINW.nealrgross.com
17 must be specified and the petitioner must provide some 2 element of support beyond the [bare] assertion.
3 Your petition did not provide any element of support, i . e., new or pertinent facts related to the need for the requested action, beyond the basic 6 assertions to warrant further inquiry. There is some 7 other language in there. I was suppose [d] to get a written statement from the NRC to justify their denying the petition request. I never received that 1 in the mail to this date.
1 Now, with that statement from that email 12 letter from Mr. Bamford, I want to describe to the 13 public and for the record how erroneous that statement 1 is. On[], June 13, 2011 through the telephone 1 conference, that telephone conference call was a 1 supplement to the original petition.
17 For the public's information, when you 18 file a petition under 2.206 you're not allowed to talk 19 to the NRC with a dialogue. All you are allowed to do 2 is make statements on the record like I'm doing here 2 today but you can't talk to the NRC. You can't ask 22 them, "What are you thinking here? What do you think 23 about what I said? Do you want me to clarify 2 anything?"
2 It doesn't happen. They just sit there.
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 They are like sponges and hopefully they absorb what 2 you're talking about. Apparently they didn't in this 3 case because they made a terrible erroneous decision.
[Now t] he record that was transcribed by the NRC on Jun 2011 clearly reflects the 6 following. On page 11 of that record it stated 7 specifically, "Because the licensee failed to properly analyze, determine, and correct the root cause of one or more scram events or nuclear reactor trips prior to 1 the restart of the subject nuclear reactor, that 1 action significantly undermines any confidence or 12 reasonable assurance that the NRC can have that the 13 licensee will comply with the [AEC'S] safety 1 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 in operation of the 1 Limerick Nuclear Plant.
1 It goes on to say on page 11 and 12 that, 17 "Peti tioners request, (1) that the NRC suspend or 18 revoke the NRC issued to the 1 19 authorizing operation of the Limerick Nuclear Plant.
2 And (2) that the NRC issue a notice of 2 violation with a civil penalty in the amount of 22 $500,000 against the censee to make certain that the 23 licensee realizes the serious, serious nature of the 2 violation and endangerment to public health and safety 2 and to ensure that recurrence of this type of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WYIW.nealrgross.com
19 violation is prevented."
2 Then the transcript continues on page 13 3 and says, "In addition, as the NRC stated this morning, the[y] conveniently again only describe two events that were the subject of the initial petition."
6 Again, this petition was supplemented by record 7 that I'm reading now, the July 13th teleconference record.
On page 13 it specifically says, "On 1 February 25, 2011 Unit 2 employed a manual nuclear 1 reactor trip from 100 percent power. On April 2, 12 2011, Unit 2 ing outage activities and invertor 13 alternate power manual transfer switch was transferred 1 from the primary alternate to the secondary alternate 1 position. This resul ted in a primary containment 16 isolation valve automatically closing on more than one 17 system."
1 Continuing on page 14, "On May 29, 2011, Uni t 2 nuclear reactor tripped of ine. On May 30, 2 2011, Unit 2 was manually tripped of On June 3, 2 2011, Unit 1 tripped offline from 100 percent power."
22 Continuing on page 15, "This history 23 highlights the seriousness of the events that have 2 occurred during the short period of six months at the 2 Limerick Nuclear Plant. The scram event, or an event 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 where the nuclear reactor automatically shuts down or 2 trips offline, places a tremendous amount of stress on 3 the entire nuclear reactor system and supporting equipment. This stress can cause failure of one or more systems at any time, especially of the reactor 6 vessels."
7 It continues at the bottom of page 15.
"And after 40 years of operation the reactor vessel at the Limerick Nuclear Station on has become embrittled 1 to a certain degree from the [e] ffects of high-level 1 radiation bombardment during the fission process which 12 takes place in the reactor core during normal plant 13 operations on a seven-day 24-hour basis."
1 Continuing on page 16. "Clearly this 1 number of nuclear reactor scrams, be it automatic or 16 manual, it should be seen by the NRC as unacceptable 17 performance by the licensee. The NRC should increase 18 its inspection activi ties in accordance wi th its own 19 reactor oversight process and to ensure for the 2 protection of public health and safety."
2 The record continues on page 18, 22 "Peti tioner further feels that there is a lack of 23 training on system functionality and repair activities 2 on the part of the licensee at the Limerick Nuclear 2 Station.
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 There also appears to be a lack of 2 supervisory oversight during repair activi ty at the 3 Limerick Nuclear Station where apparently management were not doing their job to oversee the maintenance activities of the nuclear workers at the Limerick Nuclear Plant when they do repair activities at the 7 plant, when they do post-maintenance activity on the 8 repair activities at the plant, and when they do 9 surveillance testing."
1 Continuing on page 19, "Most concerning to 1 petitioners is the failure on the part of the licensee 12 to affirmatively determine a root cause of the nuclear 13 reactor trip prior to restart with a nuclear reactor."
1 Now, that record speaks for itself which I 1 just read into the record for a second time. Clearly 1 it shows that the NRC mislead the public this morning 17 and they skimmed over all that evidence and all that 18 supplemental information which the NRC Petition Review 19 Board sitting here today at this meeting was required 2 to review and required to consider.
2 We're not talking about just a couple of 22 scram events or reactor trips that happened ln 23 approximately June of this year. We're talking about 2 a sequence of reactor trips, either manually or 2 automatic, where the reactor was inadvertently shut NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WNW.nealrgross.com
22 down, for one reason or another, over the course of 2 six months. Six months.
3 We're talking about plant nuclear workers who go in during a refueling outage[, you know], and open electrical circuits for an invertor to switch an 6 invertor supply, power supply, from one position to 7 another so that it can do some kind of testing and it 8 automatically engages safety systems and containment 9 isolation on more than one system.
1 Apparently they are not trained right, or 1 maybe there's a problem with the procedures, or maybe 12 there's a problem with the procedures and they are not 13 trained right. For sure they are not supervised correctly. Where was the sup~rvisor for those crews when that was happening?
Where was the interaction between the maintenance activities and plant operations when that event happened? That event could have happened for any other safety-related system. Fortunately for the public health and safety it happened to the containment isolation.
22 These were all put into the record. [T]he 23 NRC Petition Review Board[] didn't bother looking at 2 them. Didn't bother considering them but they are 2 part of the record. They are required under the law NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 to review that information and to consider it as 2 supplemental information just the same as if I had 3 written it word for word into the original petition.
They apparently did not do that. [The] petition talks specifically to the reactor vessel itself and how 6 brittle that reactor vessel is. Forty years of 7 operation.
The Limerick Nuclear Plant at the very end of its original license/ the original safety design 1 basis and the safety analysis report/ during the 1 fission process high-level radioactive neutrons are 12 bombarding the metal of that reactor vessel day in and 13 day out/ 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day/ seven days a week for the 1 entire time that reactor is online. That causes the 1 metal in the reactor vessel to become brittle.
1 This a scientific fact. This is well knovm to the Uni ted States Nuclear Regulatory 1 Commission and has been knovm to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the agency was created in 2 1974 through the Energy Reorganization Act, and before 2 that under the Atomic Energy Commission.
22 But the NRC Petition Review Board 23 apparently didn't consider how embrittled the reactor 2 vessel is. We're talking - I'm only talking about 2 six months here where the reactor has been tripped NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 of ine one time after another time after another time 2 another time for one reason after another reason 3 after another reason.
That is a tremendous amount of stress placed on that reactor vessel and all the safety related systems associated that scram event. That could cause that reactor vessel to s[h]atter just like a glass and then you're going to have a core meltdown just like in Japan where there are three nuclear I reactors mel ting down simultaneously and nothing on 1 this planet is going to stop that reactor from melting 12 down.
13 It will be an uncontrolled nuclear reactor 1 meltdown. It don t I matter how many fire trucks you 1 pull up there to pour water onto it, the water is 1 going to come right out of the vessel because 's 17 cracked or shattered. You're not going to stop that 18 meltdown. You are going to tremendous amounts 19 hydrogen as that water boi away.
2 The containment building is going to 2 become full of hydrogen just like in Japan and you are 22 going to have huge explosion just like in Japan, and 23 you are going to contaminate the environment just like 2 in Japan for miles and mi and miles by air, by 2 land, and by sea. You are going to have to evacuate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 WWVII.nealrgross.com
25 hundreds, if not millions, of people not just living 2 around Limerick depending on wherever that wind 3 carries that plum[e] .
The seriousness of these reactor trips can not be understated here. [And] if you take into context the history of this plant, we could be here all day talking about how many times the reactor tripped offl prior to 2011 but I'm just talking about the first six months. This is a tremendous 1 amount.
1 The NRC says, "Well, we protect public 12 health and safety because we have a Reactor Oversight 13 Process. Yeah. [And] you know, we periodically go in 1 there on a quarterly basis and inspect different areas 1 of the plant. If anybody would take the time to read 1 this, it's a hopscotch type of inspection.
They don't inspect the entire plant. They 1 just pick and choose certain areas. Then even if they find serious violations, you know, the chairman 2 Gregory Jaczko, J-A-C-Z-K-O, I think he pronounces it Jaczko, it's his view and his policy that you don't 22 cause the licensee to pay any fines.
23 No. What we' do instead we'll just 2 increase our inspection activities. Is that 2 protecting public health and safety? Not in my view.
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 If there is anybody in the public stening to this, 2 this is how bad it's gotten in the United States.
3 Getting back to the chairman's remarks today, you know, he talked about the Petition Review Board, you know, they look at your petition in light of 10 CPR 50.72 reports, LERs, 10 CPR 50.73 reports.
Apparently you got your information off these reports about whether or not the licensee reported a root cause~
1 But, you know what? The licensee is 1 required to tell us about the root cause and their 12 corrective actions in these other documents, the 50.72 13 documents, the 50.73 documents I licensee LERS, etc.,
etc. But, you know what? NRC chairman, or spokesperson, today said that the NRC expects to receive these reports.
Expects to receive them. That means that they haven't received them. The NRC Petition Review Board made their flawed judgment on my petition requesting enforcement action without even having the benefit of these reports in of them from the 22 licensee. [Now, w] hy did they make this rush to 23 judgment? What was so urgent that they couldn't wait 2 for these reports to come in here before rejecting my 2 petition out of hand?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WVvW.nealrgross.com
27 I demand on this public record today that 2 the NRC forward a copy of the transcript to 3 this case and all associated documents in connection with the ing of this petition to the NRC Office of the Inspector General so that agency can make an informed decision as to whether the NRC should be investigated for wrongdoing and noncompliance with their own regulations under [MD 8.11]. And a lack of common sense quite frankly.
1 I also request that a copy of all these 1 same documents be provided to Senator Edward Markey of 12 the United States Congress for his review. Also, the 13 chairman or whoever the spokesperson was today from 14 the NRC said, "We have resident inspectors. They were 15 there in the control room and they didn't see any 16 immediate safety concerns which would have prevented 17 them from letting the licensee bring reactors 18 back on1 "
19 Well, if you read some of those documents 2 from the NRC, you'll see that the resident inspectors 2 looked to see if they followed procedures in 2 restarting the reactor and controlling the situation from that point of view. The resident inspectors 2 didn't go out there and do any inspection activities.
2 They didn't go out there and check the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 reactor vessel or do any type of investigation as to 2 why the reactor was shut down manually or as to why 3 the reactor tripped of No. In fact, the record speaks for itself. It shows the very short turnaround time in hours, a matter of hours from when the reactor is tripped offline to when it's restarted in full view 7 and plain site of the NRC resident inspectors.
8 How is that protecting public health and 9 safety? When you have a serious, serious event where 1 the reactor is tripped offline manually or 1 automatically, the NRC should require the licensee to 12 keep that reactor offline a cold shutdown mode of 13 operation until a [] thorough and valid and credible 1 investigation is completed to the NRC's satisfaction 1 to ensure that the root cause has been affirmatively 1 identified and that preventive measures were taken so 17 that particular event doesn't reoccur, that root cause 18 that caused the reactor to trip offline, or the root 19 cause that caused the operator to bring that reactor 2 offline doesn't happen again.
2 That root cause could be a number of 2 things. It could be improper training, a piece of 2 equipment which is [defective], a piece of equipment 2 which was improperly maintained, piece of equipment 2 that housed a bad original equipment manufacturer's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 part in it, a surveillance test that was missed, 2 employee didn't follow [a] procedure.
3 rrhat root cause has to be determined and there is nobody with a lick of common sense that going to accept the NRC's pos ion that a nuclear 6 plant can be turned around in a matter of hours and 7 brought back online without determining what the root cause is. You have to shut it down and you have to take the time. It's going to take more than hours to 1 do a proper investigation.
1 The NRC admitted on this public record 12 today that they are still waiting on 10 CFR 50.72 13 documents, 10 CFR 50.73 documents from the licensee to 1 describe exactly what the root cause was and what 1 measures they took to prevent reoccurrence, etc., etc.
16 so the NRC made a rush to judgment, "[The]
17 hell with public health and safety. We've got to help 18 the licensee this reactor back online so they can 19 make their million dollars a day." That's right, a 2 million dollars a day revenue each nuclear 2 reactor.
22 Now, I asked for enforcement action to 23 suspend, revoke the license and to issue a monetary 2 penalty. The NRC just blew all that off. Didn't even 2 consider that. Didn't even as much take any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .* NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 enforcement action. They didn't increase inspection 2 activities. They didn't issue notices [of] violation, 3 nothing.
[And] recently the Brown Ferry Nuclear Power Plant operated by, I believe, Tennessee Valley 6 Authorit[y], the licensee, the NRC over there issued a 7 red finding. That's the highest violation that the 8 NRC has on their books.
9 Why? Because there was apparently a valve 1 that would not have operated when called to do its job 1 because it had a defective seal or some part from the 12 manufacturer was defective and it wasn't caught in a 13 licensee surveillance program, etc., etc.
1 But the NRC issued a red finding. That's 1 an escalated type of enforcement action that requires 16 more oversight on the part of the NRC. That was just 17 for one valve, one piece of equipment in the tens of 18 thousands of pieces of equipment at the nuclear plant.
19 Here talking about something a hundred fold more 2 serious.
2 We're talking about a nuclear reactor 22 tripping offline, manually or automatically, numerous 23 times within a six-month period of time. We're 2 talking about nuclear plant workers throwing the wrong 2 switch causing [power] to fail on vital safety-related NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 equipment which caused containment isolation valves to 2 actuate which they shouldn't have [done].
3 You're talking about employees who don't appear to be trained well or in procedures don't appear to be guiding these employees right. There 6 appears to be a lack of understanding on make-no-break 7 ectrical cont[]acts when they change the power configuration from one inverter power supply to another. A lack of management supervisory oversight.
1 A lack of communications between the control room and 1 these maintenance activities.
12 But the NRC they didn't even consider 13 that. The Petition Review Board just blows all that 1 off, too. Well, there has got to be a reason that the 1 NRC is failing to protect publ health and safety in 1 these circumstances, and there A recent report by the Associated Press 1 dated June 27, 2011, and other reports show the AP has reported that aging plants, their lives extended by 2 industry and regulations are prone to breakdown that 2 can lead to accidents. AP found serious 22 weaknesses in plants or evacuations around the plants 23 including emergency drills to move people, and failure 2 to test different scenarios involving weather or the 2 time of day.
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 AP analysis also showed that four million 2 people now live within 10 miles of 65 operating sites.
3 There are choke points everywhere with respect to evacuations. Most concerning to the public should be s statement.
6 These [is] findings by the Associated 7 Press. Playing With the Numbers this is entitled. It says, "Part of this investigation the Associated Press has reported that researcher's numbers and 1 assumptions, along with NRC regulations, have been 1 periodically adjusted to keep the reactors within the 12 stated limits for operating safety."
13 Is that incredible or what? That means 1 that the NRC has safety rules, regulations, standards, 1 and guidelines like the ones I talk about concerning 1 the reactor vessel, the degree that it's embrittled.
17 Over the years the NRC has cons tently relaxed these 18 safety margins.
19 Otherwise, these nuclear reactors 2 including the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant would not 2 be operating today because 11m telling you here on 22 this record today it's not a matter of if but a matter 23 of when one of these 104 nuclear reactor vessels is 2 going to crack and shatter and there is going to be a 2 serious nuclear meltdown.
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 I hope to God it's not the Limerick 2 Nuclear Plant but the NRC has taken no investigative 3 efforts, made no independent investigation or findings to determine just how embrittled and how brittle the vessel metal of the Limerick Nuclear Reactor is. But 6 that was part of my petition and they didn't consider 7 that.
That is something that they are required to consider in Management Directive 8.11. That's what 1 this whole process is for; so the public can 1 participate; so public stakeholders have a say in 12 their own safety; so the NRC can be held accountable 13 to do their jobs.
1 On my website that I mentioned earlier, 1 saprodani-associates. com, if you go to that website 16 there is the entire video portion of the AP 17 investigative findings and it shows the complacency of 18 the NRC. I stand to tell you today the NRC is 19 extremely complacent with the oversight inspection 2 activi ties and the lack of enforcement action at the 2 Limerick Nuclear Power Generating Station.
22 As incredible as it may sound and seem, 23 the record transcripts for June 13, 2011, clearly 2 reflect I specifically asked at the end of my 2 testimony on that record whether or not the NRC 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 Petition Review Board had any questions and nobody on 2 that entire panel, the same panel sitting here today I 3 would imagine, had any questions. They didn't need anything clarified.
Nothing. That entire page after page of 6 testimony they had no questions, not one. An NRC 7 individual from, I believe, Region I had a question 8 and it only had to deal with my interpretations of 9 where I got the information that comprised the 1 petition itself which was the event report.
1 The Peti tion Review Board didn't have a 12 single question, didn't need anything clarified. Yet, 13 in a very short time period they turn around and deny 1 the petition. It's just a generic statement which the 1 Chairman apparently mischaracterized the entire scope 16 with the petition and supplemental testimony which 17 makes the petition supplemented by law as it is being 18 supplemented today so that the public gets the NRC's 19 version which is a industry-friendly version so they 2 can have a basis to deny these petitions.
2 That is part of the bigger problem of the 22 NRC and this 2.206 process because I have written 23 through the Federal Register's notice of how the 2 process should be changed. The petitioner should be 2 able to engage the Petition Review Board members in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 YMW.nealrgross.com
35 court of law in front of the Atomic Safety and 2 Licensing Board.
3 They need to be cross-examined and we need to be able to bring expert witness testimony to bear on the NRC because the NRC apparently is not a credible organization and a credible agency, I should 7 say. They are not protecting public and 8 safety.
9 Now, clearly this entire record from the 1 inception of the June 1, 2011 petition as supplemented 1 on June 13, 2011 and as supplemented today cl 12 shows more than a sufficient basis for the NRC to take 13 the escalated enforcement action I have requested.
1 I am again going on this record and again 1 requesting the NRC to take escalated enforcement 1 action against those entities described in the 17 peti tion as the licensee and suspend, revoke their 18 license, issue the $500,000 civil penalty, issue 19 notices of violation, require the licensee to make 2 affirmative and defini tive determinations as to root 2 cause of each and every nuclear reactor trip or scram 22 for the entire 2011 time period, this six months we're 23 talking about from January through the end of June.
2 Require the licensee to review their 2 training programs and review through testing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 knowledge of their maintenance crews, the training of 2 their management and supervisory personnel who oversee 3 maintenance activi ties, to review any procedures or policies or lack thereof that should require communication between the control room operators who were licensed by the NRC and the maintenance workers 7 and supervisory personnel when maintenance activities 8 are going on such as a refueling outage where the 9 electrical cont [] actor for the inverter, which was a 1 make or break, inadvertently caused unwanted safety 1 related [action] in the containment isolation valve 12 movement.
13 These are serious events and the NRC 1 inspectors aren t I doing their job because they don 't 1 get involved in these refueling outages to the extent 1 they should have. These issues should have been 17 highlighted by the resident inspectors. They should 18 have demanded that their region get involved and send 1 inspection teams out there, augmented inspection 2 teams, find out where these root causes are before 2 these reactors are allowed to be back on line.
22 The more times a reactor trips in such a 23 short period of time six months should be a red 2 flag for the NRC that something is wrong here. These 2 reactors should not be tripping offline so many times 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 in such a short period of time. But where is the 2 enforcement action?
3 Where are the notices of violation? Where is the civil penalty? Where's the confirmatory orders? They are all missing because the NRC pro nuclear energy. The NRC promotes nuclear energy through the failure of the agency to take enforcement action.
The NRC won't corne out and say, "We are 1 cheerleaders for the nuclear industry," but they will 1 do it by not finding by not issuing monetary 12 fin [e] s against a nuclear plant operator like the 13 Limerick Generating Station for violating their safety 1 margin. And they will not issue notices of 1 violations.
1 They promote nuclear power by failing to 1 issue notices of violations when safety margins 18 are violated. That how they do it. That's how 19 they promote it. 'fhere t S a complacency, a generic 2 complacency among the whole agency. There are 104 2 nuclear plants. The United States has more nuclear 22 power plants than any other -
23 (Interruption by operator.)
2 MR. SAPORITO: Hello. Am I still on this 2 phone?
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 MR. BAMFORD: Yes, we can still hear you, 2 Mr. Saporito. It sounds like the headquarters 3 Operations Office may have unmuted for a second possibly. Can you still me?
MR. SAPORITO: Yes. May I continue[?]
MR. BAMFORD: Okay. Why don't we just continue at this point.
MR. SAPORITO: All right. In summary, for the benefit and protection of public health and safety 1 let [this] record reflect that the United States 1 Congress should abolish Commission, the NRC 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and replace it with a 13 structured organization with a director and, you know, 1 a regular like the Department of Energy is structured 1 with a[ director], an assistant director, etc., etc.
1 so there is some accountability. There is no 17 accountability right now. It's my view public health 18 and safety is in grave, grave danger from a serious 19 nuclear accident.
2 I am going to once again offer the NRC 2 Petition Review Board an opportunity to ask any 22 questions so that I can take the time to make certain 23 they fully understand the seriousness of this petition 2 and why they are required under law to accept this 2 tion.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Mr. Sapori to, are you 2 finished?
3 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Thank you. This is Dave Skeen again. I appreciate your comments. I have a question on the reactor embri ttlement. Do you have any information, technical information, that would indicate that the reactors are embrittled at Limerick?
MR. SAPORITO: Just the [fact] that the 1 plant has operated for the duration it has -
1 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Okay.
12 MR. SAPORITO: and with the 13 understanding that the -- excuse me. Let me finish.
1 You asked a question -- and with the understanding 1 that the neutron caused embrittlement when the fission 1 process is going on, and to the extent that the AP, 17 the Associated Press, with over a year of 18 investigation found that the reactor vessels are 19 embrittled and, in fact, interviewed the NRC, and the 2 NRC admitted that the reactor vessels become 2 embrittled from the neutron bombardment, it stands to 22 reason that the Limerick Nuclear Power plant reactor 23 vessel is embrittled.
2 I'm requesting that the NRC conduct an 2 independent investigation to determine just -- we know 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 it's brittle but we don't know how brittle. The NRC 2 cannot today tell the public just how brittle 3 that reactor vessel is or whether it's going to crack, whether it's beyond the safety margin, even the revised safety margins that the NRC has lessened over 6 the years. That's a concern that we want resolved.
7 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Okay. I appreciate that.
Thanks for that clarification. Al so, I unders tand that you want the record of the prior phone call as 1 well as this one to be considered supplements to your 1 petition. Is that correct?
12 MR. SAPORITO: Absolutely. Yes, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN SKEEN: Okay. I think that's all 1 the questions I have.
1 I'll ask staff, do you have any questions 1 for Mr. Saporito?
Okay. Hearing none here, how about the 1 Regions? Andy, do you have any questions?
MR. ROSEBROOK: I [don't] have [any]
2 questions but there are a couple items just for the 2 record. As indicated on the transcript on page 42, I 22 am a member the Petition Review Board and I did ask 23 a clarifying question on June 13th that was directly 2 related to the understanding what the basis of your 2 initial [claim] was.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WINW.nealrgross.com
41 One other item I think should be at least 2 clarified in the record is the statement that Limerick 3 has been operating for 40 years I t totally accurate. Full power license was granted for Unit I 1985 and Unit 2 in 1989. I just wanted to make that correction [to] the record.
I definitely appreciate your passion on this issue. I think I would like to understand what your -- you talk about reactor oversight process.
I Based on the timeliness expectations for the NRC to 1 take enforcement action on an issue, what is your 12 understanding of how much time it takes to intercede a 13 processing issue considering that these scrams 1 happened late last month, or May?
1 MR. SAPORITO: Well, first of all, let me I stand corrected. When reading the record I saw that you were from Region I. I was not aware I should 1 have read the transcripts more accurately, I got up 1 early today but had a bunch of things to do to get 2 ready for this meeting but I didn t I know you were a 2 member of the Petition Review Board so I stand 22 corrected on that point.
23 with respect to the age of these reactors, 2 they have operated suff ent the Limerick plant 2 has operated more than sufficient to cause NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
42 embrittlement of the reactor vessel no matter if it 2 has operated 40 years or not. The determination to 3 the embrittlement is critical to reactor safety. That is one thing the NRC should look into.
With respect to reactor oversight process, it's a failed program in my view. The NRC us ed to 7 have the Systematic Assessment of Licensee 8 Performance, SALP. It was a much more effective program. The inspection entailed the entire plant from top to bottom, all the systems, all the procedures, interviews, etc.
12 For some reason the NRC did away with that 13 program, replaced the reactor oversight process which 1 basically has four pillars, or four corners of 1 expectation, blah, blah, blah. Whether you meet those 1 or not, the NRC will consider increasing inspection activities but it's not a clear-cut process and it's 1 haphazard. The NRC only inspects part of the plant one time, part of it at another.
2 Maybe eventually it all gets inspected but 2 the public is being denied the safety critique of the 2 NRC because the entire plant is not being overviewed 23 on a quarterly basis. There's a lot of stuff in those 24 plants.
2 Tens of thousands of pieces of equipment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
43 and procedures and stuff that should be looked at on a 2 quarterly basis by the NRC which are not. Whether 3 it's the staffing, funding, whatever, I don't know what the problem is. All I know is the public is in grave jeopardy because of it.
With respect to the timeliness issue of the NRC, my point today was the Petition Review Board apparently made a rush to judgment in denying my petition without having the benefit of the documents 1 that were required to be produced by the licensee 1 under the regulations that I spoke to earlier.
12 To the extent that the NRC continues to 13 employ the reactor oversight process with respect to 1 operations of the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant, it is 1 my contention, and it's just a matter of common sense, 16 that when a nuclear reactor trips offline, if the 17 NRC's mission was truly to protect public heal th and 1 safety and the environment with respect to the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant, then the NRC should 2 issue a confirmatory order preventing that nuclear 2 power plant from restart until all the information 22 that the licensee is required to provide the NRC, as 23 was mentioned today, 10 CFR 50.72 and .73, etc., etc.,
2 licensee [event] reports, whatever is required, should 2 have been provided to the NRC before that reactor was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
IVIL112160612 II OFFICE DORt::7lPLI-2/PM DORLILPLI-2/BC' I NAME PBamford HChernoff 8/4/2011 8/8/2011