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
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE 7 ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 8 + + + + +
9 TUESDAY 10 AUGUST 16, 2011 11 + + + + +
12 The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m.,
13 Samson Lee, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.
15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 18 SAMSON LEE, Chairperson, NRR 19 MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 20 TRACY ORF, Petition Manager for 2.206 21 Petition, NRR 22 GERARD PURCIARELLO, NRR 23 MARCIA SIMON, OGC 24 NRC REGION STAFF 25 STEPHEN ROSE, Region II 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 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:06 p.m.
3 MR. ORF: Good afternoon. This is Tracy 4 Orf. It sounds like we've got everybody on the line 5 now. So, we'll go ahead and get started. Okay.
6 I would like to thank everybody for 7 attending this meeting and again, my name is Tracy Orf 8 and I am the St. Lucie Project Manager.
9 We are here today to allow the Petitioner 10 Thomas Saporito to address the Petition Review Board 11 regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated May 12th, 12 2011.
13 I am the Petition Manager for this 14 petition and the Petition Review Board Chairman is Sam 15 Lee.
16 As part of the Review Board or PRB's 17 review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested 18 this opportunity to address the PRB.
19 This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 to 20 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the meeting is being 21 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 22 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 23 become a supplement to the petition and a transcript 24 will also be made publicly available.
25 I'd like to open this meeting with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 introductions and as we go around the room, please be 2 sure to clearly state your name, your position and the 3 office that you work for with the NRC for the record.
4 I'll start it off. My name is Tracy Orf 5 and I work in NRR.
6 MS. SIMON: Marcia Simon, Office of the 7 General Counsel.
8 MS. BANIC: Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 9 Coordinator.
10 MR. PURCIARELLO: Gerry Purciarello, 11 Balance of Plant in NRR.
12 CHAIRMAN LEE: Samson Lee, Deputy 13 Director, Division of Risk Assessment, NRR.
14 MR. ORF: Okay. At this time, are there 15 any NRC participants from headquarters on the phone?
16 Are there any NRC participants from the regional 17 offices on the phone?
18 MR. ROSE: This is Steven Rose. I was the 19 Component Design Basis Inspection Team Lead for the 20 St. Lucie Inspection, Region II.
21 MR. ORF: Are there any representatives 22 from the Licensee on the phone?
23 And, Mr. Saporito, would you please 24 introduce yourself for the record?
25 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, my name is Thomas 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 1 Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 2 Associates in Jupiter, Florida and I'm the Petitioner 3 in these proceedings.
4 MR. ORF: It is not required for members 5 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
6 However, if there are any members of the public on the 7 phone who wish to do so at this time, please state 8 your name for the record.
9 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 10 speak clearly and loudly to insure that the court 11 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
12 If you do have something that you would 13 like to say, please state your name for the record.
14 For those dialing into the meeting, please 15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 16 background noise or distraction. If you do not have a 17 mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.
18 To un-mute, press the *6 keys again. Thank you.
19 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 20 Chairman Sam Lee.
21 CHAIRMAN LEE: Good afternoon. Welcome to 22 this teleconference regarding the 2.206 petition 23 submitted by Mr. Saporito.
24 I would like to first share some 25 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 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 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 2 petition process, a primary mechanism for the public 3 to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 4 process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC 5 to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 6 licensees or licensed activities.
7 Depending on the result of this 8 evaluation, NRC could modify such plant or revoke an 9 NRC issued license or take any other appropriate 10 enforcement action to resolve the problem.
11 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 12 of 2.206 petition request is the Management Directive 13 8.11 which is publicly available.
14 The purpose of today's meeting to give the 15 Petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional 16 explanation or support for the petition following the 17 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation.
18 This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 19 opportunity for the Petitioner to request or examine 20 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 21 petition request.
22 No decisions regarding the merits of this 23 petition will be made at this teleconference.
24 Following this teleconference, the Petition Review 25 Board will conduct internal deliberations. 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 1 outcome of this initial teleconference will be 2 discussed with the Petitioner.
3 The Petition Review Board typically 4 consists of the Chairman, usually a member at the 5 Senior Executive Service level at NRC. It has a 6 Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
7 Other members of the Board are determined 8 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 9 information in the petition request.
10 At this time, I would like to introduce 11 the Board. I'm Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board 12 Chairman. Tracy Orf is the Petition Manager for the 13 petition under discussion today. Lee Banic is filling 14 in as the Office PRB Coordinator. Our technical staff 15 includes Gerry Purciarello from the Office of Nuclear 16 Reactor Regulations, Balance Plant Branch. Steven 17 Rose from the NRC Region II's Division of Reactor 18 Projects.
19 As described in our process, the NRC staff 20 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 21 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 22 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 23 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 24 process.
25 I would like to summarize the scope of 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
7 1 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 2 date.
3 On May 12, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted to 4 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the St. Lucie 5 Plant. In this petition request, Mr. Saporito's area 6 of concern was with the design of the component 7 cooling water system at St. Lucie Plant Units I and 8 II.
9 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC suspend 10 or revoke the NRC licenses granted to the Licensee for 11 operation of the St. Lucie Plant Units I and II, issue 12 a notice of violation with the proposed civil penalty 13 against the Licensee and order the immediate shutdown 14 of St. Lucie Plant Units I and II.
15 Please allow me to discuss the NRC 16 activities to date. On May 25th, the Petition Manager 17 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 18 to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB by 19 phone or in person. Because you requested the 20 immediate shutdown of the St. Lucie Plant, the PRB met 21 on June 2nd to discuss those actions to determine if 22 immediate actions were required. The PRB denied the 23 request for immediate action because there was no 24 immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health 25 and safety of the public. The Petition Manager 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 1 informed you of this decision on June 8th.
2 On July 7th, you addressed the PRB to 3 present additional information regarding your 4 petition. On August 2nd, the PRB met and determined 5 that in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, 6 your petition meets the criteria for rejection because 7 the petition raises issues that have already been the 8 subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which 9 a resolution has been achieved. The issues have been 10 resolved and the resolution is applicable to the 11 facility in question. Specifically, the Petitioner 12 references notice of violation EA-09-321 dated April 13 19th, 2010.
14 The inspection related to the component 15 cooling water system was conducted on December 10th, 16 2009 and the inspection report was issued on January 17 19th, 2010 with the regulatory conference held on 18 February 19th, 2010.
19 A supplemental inspection was conducted as 20 documented in an inspection report dated November 3, 21 2010. The supplemental inspection resulted in no open 22 items.
23 On August 3, 2011, the Petition Manager 24 contacted you and provided you with the PRB's initial 25 recommendation. Subsequently, you requested to 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 1 address the PRB to provide additional information to 2 support your petition.
3 As a reminder for the phone participants, 4 please identify yourself if you make any remarks and 5 this will help us in the preparation of the 6 teleconference transcript that we make publicly 7 available.
8 Thank you.
9 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 10 allow you to provide any information you believe the 11 PRB should consideration as part of this petition.
12 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
13 Chairman.
14 For the record, my name is Thomas 15 Saporito. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding. I 16 am the Senior Consultant with Saprodani Associates 17 based in Jupiter, Florida.
18 First of all, let me correct the record as 19 the NRC misstated the accuracy of the petition date.
20 The date of the petition filed in this instant matter 21 is April 3rd, 2011.
22 Now, first before I get into the heart of 23 this discussion, let me put on the record an email 24 that I received from Tracy Orf of the NRC dated 25 Wednesday, August the 3rd, 2011. I'm just going to go 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 1 through the relevant portion of this which says this 2 is responding to my petition. This is your petition 3 dated May 12th, 2011.
4 I don't know where the NRC keeps getting 5 that date, but that date is not correct. The date of 6 the petition is April 3rd, 2011.
7 Nonetheless, he goes on in this email and 8 states "In relevant part that I want to put on this 9 record that the NRC staff has concluded that your 10 submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 11 under 10 CFR 2.206 because per MD 8.11 the issue 12 raised has already been subject of NRC staff review 13 and evaluation for which a resolution has been 14 achieved. The issues have been resolved and the 15 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.
16 You have not provided any significant new information 17 to justify the NRC varying from its enforcement 18 policy."
19 Now, that's the reason that the NRC gave 20 to me, a member of the public, for rejecting my 2.206 21 petition dated April 3rd, 2011 in connection with the 22 air intrusion event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
23 Now, let's make this public record 24 perfectly clear. Management Directive 8.11 requires 25 the Petition Review Board of the United States Nuclear 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 1 Regulatory Commission to consider the petition in its 2 full context and what that means is, just like as the 3 opening remarks by the NRC on this record today 4 stated, that at this Petition Review Board meeting all 5 my comments and submittals verbally or in writing are 6 a supplement to the written petition. Just like my 7 initial meeting with the Petition Review Board on July 8 7th, 2011, all those comments and the record, the 9 transcribed record created on that date, is a 10 supplement to the original petition. Just the same as 11 if I had written those words and submitted it as part 12 of the original petition.
13 Nonetheless, this Petition Review Board 14 refused to entertain those comments and accept those 15 comments on the record and refused to consider those 16 comments, evaluate those comments and analyze those 17 comments.
18 So, the NRC Petition Review Board failed 19 to follow its own regulations under Management 20 Directive 8.11 and to that extent, I request a copy of 21 this record be forwarded to the NRC Office of the 22 Inspector General.
23 Now, before I get into the specifics of 24 what the NRC failed to address, let me just state that 25 the original petition as documented in the NRC record 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 1 transcripts of July 7th, 2011. My copy, for some 2 reason, the pages were not enumerated. So, I counted 3 them. There's suppose to be 38 pages here.
4 So, I'm going to reference page 17. Where 5 I contended to the NRC Petition Review Board on that 6 date of July 7th, 2011, I stated "With respect to the 7 instant enforcement petition, the Licensee apparently 8 admitted to the NRC that when the St. Lucie Nuclear 9 Plant Unit I was licensed the facility was not 10 required to incorporate a single-failure design 11 capacity for nonsafety-related system and FPL 12 concluded that a violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 13 B Criterion 3 did not occur as found by the NRC 14 inspector."
15 Petitioners contend here that the 16 Licensee's admission supports a finding that the 17 Licensee is operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant well 18 outside the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 19 CFR Part 50 and that the component cooling water 20 system employed at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 21 and II is a nuclear safety-related system to the 22 extent that it serves to remove heat from the reactor 23 core in various manners and modes of operation.
24 That's on page 17 and 18 of the record transcript 25 dated July 7th, 2011.
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 1 So, clearly, that's an issue that the 2 Petition Review Board for whatever reason didn't want 3 to address. We have a Licensee saying that our plant 4 is designed a certain way. The NRC's saying no, it's 5 designed this way. The Licensee's saying no, this is 6 a -- component cooling water isn't a safety-related 7 system. The NRC's saying it is.
8 Well, subsequent to that meeting on July 9 18th, 2011, the United States Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission issued NRC Information Notice 2011-14 11 entitled Component Cooling Water System Gas 12 Accumulation and Other Performance Issue and at the 13 bottom of page 1 of that document, it states "The 14 component cooling water system is a safety-related 15 system. That provides cooling and seal make-up to the 16 non-safety related containment 1A compressors. Air 17 intrusion into the component cooling water system 18 began after a routine shift to the other standby 19 containment 1A compressor" and the NRC's talking about 20 the St. Lucie Plant here.
21 It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 22 the component cooling water system and took several 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> to initiate alarm. Operators initially believed 24 that the component cooling water surge tank high level 25 alarm condition resulted from reactor coolant system 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 1 leaking into the component cooling water system rather 2 than air intrusion. Subsequent alarms and indication 3 of fluctuating pump motor current and component 4 cooling water header flow lead operators to conclude 5 that air intrusion was occurring."
6 Okay. So, what this is saying here is the 7 Licensee's wrong and I was correct. This is a safety-8 related system. The component cooling water system is 9 a safety-related system.
10 The contention by the Licensee that it's 11 not should be a red flag to the NRC and that's part of 12 this petition the Petition Review Board didn't 13 address.
14 As I've just read into this record, the 15 NRC's information notice, it shows here the severity 16 of this incident and that the operators initially 17 believed one aspect of plant operations which was 18 incorrect and then later determined that it was an air 19 intrusion event. So, this is a very significant 20 safety-related issue which could have caused an 21 adverse problem operating that nuclear reactor because 22 the operators are contending one thing because of 23 whatever training they had and it was really an air 24 intrusion event and so, it was a significant delay in 25 actions and the determination happened sometime after 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 1 the event occurred.
2 On page 2 of the NRC's July 18th, 2011 3 notice at paragraph 2, it states "The Licensee's root 4 cause evaluation determined that these repetitive 5 events resulted from a latent design issue that did 6 not consider the potential for gas intrusion into the 7 component cooling water system and from the Licensee's 8 failure to recognize or understand the potential 9 impact of the component cooling water and other 10 safety-related systems that component cooling water 11 supports during the initial condition report screening 12 process. The original component cooling water design 13 was vulnerable to gas intrusion that could result in 14 a common mode system failure.
15 "Gas intrusion was not typically 16 considered in the component cooling water system 17 design when the St. Lucie's plants were designed as is 18 evident from Licensee basis documents. Consequently, 19 St. Lucie operating procedure did not address 20 detection and mitigation of gas intrusion occurrences.
21 The component cooling water system's vulnerability to 22 gas intrusion from the containment 1A compressor was 23 not recognized because the leakage path required a 24 failure of the 1A compressor unloading valve and air 25 leakage through multiple components. Licensee 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 1 corrective actions included a design change to isolate 2 the air intrusion path into the component cooling 3 water system from the containment 1A compressors, 4 procedure revisions to identify and mitigate air 5 intrusion into the component cooling water system and 6 revisions to licensed operator and non-licensed 7 operator lesson plans and engineering procedures to 8 reflect lessons learned."
9 So, here you have -- and this is part of 10 the original petition because I'm going to go back to 11 the transcript record which was made on July 7th, 2011 12 at page 18 paragraph 2 which I stated at that time to 13 this Petition Review Board that "Petitioner further 14 contends that since the Licensee admitted to the NRC 15 that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I was licensed 16 by the NRC for operations not requiring incorporation 17 of a single failure design capability for the 18 component cooling water system, the Licensee's NRC 19 operational licenses for Unit I and Unit II are 20 invalid and that the NRC should order the Licensee to 21 immediately bring the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 22 and Unit II to a cold shutdown mode of operation to 23 protect public health and safety in these 24 circumstances."
25 So, what I contended to the NRC back in 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 1 July 7th, 2011 is exactly the same issues which the 2 Licensee admits to through this NRC July 18th, 2011 3 notice that since this plant was licensed and we're 4 talking about -- I'm referring to a NRC document here 5 on the NRC's website for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6 Unit I. Now, the operating license was issued on the 7 March 1st, 1976. So, since March 1st, 1976, the 8 Licensee, the Florida Power and Light Company has been 9 operating Unit I and subsequently later Unit II in 10 violation of the NRC safety parameters standards and 11 regulations set out under 10 CFR Part 50.
12 Because the plant wasn't properly 13 designed, you had a design flaw in the component 14 cooling water system which allowed air intrusion which 15 caused operators to take the wrong course of action in 16 operating the plant. That is an issue that this 17 Petition Review Board is required to address and to 18 accept as a valid issue under Management Directive 19 8.11 as a matter of law. You can't just ignore it 20 because you don't want to deal with it. It's part of 21 this petition because I put it on the record on July 22 7th, 2011.
23 In addition, the second issue which this 24 Petition Review Board has failed to acknowledge, 25 address and consider again going back to the official 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 1 NRC transcript record July 7th, 2011 at page 18 2 paragraph 3 "Petitioner further contends that the 3 metal in the nuclear reactor vessel at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit II has become 5 dangerously brittle from bombardment of high level 6 neutron radiation during normal operation over years 7 and years of operation and that neither the Licensee 8 nor the NRC has any accurate and meaningful data 9 measurement of just how brittle the nuclear reactor 10 vessels have become at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
11 "Petitioners are concerned that should one 12 or both of the nuclear vessels at the St. Lucie 13 Nuclear Plant crack or shatter, that a full-core 14 meltdown would immediately occur similar to the 15 ongoing meltdown with the three nuclear reactors in 16 Japan. Such an event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 17 would rapidly release an abundant amount of hydrogen 18 which would inundate any action mitigation systems 19 designed to dissipate such gaseous build up and that 20 a dangerous explosion at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 21 containment building would occur and spew high level 22 nuclear particles directly into the environment and 23 adversely affect public health and safety just like 24 what happened in Japan."
25 The NRC Petition Review Board was required 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 1 to consider this issue just as if it was written into 2 the original petition on April 3rd, 2011, but the NRC 3 Petition Review Board failed to do so as they were 4 required under Management Directive 8.11.
5 All right. Let's see. So, I also on page 6 20 paragraph 2 stated that "Petitioner supplements the 7 original petition filed in the instant action to 8 request that the NRC order FP&L and the St. Lucie 9 Nuclear Plant to immediately or within a reasonable 10 short period of time bring the Unit I and Unit II 11 nuclear reactors to a cold shutdown mode of operation.
12 Until such time as the Licensee can have the Unit I 13 and Unit II nuclear reactor vessel metal tested to 14 determine exactly how brittle the metal has become and 15 to determine how many years, if any, the nuclear 16 reactors can be safely operated."
17 The Petition Review Board has to address 18 that issue. They didn't address that issue. They 19 rejected the entire petition out of hand without 20 properly evaluating the petition as they were required 21 to do under Management Directive 8.11.
22 And on the bottom of page 20, very 23 significantly halfway through that paragraph, I stated 24 on the record on July 7th, 2011 that all the comments 25 made today on this public record are to be considered 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 1 and to be construed and to be implemented as a 2 supplement to the original petition dated April 3rd, 3 2011 just the same as if they were placed in writing 4 and submitted to the NRC along with the initial 5 petition.
6 It couldn't have been made more clear to 7 the NRC Petition Review Board what the issues were 8 that I was asking for the NRC's review and the NRC 9 Petition Review Board just decided not to review it 10 even though the record was made in writing for them to 11 read and read and read and review and they didn't do 12 so.
13 You know, that's a violation of the public 14 and my due process right for fair and balanced 15 adjudication of the NRC's process under 2.206. I mean 16 why would the public engage the NRC and ask for the 17 NRC to take enforcement actions against the Licensee 18 if the NRC's not even going to follow their own 19 regulations to do that. I mean it just don't make any 20 sense and I think the NRC is way out of line.
21 The Petition Review Board -- when I say 22 the NRC, I'm talking about the NRC Petition Review 23 Board and that's why I'm asking the transcript record 24 to be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector 25 General to make an intelligent and informed decision 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 1 as to whether the NRC's Petition Review Board's action 2 or is in violation of the NRC's own protocol and 3 regulations under Management Directive 8.11 because 4 they failed to address these issues that I put on the 5 record.
6 So, again, here today, I'm asking this 7 Petition Review Board to go back and look at those 8 record transcripts and to consider the record 9 transcripts to be made on this record here today and 10 to apply the NRC Management Directive 8.11, make a 11 determination that this petition is a valid petition 12 and the enforcement action requested is reasonable in 13 these circumstances where you have a nuclear power 14 plant, two of them, St. Lucie Unit I and II, which 15 have been licensed for two or more decades now and 16 have been operating for that lengthy period of time 17 where at least one of the units has a design basis 18 flaw in it that went undetected by the Licensee and it 19 went undetected by the United States Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission since the day the plants were 21 licensed decades ago.
22 That's a major issue because it's a 23 safety-related system that was designed and it was a 24 flawed design which caused operators to improperly 25 address the events that occurred in connection with 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 1 that air intrusion event.
2 So, what other -- you know, what other 3 systems safety related out there at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant on either Unit I or II are not designed 5 properly? How many other systems are just accidents 6 waiting to happen?
7 The NRC didn't look at that. The NRC 8 didn't require the Licensee to go back and review the 9 entire final safety analysis review of the plant to 10 determine if any other systems have problems. They 11 weren't properly designed. Were there any other 12 procedures that need to be upgraded so that the 13 operators can properly address events that happened in 14 the operation of those two nuclear reactors?
15 So, that's another request we're going to 16 make on the NRC Petition Review Board. We want you to 17 make enforcement to a confirmatory order. Require the 18 Licensee to review this entire final safety analysis 19 report for both units and to review all safety-related 20 systems within those documents and their technical 21 specifications relevant to both plants to make an 22 assessment whether there are other safety related 23 systems which have a design flaw in them, which 24 weren't properly designed, which could fail or cause 25 some aspect of the operation of either of those 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 1 nuclear reactors to fail.
2 I mean that's a reasonable request because 3 decades and decades these plants have been operating 4 improperly with a design that was a failed design, 5 improper design and that nuclear safety-related system 6 involved and you got to look at these things.
7 Events that happened in Japan, everybody 8 thought those plants were fine. The regulator out 9 there said oh, they're safe. Told the public don't 10 worry about it and now, you have three nuclear 11 reactors melting down. They're out of control.
12 They'll never be brought under control. I don't care 13 what the government of Japan says and people are going 14 to have to be evacuated more and more and more until 15 finally there will be nobody living in the whole 16 country. That will become the world's nuclear 17 depository eventually because you're not going to gain 18 control of those three reactors and you got 104 of 19 them here in the United States.
20 The public cannot have a regulator like 21 the NRC who refuses to make a thorough inspection 22 under these circumstances where you have a nuclear 23 power plant with a design flaw in it which has existed 24 for decades and the NRC knew about this design flaw 25 back in 2008 and they just now as of July 18th, 2011 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 1 put out an information bulletin for other nuclear 2 power plants that have similar designs to see if they 3 have problems. I mean that just goes to show you the 4 complacency of the NRC and it's role as a regulator 5 and that's exactly -- although there was an earthquake 6 and a tsunami, a contributing factor to those 7 meltdowns in Japan was the failed regulator to oversee 8 nuclear operations in Japan.
9 The United States does not need a failed 10 regulator here in this country. We have enough 11 political rhetoric in Washington which is harming this 12 economy. All we need now is a nuclear plant to 13 meltdown and you're going to have decades of problems 14 with the economy because the radiation it can take 15 this economy down a lot further than a little debate 16 in Washington can.
17 So, I implore this Petition Review Board 18 to review the July 7th, 2011 record transcript, review 19 today's record transcripts, go back and review that 20 July 18th, 2011 information notice sent out by the NRC 21 and issue a confirmatory order to have St. Lucie 22 Nuclear Plant review its documents. Its final safety 23 analysis review reports for both units, the technical 24 specifications for both plants and the procedure for 25 its training of its operators because there may be 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 1 other safety-related systems that are in jeopardy 2 right now.
3 And at that, I'll answer any questions 4 anybody might have.
5 CHAIRMAN LEE: Okay. Thank you very much.
6 At this time, let's just stop here. Headquarters, 7 have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
8 MR. ORF: I do. This is Tracy Orf.
9 Mr. Saporito, did you have any other 10 sources of information on this component cooling water 11 event other than those that were already presented on 12 the docket?
13 MR. SAPORITO: Just those documents I've 14 mentioned today.
15 MR. ORF: All right. Thanks. One other 16 question. Do you have any metallurgical analysis on 17 the reactor vessel on embrittlement due to neutron 18 fluence or the phenomenon of pressurized thermal 19 shock?
20 MR. SAPORITO: Well, that's the issue I'm 21 presenting to the NRC. My contention is that the NRC 22 doesn't have accurate and sufficient data nor does the 23 Licensee have that information to date and that's 24 important to have to make a determination just how 25 brittle those reactor vessels are. Because it's my 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 1 assertion here that neither the Licensee or the NRC 2 has sufficient, accurate information through this 3 destructive testing of representation metal in those 4 vessels to make that determination to date.
5 MR. ORF: Okay. But, you, yourself, do 6 not have any evidence to that effect. Is that 7 correct?
8 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I don't have 9 permission to go on site and make measurements.
10 MR. ORF: Okay. Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN LEE: Does the NRC staff at the 12 region have any questions?
13 MR. ROSE: No questions.
14 MR. ORF: Excuse me. The NRC Headquarters 15 is going to go on mute for just a moment.
16 CHAIRMAN LEE: At this time, does the 17 Licensee have any questions?
18 Before I conclude the teleconference, 19 members of the public might provide comments regarding 20 the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 21 petition process.
22 However, as stated at the opening, the 23 purpose of this teleconference is not to provide an 24 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 25 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 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 1 the petition request.
2 So, does the public have any comments?
3 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time to 4 provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on 5 the petition you have submitted.
6 Before we close, does the court reporter 7 need any additional information for the teleconference 8 transcript?
9 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I caught all the 10 names of the Petition Review Board except for one. It 11 sounded like Gerry first name. I didn't catch the 12 last name. If you could spell that for me.
13 MR. PURCIARELLO: Purciarello. I'll spell 14 it. P as in papa U-R-C-I-A-R-E-L-L-O.
15 COURT REPORTER: All right. Thanks a lot.
16 CHAIRMAN LEE: With that, this meeting is 17 concluded and we will be terminating the telephone 18 connection.
19 (Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the meeting was 20 adjourned.)
21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com