ML11242A013
| ML11242A013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Orf T | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11242A004 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2011-0357, G20110365, OEDO-2011-0357, NRC-1082 | |
| Download: ML11242A013 (28) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1082 Pages 1-27 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
ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 7
+ + + + +
8 TUESDAY 9
AUGUST 16, 2011 10
+ + + + +
11 The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m.,
12 Samson Lee, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding.
14 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 15 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 17 SAMSON LEE, Chairperson, NRR 18 MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 19 TRACY ORF, Petition Manager for 2.206 20 Petition, NRR 21 GERARD PURCIARELLO, NRR 22 MARCIA SIMON, OGC 23 NRC REGION STAFF 24 STEPHEN ROSE, Region II 25 26
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:06 p.m.
2 MR. ORF: Good afternoon. This is Tracy 3
Orf. It sounds like we've got everybody on the line 4
now. So, we'll go ahead and get started. Okay.
5 I would like to thank everybody for 6
attending this meeting and again, my name is Tracy Orf 7
and I am the St. Lucie Project Manager.
8 We are here today to allow the Petitioner 9
Thomas Saporito to address the Petition Review Board 10 regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated May 12th, 11 2011.
12 I am the Petition Manager for this 13 petition and the Petition Review Board Chairman is Sam 14 Lee.
15 As part of the Review Board or PRB's 16 review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested 17 this opportunity to address the PRB.
18 This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 to 19 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the meeting is being 20 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 21 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 22 become a supplement to the petition and a transcript 23 will also be made publicly available.
24 I'd like to open this meeting with 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
introductions and as we go around the room, please be 1
sure to clearly state your name, your position and the 2
office that you work for with the NRC for the record.
3 I'll start it off. My name is Tracy Orf 4
and I work in NRR.
5 MS. SIMON: Marcia Simon, Office of the 6
General Counsel.
7 MS. BANIC: Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 8
Coordinator.
9 MR. PURCIARELLO: Gerry Purciarello, 10 Balance of Plant in NRR.
11 CHAIRMAN LEE: Samson Lee, Deputy 12 Director, Division of Risk Assessment, NRR.
13 MR. ORF: Okay. At this time, are there 14 any NRC participants from headquarters on the phone?
15 Are there any NRC participants from the regional 16 offices on the phone?
17 MR. ROSE: This is Steven Rose. I was the 18 Component Design Basis Inspection Team Lead for the 19 St. Lucie Inspection, Region II.
20 MR. ORF: Are there any representatives 21 from the Licensee on the phone?
22 And, Mr. Saporito, would you please 23 introduce yourself for the record?
24 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, my name is Thomas 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
Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 1
Associates in Jupiter, Florida and I'm the Petitioner 2
in these proceedings.
3 MR. ORF: It is not required for members 4
of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
5 However, if there are any members of the public on the 6
phone who wish to do so at this time, please state 7
your name for the record.
8 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 9
speak clearly and loudly to insure that the court 10 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
11 If you do have something that you would 12 like to say, please state your name for the record.
13 For those dialing into the meeting, please 14 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 15 background noise or distraction. If you do not have a 16 mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.
17 To un-mute, press the *6 keys again. Thank you.
18 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 19 Chairman Sam Lee.
20 CHAIRMAN LEE: Good afternoon. Welcome to 21 this teleconference regarding the 2.206 petition 22 submitted by Mr. Saporito.
23 I would like to first share some 24 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 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
of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 1
petition process, a primary mechanism for the public 2
to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 3
process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC 4
to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 5
licensees or licensed activities.
6 Depending on the result of this 7
evaluation, NRC could modify such plant or revoke an 8
NRC issued license or take any other appropriate 9
enforcement action to resolve the problem.
10 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 11 of 2.206 petition request is the Management Directive 12 8.11 which is publicly available.
13 The purpose of today's meeting to give the 14 Petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional 15 explanation or support for the petition following the 16 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation.
17 This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 18 opportunity for the Petitioner to request or examine 19 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 20 petition request.
21 No decisions regarding the merits of this 22 petition will be made at this teleconference.
23 Following this teleconference, the Petition Review 24 Board will conduct internal deliberations. The 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6
outcome of this initial teleconference will be 1
discussed with the Petitioner.
2 The Petition Review Board typically 3
consists of the Chairman, usually a member at the 4
Senior Executive Service level at NRC. It has a 5
Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
6 Other members of the Board are determined 7
by the NRC staff based on the content of the 8
information in the petition request.
9 At this time, I would like to introduce 10 the Board. I'm Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board 11 Chairman. Tracy Orf is the Petition Manager for the 12 petition under discussion today. Lee Banic is filling 13 in as the Office PRB Coordinator. Our technical staff 14 includes Gerry Purciarello from the Office of Nuclear 15 Reactor Regulations, Balance Plant Branch. Steven 16 Rose from the NRC Region II's Division of Reactor 17 Projects.
18 As described in our process, the NRC staff 19 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 20 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 21 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 22 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 23 process.
24 I would like to summarize the scope 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 7
petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 1
date.
2 On May 12, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted to 3
the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the St. Lucie 4
Plant. In this petition request, Mr. Saporito's area 5
of concern was with the design of the component 6
cooling water system at St. Lucie Plant Units I and 7
II.
8 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC suspend 9
or revoke the NRC licenses granted to the Licensee for 10 operation of the St. Lucie Plant Units I and II, issue 11 a notice of violation with the proposed civil penalty 12 against the Licensee and order the immediate shutdown 13 of St. Lucie Plant Units I and II.
14 Please allow me to discuss the NRC 15 activities to date. On May 25th, the Petition Manager 16 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 17 to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB by 18 phone or in person. Because you requested the 19 immediate shutdown of the St. Lucie Plant, the PRB met 20 on June 2nd to discuss those actions to determine if 21 immediate actions were required. The PRB denied the 22 request for immediate action because there was no 23 immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health 24 and safety of the public. The Petition 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 8
informed you of this decision on June 8th.
1 On July 7th, you addressed the PRB to 2
present additional information regarding your 3
petition. On August 2nd, the PRB met and determined 4
that in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, 5
your petition meets the criteria for rejection because 6
the petition raises issues that have already been the 7
subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which 8
a resolution has been achieved. The issues have been 9
resolved and the resolution is applicable to the 10 facility in question. Specifically, the Petitioner 11 references notice of violation EA-09-321 dated April 12 19th, 2010.
13 The inspection related to the component 14 cooling water system was conducted on December 10th, 15 2009 and the inspection report was issued on January 16 19th, 2010 with the regulatory conference held on 17 February 19th, 2010.
18 A supplemental inspection was conducted as 19 documented in an inspection report dated November 3, 20 2010. The supplemental inspection resulted in no open 21 items.
22 On August 3, 2011, the Petition Manager 23 contacted you and provided you with the PRB's initial 24 recommendation. Subsequently, you requested 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 9
address the PRB to provide additional information to 1
support your petition.
2 As a reminder for the phone participants, 3
please identify yourself if you make any remarks and 4
this will help us in the preparation of the 5
teleconference transcript that we make publicly 6
available.
7 Thank you.
8 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 9
allow you to provide any information you believe the 10 PRB should consideration as part of this petition.
11 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
12 Chairman.
13 For the record, my name is Thomas 14 Saporito. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding. I 15 am the Senior Consultant with Saprodani Associates 16 based in Jupiter, Florida.
17 First of all, let me correct the record as 18 the NRC misstated the accuracy of the petition date.
19 The date of the petition filed in this instant matter 20 is April 3rd, 2011.
21 Now, first before I get into the heart of 22 this discussion, let me put on the record an email 23 that I received from Tracy Orf of the NRC dated 24 Wednesday, August the 3rd, 2011. I'm just going to go 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 through the relevant portion of this which says this 1
is responding to my petition. This is your petition 2
dated May 12th, 2011.
3 I don't know where the NRC keeps getting 4
that date, but that date is not correct. The date of 5
the petition is April 3rd, 2011.
6 Nonetheless, he goes on in this email and 7
states "In relevant part that I want to put on this 8
record that the NRC staff has concluded that your 9
submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 10 under 10 CFR 2.206 because per MD 8.11 the issue 11 raised has already been subject of NRC staff review 12 and evaluation for which a resolution has been 13 achieved. The issues have been resolved and the 14 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.
15 You have not provided any significant new information 16 to justify the NRC varying from its enforcement 17 policy."
18 Now, that's the reason that the NRC gave 19 to me, a member of the public, for rejecting my 2.206 20 petition dated April 3rd, 2011 in connection with the 21 air intrusion event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
22 Now, let's make this public record 23 perfectly clear. Management Directive 8.11 requires 24 the Petition Review Board of the United States Nuclear 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 Regulatory Commission to consider the petition in its 1
full context and what that means is, just like as the 2
opening remarks by the NRC on this record today 3
stated, that at this Petition Review Board meeting all 4
my comments and submittals verbally or in writing are 5
a supplement to the written petition. Just like my 6
initial meeting with the Petition Review Board on July 7
7th, 2011, all those comments and the record, the 8
transcribed record created on that date, is a 9
supplement to the original petition. Just the same as 10 if I had written those words and submitted it as part 11 of the original petition.
12 Nonetheless, this Petition Review Board 13 refused to entertain those comments and accept those 14 comments on the record and refused to consider those 15 comments, evaluate those comments and analyze those 16 comments.
17 So, the NRC Petition Review Board failed 18 to follow its own regulations under Management 19 Directive 8.11 and to that extent, I request a copy of 20 this record be forwarded to the NRC Office of the 21 Inspector General.
22 Now, before I get into the specifics of 23 what the NRC failed to address, let me just state that 24 the original petition as documented in the NRC record 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 transcripts of July 7th, 2011. My copy, for some 1
reason, the pages were not enumerated. So, I counted 2
them. There's suppose to be 38 pages here.
3 So, I'm going to reference page 17. Where 4
I contended to the NRC Petition Review Board on that 5
date of July 7th, 2011, I stated "With respect to the 6
instant enforcement petition, the Licensee apparently 7
admitted to the NRC that when the St. Lucie Nuclear 8
Plant Unit I was licensed the facility was not 9
required to incorporate a single-failure design 10 capacity for nonsafety-related system and FPL 11 concluded that a violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 12 B Criterion 3 did not occur as found by the NRC 13 inspector."
14 Petitioners contend here that the 15 Licensee's admission supports a finding that the 16 Licensee is operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant well 17 outside the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 18 CFR Part 50 and that the component cooling water 19 system employed at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 20 and II is a nuclear safety-related system to the 21 extent that it serves to remove heat from the reactor 22 core in various manners and modes of operation.
23 That's on page 17 and 18 of the record transcript 24 dated July 7th, 2011.
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 So, clearly, that's an issue that the 1
Petition Review Board for whatever reason didn't want 2
to address. We have a Licensee saying that our plant 3
is designed a certain way. The NRC's saying no, it's 4
designed this way. The Licensee's saying no, this is 5
a -- component cooling water isn't a safety-related 6
system. The NRC's saying it is.
7 Well, subsequent to that meeting on July 8
18th, 2011, the United States Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission issued NRC Information Notice 2011-14 10 entitled Component Cooling Water System Gas 11 Accumulation and Other Performance Issue and at the 12 bottom of page 1 of that document, it states "The 13 component cooling water system is a safety-related 14 system. That provides cooling and seal make-up to the 15 non-safety related containment 1A compressors. Air 16 intrusion into the component cooling water system 17 began after a routine shift to the other standby 18 containment 1A compressor" and the NRC's talking about 19 the St. Lucie Plant here.
20 It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 21 the component cooling water system and took several 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> to initiate alarm. Operators initially believed 23 that the component cooling water surge tank high level 24 alarm condition resulted from reactor coolant system 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 leaking into the component cooling water system rather 1
than air intrusion. Subsequent alarms and indication 2
of fluctuating pump motor current and component 3
cooling water header flow lead operators to conclude 4
that air intrusion was occurring."
5 Okay. So, what this is saying here is the 6
Licensee's wrong and I was correct. This is a safety-7 related system. The component cooling water system is 8
a safety-related system.
9 The contention by the Licensee that it's 10 not should be a red flag to the NRC and that's part of 11 this petition the Petition Review Board didn't 12 address.
13 As I've just read into this record, the 14 NRC's information notice, it shows here the severity 15 of this incident and that the operators initially 16 believed one aspect of plant operations which was 17 incorrect and then later determined that it was an air 18 intrusion event. So, this is a very significant 19 safety-related issue which could have caused an 20 adverse problem operating that nuclear reactor because 21 the operators are contending one thing because of 22 whatever training they had and it was really an air 23 intrusion event and so, it was a significant delay in 24 actions and the determination happened sometime after 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 the event occurred.
1 On page 2 of the NRC's July 18th, 2011 2
notice at paragraph 2, it states "The Licensee's root 3
cause evaluation determined that these repetitive 4
events resulted from a latent design issue that did 5
not consider the potential for gas intrusion into the 6
component cooling water system and from the Licensee's 7
failure to recognize or understand the potential 8
impact of the component cooling water and other 9
safety-related systems that component cooling water 10 supports during the initial condition report screening 11 process. The original component cooling water design 12 was vulnerable to gas intrusion that could result in 13 a common mode system failure.
14 "Gas intrusion was not typically 15 considered in the component cooling water system 16 design when the St. Lucie's plants were designed as is 17 evident from Licensee basis documents. Consequently, 18 St. Lucie operating procedure did not address 19 detection and mitigation of gas intrusion occurrences.
20 The component cooling water system's vulnerability to 21 gas intrusion from the containment 1A compressor was 22 not recognized because the leakage path required a 23 failure of the 1A compressor unloading valve and air 24 leakage through multiple components. Licensee 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 corrective actions included a design change to isolate 1
the air intrusion path into the component cooling 2
water system from the containment 1A compressors, 3
procedure revisions to identify and mitigate air 4
intrusion into the component cooling water system and 5
revisions to licensed operator and non-licensed 6
operator lesson plans and engineering procedures to 7
reflect lessons learned."
8 So, here you have -- and this is part of 9
the original petition because I'm going to go back to 10 the transcript record which was made on July 7th, 2011 11 at page 18 paragraph 2 which I stated at that time to 12 this Petition Review Board that "Petitioner further 13 contends that since the Licensee admitted to the NRC 14 that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I was licensed 15 by the NRC for operations not requiring incorporation 16 of a single failure design capability for the 17 component cooling water system, the Licensee's NRC 18 operational licenses for Unit I and Unit II are 19 invalid and that the NRC should order the Licensee to 20 immediately bring the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 21 and Unit II to a cold shutdown mode of operation to 22 protect public health and safety in these 23 circumstances."
24 So, what I contended to the NRC back in 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 July 7th, 2011 is exactly the same issues which the 1
Licensee admits to through this NRC July 18th, 2011 2
notice that since this plant was licensed and we're 3
talking about -- I'm referring to a NRC document here 4
on the NRC's website for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 5
Unit I. Now, the operating license was issued on the 6
March 1st, 1976. So, since March 1st, 1976, the 7
Licensee, the Florida Power and Light Company has been 8
operating Unit I and subsequently later Unit II in 9
violation of the NRC safety parameters standards and 10 regulations set out under 10 CFR Part 50.
11 Because the plant wasn't properly 12 designed, you had a design flaw in the component 13 cooling water system which allowed air intrusion which 14 caused operators to take the wrong course of action in 15 operating the plant. That is an issue that this 16 Petition Review Board is required to address and to 17 accept as a valid issue under Management Directive 18 8.11 as a matter of law. You can't just ignore it 19 because you don't want to deal with it. It's part of 20 this petition because I put it on the record on July 21 7th, 2011.
22 In addition, the second issue which this 23 Petition Review Board has failed to acknowledge, 24 address and consider again going back to the official 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 NRC transcript record July 7th, 2011 at page 18 1
paragraph 3 "Petitioner further contends that the 2
metal in the nuclear reactor vessel at the St. Lucie 3
Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit II has become 4
dangerously brittle from bombardment of high level 5
neutron radiation during normal operation over years 6
and years of operation and that neither the Licensee 7
nor the NRC has any accurate and meaningful data 8
measurement of just how brittle the nuclear reactor 9
vessels have become at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
10 "Petitioners are concerned that should one 11 or both of the nuclear vessels at the St. Lucie 12 Nuclear Plant crack or shatter, that a full-core 13 meltdown would immediately occur similar to the 14 ongoing meltdown with the three nuclear reactors in 15 Japan. Such an event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 16 would rapidly release an abundant amount of hydrogen 17 which would inundate any action mitigation systems 18 designed to dissipate such gaseous build up and that 19 a dangerous explosion at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 20 containment building would occur and spew high level 21 nuclear particles directly into the environment and 22 adversely affect public health and safety just like 23 what happened in Japan."
24 The NRC Petition Review Board was required 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 to consider this issue just as if it was written into 1
the original petition on April 3rd, 2011, but the NRC 2
Petition Review Board failed to do so as they were 3
required under Management Directive 8.11.
4 All right. Let's see. So, I also on page 5
20 paragraph 2 stated that "Petitioner supplements the 6
original petition filed in the instant action to 7
request that the NRC order FP&L and the St. Lucie 8
Nuclear Plant to immediately or within a reasonable 9
short period of time bring the Unit I and Unit II 10 nuclear reactors to a cold shutdown mode of operation.
11 Until such time as the Licensee can have the Unit I 12 and Unit II nuclear reactor vessel metal tested to 13 determine exactly how brittle the metal has become and 14 to determine how many years, if any, the nuclear 15 reactors can be safely operated."
16 The Petition Review Board has to address 17 that issue. They didn't address that issue. They 18 rejected the entire petition out of hand without 19 properly evaluating the petition as they were required 20 to do under Management Directive 8.11.
21 And on the bottom of page 20, very 22 significantly halfway through that paragraph, I stated 23 on the record on July 7th, 2011 that all the comments 24 made today on this public record are to be considered 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 and to be construed and to be implemented as a 1
supplement to the original petition dated April 3rd, 2
2011 just the same as if they were placed in writing 3
and submitted to the NRC along with the initial 4
petition.
5 It couldn't have been made more clear to 6
the NRC Petition Review Board what the issues were 7
that I was asking for the NRC's review and the NRC 8
Petition Review Board just decided not to review it 9
even though the record was made in writing for them to 10 read and read and read and review and they didn't do 11 so.
12 You know, that's a violation of the public 13 and my due process right for fair and balanced 14 adjudication of the NRC's process under 2.206. I mean 15 why would the public engage the NRC and ask for the 16 NRC to take enforcement actions against the Licensee 17 if the NRC's not even going to follow their own 18 regulations to do that. I mean it just don't make any 19 sense and I think the NRC is way out of line.
20 The Petition Review Board -- when I say 21 the NRC, I'm talking about the NRC Petition Review 22 Board and that's why I'm asking the transcript record 23 to be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector 24 General to make an intelligent and informed 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 21 as to whether the NRC's Petition Review Board's action 1
or is in violation of the NRC's own protocol and 2
regulations under Management Directive 8.11 because 3
they failed to address these issues that I put on the 4
record.
5 So, again, here today, I'm asking this 6
Petition Review Board to go back and look at those 7
record transcripts and to consider the record 8
transcripts to be made on this record here today and 9
to apply the NRC Management Directive 8.11, make a 10 determination that this petition is a valid petition 11 and the enforcement action requested is reasonable in 12 these circumstances where you have a nuclear power 13 plant, two of them, St. Lucie Unit I and II, which 14 have been licensed for two or more decades now and 15 have been operating for that lengthy period of time 16 where at least one of the units has a design basis 17 flaw in it that went undetected by the Licensee and it 18 went undetected by the United States Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission since the day the plants were 20 licensed decades ago.
21 That's a major issue because it's a 22 safety-related system that was designed and it was a 23 flawed design which caused operators to improperly 24 address the events that occurred in connection with 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 that air intrusion event.
1 So, what other -- you know, what other 2
systems safety related out there at the St. Lucie 3
Nuclear Plant on either Unit I or II are not designed 4
properly? How many other systems are just accidents 5
waiting to happen?
6 The NRC didn't look at that. The NRC 7
didn't require the Licensee to go back and review the 8
entire final safety analysis review of the plant to 9
determine if any other systems have problems. They 10 weren't properly designed. Were there any other 11 procedures that need to be upgraded so that the 12 operators can properly address events that happened in 13 the operation of those two nuclear reactors?
14 So, that's another request we're going to 15 make on the NRC Petition Review Board. We want you to 16 make enforcement to a confirmatory order. Require the 17 Licensee to review this entire final safety analysis 18 report for both units and to review all safety-related 19 systems within those documents and their technical 20 specifications relevant to both plants to make an 21 assessment whether there are other safety related 22 systems which have a design flaw in them, which 23 weren't properly designed, which could fail or cause 24 some aspect of the operation of either of those 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 nuclear reactors to fail.
1 I mean that's a reasonable request because 2
decades and decades these plants have been operating 3
improperly with a design that was a failed design, 4
improper design and that nuclear safety-related system 5
involved and you got to look at these things.
6 Events that happened in Japan, everybody 7
thought those plants were fine. The regulator out 8
there said oh, they're safe. Told the public don't 9
worry about it and now, you have three nuclear 10 reactors melting down. They're out of control.
11 They'll never be brought under control. I don't care 12 what the government of Japan says and people are going 13 to have to be evacuated more and more and more until 14 finally there will be nobody living in the whole 15 country. That will become the world's nuclear 16 depository eventually because you're not going to gain 17 control of those three reactors and you got 104 of 18 them here in the United States.
19 The public cannot have a regulator like 20 the NRC who refuses to make a thorough inspection 21 under these circumstances where you have a nuclear 22 power plant with a design flaw in it which has existed 23 for decades and the NRC knew about this design flaw 24 back in 2008 and they just now as of July 18th, 2011 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 put out an information bulletin for other nuclear 1
power plants that have similar designs to see if they 2
have problems. I mean that just goes to show you the 3
complacency of the NRC and it's role as a regulator 4
and that's exactly -- although there was an earthquake 5
and a tsunami, a contributing factor to those 6
meltdowns in Japan was the failed regulator to oversee 7
nuclear operations in Japan.
8 The United States does not need a failed 9
regulator here in this country. We have enough 10 political rhetoric in Washington which is harming this 11 economy. All we need now is a nuclear plant to 12 meltdown and you're going to have decades of problems 13 with the economy because the radiation it can take 14 this economy down a lot further than a little debate 15 in Washington can.
16 So, I implore this Petition Review Board 17 to review the July 7th, 2011 record transcript, review 18 today's record transcripts, go back and review that 19 July 18th, 2011 information notice sent out by the NRC 20 and issue a confirmatory order to have St. Lucie 21 Nuclear Plant review its documents. Its final safety 22 analysis review reports for both units, the technical 23 specifications for both plants and the procedure for 24 its training of its operators because 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 25 other safety-related systems that are in jeopardy 1
right now.
2 And at that, I'll answer any questions 3
anybody might have.
4 CHAIRMAN LEE: Okay. Thank you very much.
5 At this time, let's just stop here. Headquarters, 6
have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
7 MR. ORF: I do. This is Tracy Orf.
8 Mr. Saporito, did you have any other 9
sources of information on this component cooling water 10 event other than those that were already presented on 11 the docket?
12 MR. SAPORITO: Just those documents I've 13 mentioned today.
14 MR. ORF: All right. Thanks. One other 15 question. Do you have any metallurgical analysis on 16 the reactor vessel on embrittlement due to neutron 17 fluence or the phenomenon of pressurized thermal 18 shock?
19 MR. SAPORITO: Well, that's the issue I'm 20 presenting to the NRC. My contention is that the NRC 21 doesn't have accurate and sufficient data nor does the 22 Licensee have that information to date and that's 23 important to have to make a determination just how 24 brittle those reactor vessels are. Because it's my 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 assertion here that neither the Licensee or the NRC 1
has sufficient, accurate information through this 2
destructive testing of representation metal in those 3
vessels to make that determination to date.
4 MR. ORF: Okay. But, you, yourself, do 5
not have any evidence to that effect. Is that 6
correct?
7 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I don't have 8
permission to go on site and make measurements.
9 MR. ORF: Okay. Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LEE: Does the NRC staff at the 11 region have any questions?
12 MR. ROSE: No questions.
13 MR. ORF: Excuse me. The NRC Headquarters 14 is going to go on mute for just a moment.
15 CHAIRMAN LEE: At this time, does the 16 Licensee have any questions?
17 Before I conclude the teleconference, 18 members of the public might provide comments regarding 19 the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 20 petition process.
21 However, as stated at the opening, the 22 purpose of this teleconference is not to provide an 23 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 24 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits 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 27 the petition request.
1 So, does the public have any comments?
2 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time to 3
provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on 4
the petition you have submitted.
5 Before we close, does the court reporter 6
need any additional information for the teleconference 7
transcript?
8 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I caught all the 9
names of the Petition Review Board except for one. It 10 sounded like Gerry first name. I didn't catch the 11 last name. If you could spell that for me.
12 MR. PURCIARELLO: Purciarello. I'll spell 13 it. P as in papa U-R-C-I-A-R-E-L-L-O.
14 COURT REPORTER: All right. Thanks a lot.
15 CHAIRMAN LEE: With that, this meeting is 16 concluded and we will be terminating the telephone 17 connection.
18 (Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the meeting was 19 adjourned.)
20 21 22 23 24 25