ML113530035
| ML113530035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/2011 |
| From: | Jacqueline Thompson Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | |
| Thompson J, 415-1119 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML113530051 | List: |
| References | |
| G20110668, NRC-1258, OEDO-2011-0622 | |
| Download: ML113530035 (42) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board North Anna Units 1 and 2 Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Monday, November 7, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1258 Pages 1-41 Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]
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 NORTH ANNA UNITS 1 AND 2 8 + + + + +
9 MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 7, 2011 11 + + + + +
12 The conference call convened via teleconference 13 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Patrick Hiland, 14 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 17 PATRICK HILAND, NRR, Chairman 18 JON THOMPSON, Petition Manager 19 TANYA MENSAH, PRB Coordinator 20 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 21 GUJENDRA [GURJENDRA] BEDI, NRR 22 KAMAL MANOLY, NRR 23 SHIH-LIANG WU, NRR 24 DAVID RAHM [RAHN], NRR 25 MAURI LEMONCELLI, OGC 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
2 NRC REGIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
3 GERALD McCOY, REGION II 4 LICENSEE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
5 MARGARET EARLE, DOMINION 6 PATRICK [PAGE] KEMP, DOMINION 7 ALSO PRESENT 8 MISTI DAVISON, WTVR NEWS 9
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 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:02 p.m.
3 MR. THOMPSON: I would like to thank 4 everybody for attending this meeting. My name is Jon 5 Thompson and I'm the North Anna 1 and 2 Petition 6 Manager for this petition.
7 We're here today to allow the Petitioner, 8 Mr. Thomas Saporito, a chance to address the Petition 9 Review Board for a second time regarding the 2.206 10 petition, dated September 8, 2011.
11 The Petition Review Board Chairman is 12 Patrick Hiland.
13 After being informed of the Petition 14 Review Board's initial recommendation to accept this 15 petition for review, Thomas Saporito has requested 16 this second opportunity to address the Petition Review 17 Board.
18 This meeting is scheduled from 1 to 2 p.m.
19 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC Operations 20 Center and will be transcribed by a court reporter.
21 The transcript will become a supplement to the 22 petition. The transcript will also be made publicly 23 available.
24 I'd like to open this meeting with 25 introductions. I think we have everyone on the 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
4 1 so perhaps our court reporter, do you want us to go 2 around again?
3 COURT REPORTER: For the record, I think 4 that would be a good idea.
5 MR. THOMPSON: Okay, so we'll start here 6 and then we'll ask everyone on the telephone to go 7 through introductions. So as we go around the room 8 please be sure to clearly state your name, your 9 position and the office that you work for within the 10 NRC for the record.
11 I'll start off. My name is Jon Thompson.
12 I'm the Petition Manager for this petition. I work 13 in the Division of Operating Reactor License 14 [Licensing] in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 15 Regulation.
16 MR. BEDI: Gujendra [GURJENDRA] Bedi, NRR, 17 Component Performance and Testing Branch.
18 MR. WU: Shih-Liang Wu, Nuclear 19 Performance and Code Review Branch, NRR.
20 MR. RAHN: I'm David Rahn, I am an 21 Instrumentation and Control Technical Reviewer in NRR.
22 CHAIR HILAND: I'm Pat Hiland. I'm the 23 Chairman of this Petition Review Board and I work in 24 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
25 MS. LEMONCELLI: Mauri Lemoncelli, Office 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 General Counsel.
2 MR. MANOLY: Kamal Manoly, Senior 3 Technical Advisor, NRR.
4 MR. THOMPSON: We have completed 5 introductions at the NRC headquarters. At this time 6 are there any NRC participants from headquarters on 7 the phone?
8 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, 2.206 9 Coordinator, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
10 MR. THOMPSON: Are there any NRC 11 participants from the Regional Office on the phone?
12 MR. McCOY: Yes, there's one. Gerald 13 McCoy, Branch Chief for North Anna Region II.
14 MR. THOMPSON: Are there any 15 representatives for the licensee on the phone?
16 MS. EARLE: Yes, Margaret Earle from 17 Dominion.
18 MR. KEMP: Yes, Patrick [PAGE] Kemp from 19 Dominion.
20 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Saporito, would you 21 please introduce yourself for the record?
22 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Yes, my name is 23 Thomas Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with 24 Saprodani Associates based in Jupiter, Florida and I'm 25 the Petitioner in this proceeding.
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 MR. THOMPSON: It is not required for 2 members of the public to introduce themselves for this 3 call. However, if there are any members of the public 4 on the phone that wish to do so at this time, please 5 state your name for the record.
6 (No response.)
7 For those dialing into the meeting, please 8 remember that we ask you to mute your phones to 9 minimize any background noise or distractions. If you 10 do not have a mute button on your phone, this can be 11 done by pressing the keys
- and then 6. And then to 12 unmute you would press the *6 keys again. We thank 13 you for that consideration.
14 At this time, I'll turn it over to the 15 Petition Review Board Chairman, Patrick Hiland.
16 CHAIR HILAND: Good afternoon, this is 17 Patrick Hiland. Welcome to this meeting regarding the 18 2.206 petition submitted by Mr. Saporito.
19 First, I'd like to share some background 20 on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code 21 of Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 22 the primary mechanism for the public to request 23 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
24 This process permits anyone to petition the NRC to 25 take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees 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 or licensed activities.
2 Depending on the results of its 3 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an 4 NRC issued license or take any other appropriate 5 enforcement action. The NRC staff's guidance for the 6 disposition of 2.206 petition request is in Management 7 Directive 8.11 which is publicly available.
8 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 9 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 10 additional explanation or support for the petition 11 before the Petition Review Board. This meeting is not 12 a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioner 13 to question or examine the Petition Review Board on 14 the merits or the issues presented in the petition 15 request.
16 No decisions regarding the merits of this 17 petition will be made at this meeting. Following this 18 meeting, the Petition Review Board will conduct its 19 internal deliberations. The outcome of this internal 20 meeting will be discussed with the Petitioner.
21 The Petition Review Board typically 22 consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the 23 Senior Executive Service level at the NRC and has a 24 Petition Manager and a Petition Review Board 25 Coordinator. Other members of the Board are 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 determined by the NRC staff, based on the content of 2 the information in the petition request.
3 At this time I would like to introduce the 4 Board. As I said, I'm Patrick Hiland, Petition Review 5 Board Chairman. Jon Thompson is the Petition Manager 6 for the petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah 7 is the Office's Petition Review Board Coordinator.
8 Our technical staff present include Gerald McCoy from 9 NRC Region II, Division of Reactor Projects, Branch 5; 10 Gujendra [Gurjendra] Bedi, from the Office of Nuclear 11 Reactor Regulations Component Performance and Testing 12 Branch; Kamal Manoly from the Office of Nuclear 13 Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering; Shih-14 Liang Wu, from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 15 Regulation, Nuclear Performance and Code Review 16 Branch; David Rahm from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 17 Regulation, Instrumentation and Controls Branch. We 18 also obtain advice from our Office of the General 19 Counsel, represented today by Mauri Lemoncelli.
20 As described in our process, the NRC staff 21 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 22 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 23 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 24 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 25 process.
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 The petition is a public document 2 available in the NRC's electronic library.
3 I will briefly summarize the scope of the 4 petition under consideration and the NRC's activities 5 to date. On September 8, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted 6 to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the North 7 Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2.
8 In his petition request, Mr. Saporito 9 identified concerns: the safe operation of North Anna 10 Power Station after the earthquake of August 23, 2011.
11 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC (1) take escalated 12 enforcement action against North Anna Power Station to 13 suspend or revoke the licenses for that facility; (2) 14 issue a Notice of Violation with a proposed fine of $1 15 million; (3) issue an order to keep the North Anna 16 Power Station in cold shutdown until the completion of 17 four sets of activities describing [described in] the 18 petition which are meant to ensure the safety of North 19 Anna Power Station.
20 As the basis for this request, Mr.
21 Saporito states that the North Anna Power Station 22 experienced ground acceleration on August 23, 2011 in 23 excess of the Design Basis Earthquake and that 24 licensee inspection and testing activities at the site 25 are incomplete. The Petitioner states that 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
10 1 licensee cannot meet the requirements of the updated 2 Final Safety Analysis Report as a result of this event 3 because the plant sustained damage outside the 4 licensee's safety design. The Petitioner also 5 expressed concerns the scope of testing and inspection 6 activities for the reactor core and fuel assemblies.
7 I'll discuss the NRC activities to date.
8 On September 14, 2011, the Petition Manager contacted 9 Mr. Saporito to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 10 to offer him an opportunity to address Petition Review 11 Board by phone or in person. Mr. Saporito requested 12 to address the Petition Review Board by phone prior to 13 its internal meeting to make the initial 14 recommendation to accept or reject the petition for 15 review.
16 On September 20, 2011, the Petition Review 17 Board met internally to discuss the request for 18 immediate action. The Petition Review Board denied 19 Mr. Saporito's request for immediate action on the 20 basis that there was no immediate safety concern to 21 the plant or to the health and safety of the public.
22 Petition Review Board also determined that the 23 requirement to demonstrate that no functional damage 24 has occurred in those features necessary for continued 25 operation without undue risk to the health and safety 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 already exists in 10 CFR Part 100 Appendix A.
2 Mr. Saporito was informed on September 21, 3 2011 of the Petition Review Board's decision to deny 4 his request for immediate action.
5 On September 29, 2011, the Petition Review 6 Board met internally to discuss the petition and made 7 an initial recommendation to accept the petition for 8 review because it met the criteria for review. Mr.
9 Saporito was informed on October 31, 2011 of the 10 Petition Review Board's decision to accept the 11 petition for review and was offered a second 12 opportunity to address the Petition Review Board which 13 he accepted.
14 As a reminder for the phone participants, 15 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 16 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 17 transcript that will be made publicly available.
18 Thank you.
19 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 20 allow you to provide any information you believe the 21 Petition Review Board should consider as part of this 22 petition.
23 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Thank you, Mr.
24 Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to address 25 the NRC's Petition Review Board for a second time 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
12 1 respect to this most serious and important matter 2 concerning public health and safety.
3 In accordance with NRC Management 4 Directive 8.11, all statements made on this public 5 record today are to be considered by the NRC Petition 6 Review Board as a supplement to the original 10 CFR 7 2.206 petition filed in this matter in connection with 8 significant nuclear safety issues raised with the 9 licensee and the NRC inspection activities of the 10 North Anna Nuclear Plant in consideration of 11 restarting the two nuclear reactors at that facility.
12 Statements made to the NRC today are to be 13 considered with the same probative weight as if they 14 were presented to the NRC in writing as with the 15 original enforcement petition filed in this matter.
16 Once again for the record, my name is 17 Thomas Saporito. I am the Senior Consultant with 18 Saprodani Associates. We're located in Jupiter, 19 Florida and I am an appreciable distance from the 20 North Anna Nuclear Plant to be subjected to a nuclear 21 accident at that facility. To the extent that since 22 the filing of the original enforcement petition in 23 this matter, there appears to be several instances of 24 misconduct on the part of the NRC related to 25 inspection activities at the licensee's North Anna 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 Nuclear Plant and related to the conduct of the Agency 2 at one or more public meetings in connection with and 3 about the North Anna Nuclear Plant, I request that a 4 complete and accurate copy of the record transcript 5 made this day be provided to the NRC's Office of the 6 Inspector General to enable that agency to make an 7 informed decision about whether to conduct an 8 investigation of the NRC in these circumstances.
9 To be clear, I am requesting that the NRC 10 Office of the Inspector General initiate a 11 comprehensive investigation of the NRC in connection 12 with the Agency's inspection activities to date at the 13 licensee's North Anna Nuclear Plant and in connection 14 with the Agency's conduct and behavior at one or more 15 public meetings related to that nuclear facility.
16 Moreover, I hereby specifically request 17 that the NRC Office of the Inspector General conduct a 18 private interview session with me so that I can 19 further specify and explain numerous instances of 20 apparent misconduct by the NRC in connection with the 21 North Anna Nuclear Plant which is believed to have 22 jeopardized the health and safety of the public.
23 I request that the Office of the Inspector 24 General for the NRC conduct a private meeting with me 25 here in Jupiter, Florida prior to any proposed restart 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 of the North Anna Nuclear Plant which NRC employee 2 Eric Leeds may authorize in the near future as 3 represented by NRC statements made to the media.
4 In addition, I also request that a copy of 5 these record transcripts made today be provided to the 6 President of the United States' Office of Professional 7 Responsibility for that Agency's consideration to 8 conduct an investigation of the NRC Office of the 9 Inspector General in these circumstances which have to 10 date allowed the NRC's apparent misconduct to continue 11 unabated.
12 On November 11th of this year, the NRC at 13 a second public meeting in connection with the 14 Agency's inspection, I believe that was November 4th, 15 excuse me, I believe it was on November 1st, the NRC 16 held a second public meeting in connection with the 17 Agency's inspection activities at the North Anna 18 Nuclear Plant. The NRC noticed this meeting on its 19 website and via email and other sources. I 20 specifically requested an opportunity to participate 21 at the meeting via a telephone conference call 22 connection which the Agency provided. However, the 23 NRC connection established only a listening protocol.
24 It did not provide for me to speak on the record.
25 Furthermore, after listening to 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
15 1 meeting participants for over two hours, the NRC 2 abruptly disconnected me from the meeting and I was 3 not permitted to reconnect via telephone. The NRC, in 4 my opinion, intentionally allowed public participation 5 by those physically present at the meeting and held 6 all conference call participants until last. This 7 disparagement deprives me of a fair and equal 8 opportunity to present my views about the restart of 9 the North Anna Nuclear Plant on the public record.
10 It is my belief that the NRC intentionally 11 acted in a manner to discriminate against me in 12 collusion with the licensee in this matter and that 13 such conduct by the Agency undercuts the Agency's 14 credibility as an alleged independent government 15 agency similar to the finding of the United States 16 Department of Justice in approximately 1974 in 17 connection with the very same nuclear plant.
18 For these reasons, let this public record 19 reflect that the NRC does not appear to be an 20 independent government agency, but rather a government 21 regulator apparently acting in collusion with the 22 licensee placing the economic interests of the 23 licensee in restarting the North Anna Nuclear Plant 24 above and ahead of the health and safety of the public 25 in violation of the Agency's own regulations.
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 To this extent, I request that a copy of 2 the record transcripts made today also be provided to 3 the Honorable Edward Markey, a member in good standing 4 in the United States Congress for the Congress to make 5 an informed decision as to whether the NRC should be 6 abolished as a government agency as was the Atomic 7 Energy Agency, its predecessor, and replaced with an 8 accountable, administratively structured agency 9 similar to the United States Department of Energy.
10 According to the NRC's North Anna 11 Earthquake Summary, available on the Agency's website, 12 at 1:51 p.m. Eastern Time on August 23rd a magnitude 13 5.8 earthquake occurred at Mineral, Virginia close to 14 the North Anna Nuclear Plant causing the two reactors 15 to automatically shut down. The aftershocks were felt 16 in the region later that day.
17 On August 25th, the North Anna Nuclear 18 Plant declared an unusual event due to a reported 4.5 19 magnitude aftershock. Over several weeks following 20 the original earthquake event, the North Anna Nuclear 21 Plant experienced a number of aftershocks. On 22 September 17, 2011, approximately 24 days after the 23 23rd earthquake event, the licensee submitted a 24 restart-readiness plan to the NRC. The North Anna 25 Nuclear Plant has two safe shutdown earthquake 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 motions, one for structures, systems, and components 2 located on top of rock which is anchored at 0.12g and 3 the other for structures, systems, and components 4 located on top of soil which is anchored at 0.18g.
5 The facility has two corresponding operating basis 6 earthquake ground motion inspections anchored at 0.06g 7 for rock and 0.09g for soil. At several frequencies, 8 the spectral and peak ground acceleration as a result 9 of the August 23, 2011 earthquake were greater than 10 those used for the operating basis and design basis 11 earthquake. This will be the first instance of an 12 operating reactor in the United States exceeding its 13 design limits of ground acceleration.
14 And finally, by the end of the year the 15 NRC expects to issue new seismic models and requires 16 some individual plant analysis. The plant's responses 17 would be available within one or two years depending 18 on the analysis used.
19 First, let me comment that the NRC's 20 action in allowing the licensees to take one or two 21 years to respond to the Agency's proposed year-end 22 seismic model is not acceptable and clearly 23 jeopardizes public health and safety in these 24 circumstances. The Agency is surely unaware of when 25 the next significant earthquake will occur.
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 Indeed, on November 6, 2011, the Fox News 2 Agency reported that a 5.6 magnitude earthquake event 3 occurred in the State of Oklahoma the day prior and 4 that very significant damages were reported by the 5 Lincoln County Emergency Management Department. The 6 event shook the stadium at the Oklahoma State 7 University in Stillwater.
8 With respect to the North Anna Nuclear 9 Plant, it is unconscionable that the NRC will allow 10 the new nuclear reactors to restart without further 11 safety inspection and licensing actions and seismic 12 evaluations on the part of the licensee to protect 13 public health and safety. The NRC certainly appears 14 to be in collusion with the licensee for the North 15 Anna Nuclear Plant where the Agency was reported by 16 The Washington Post as stating that a decision to 17 restart the reactors could come as early as next week.
18 Notably and documented on the NRC's website, the 19 North Anna Nuclear Plant has a license-designed basis 20 ground acceleration of 0.12g for rock and 0.18g for 21 soil. However, the NRC staff 22 determined from USGS instrumentation data that the 23 peak ground acceleration at the site was approximately 24 0.26g. The licensee had seismic instrumentation at 25 the North Anna Nuclear Plant at the time of the August 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 23, 2011 earthquake event, but not in the free field.
2 And for the public information on this record free 3 field means installation of seismic instrumentation 4 outside of the plant structures embedded in rock.
5 Paragraph (iv)(a)(3) [IV(a)(3)] of 6 Appendix F [S], earthquake engineering criteria for 7 nuclear power plants, 10 CFR Part 50, domestic 8 licensing of production and utilization facilities, 9 require shutdown of the nuclear power plant if 10 vibratory ground motions exceeding that of operating 11 basis earthquake ground motion or OBE occurs or if 12 significant plant damage occurs prior to fueling 13 operations. The licensee must demonstrate to the NRC 14 that no functional damage has occurred to those 15 features necessary for continued operation without 16 undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
17 Regulatory Guide 1.12 states in relevant 18 part that when an earthquake occurs it is important to 19 take prompt action to assess the effects of the 20 earthquake at the nuclear plant. This assessment 21 includes both an evaluation of the seismic 22 instrumentation data and a plant walkdown. Solid-23 state digital time in history accelograph installed at 24 appropriate locations will provide time history data 25 on seismic response of the free field containment 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 structure and other seismic Category 1 structures.
2 The instrumentation should be located so that the 3 response may be compared and evaluated with the design 4 basis and so that the occupational radiation exposure 5 associated with the location in installation and 6 maintenance on maintaining as low as reasonably 7 achievable.
8 Instrumentation is provided in the free 9 field and at foundation level at elevations in seismic 10 Category 1 structures. Free field instrumentation 11 data will be used to compare, measure, respond to 12 engineering evaluation used to determine the design 13 input motion to structures and to determine whether 14 OBE, the Operating Basis Earthquake, has been 15 exceeded. And a reference is made to Reg Guide 1.166.
16 The instruments located at the foundation level and at 17 the elevation structure measure responses that are 18 input in the equipment or piping and will be used in 19 long-term evaluation, in reference to Regulatory Guide 20 1.67 [1.167].
21 During the August 23, 2011 earthquake 22 event, the North Anna Nuclear Plant did not have NRC 23 required free field digital operating seismic 24 monitoring equipment installed at the nuclear 25 facility. In fact, the licensee had no digitally 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 operating seismic monitoring equipment installed at 2 the facility whatsoever. Therefore, the licensee's 3 cumulative acceleration velocity of CAV measurement 4 cannot be appreciably compared to any free field on-5 site seismic measurement. But the licensee's CAV 6 determinations or cumulative acceleration velocity 7 measurements' determinations are not accurate or 8 complete and cannot support a decision by the NRC to 9 restart the two nuclear reactors at that facility.
10 NRC regulations require that the Unit 1 11 reactor internals be inspected. However, the licensee 12 has failed to conduct these required inspections, 13 inspections like control rod drop, inspection of the 14 control rod drive mechanisms, inspections of the in 15 core instrumentation, loose parts inspection, fuel 16 assembly damages inspection, etcetera, etcetera.
17 Licensee inspection activities of the Unit 2 reactor 18 internals cannot be relied upon by the NRC as bounding 19 any damage associated with the Unit 1 reactor 20 internals.
21 At the most recent NRC public meeting 22 which I referred to earlier related to the North Anna 23 Nuclear Plant, one of the senior licensee officials 24 stated in public and to the NRC that the plant tells 25 the story. And what he was talking about the plant 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 will tell you how much damage occurred. And the 2 licensee represented that the earthquake event lasted 3 but only a second, one second. I submit to the NRC 4 that that statement is false and materially false and 5 intended to mislead the NRC and the public with 6 respect to the restart of the North Anna Nuclear 7 Plant.
8 And furthermore, if the plant tells the 9 story as alleged by the licensee representative, then 10 inspection, physical visual inspection of the Unit 1 11 reactor internals is required. Because without 12 physical and visual inspection of those components I 13 itemized earlier and other internals central to the 14 reactor safe operation, the NRC nor the licensee can 15 justify the restart of these nuclear power plants, 16 these nuclear reactors. You have to look at the 17 equipment to make a determination if something has 18 been damaged.
19 Just because a licensee conducts 20 preheating of the reactor vessel, conducts 21 surveillance testing of safety-related equipment, 22 conducts rod drops, etcetera, etcetera, and takes 23 other measures without actually bringing the nuclear 24 reactor to criticality, that does not support and does 25 not justify and that does not validate any safety-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 related equipment inside of the nuclear reactor of 2 Unit 1 to comply with the NRC requirement, as I've 3 already stated on the record, to justify restart of 4 the nuclear power plant, the North Anna Nuclear Power 5 Plant.
6 Furthermore, without inspection of the 7 Unit 1 nuclear reactor internals, the NRC does not 8 have requisite jurisdiction or authority to allow the 9 licensee to restart that plant because the NRC as an 10 agency would be acting -- it would be an act of 11 misconduct on the part of the NRC in violation of 12 their own regulation and it's subject to the NRC, not 13 only sanctioned by the NRC Office of Investigation, 14 but I would submit that they would be subject to 15 criminal sanctions by the United States Department of 16 Justice in these circumstances.
17 Acceleration experienced on August 23, 18 2011 and documented by the NRC itself is outside the 19 plant license and safety design basis, final safety 20 analysis report and updated final safety analysis 21 report and therefore the plant remains in an 22 unanalyzed condition. The licensee has on more than 23 one occasion asserted to the NRC that there are 24 cumulative acceleration velocity measurements although 25 they weren't documented as required with a free field 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 seismic instrumentation. Well, they were close enough 2 and that the NRC should allow them to restart the 3 plant because they're close enough.
4 That's no excuse for the failure of the 5 licensee to have the required seismic instrumentation 6 installed at the plant when the plant was licensed by 7 the NRC. That's not an excuse for the NRC to have 8 inappropriately granted two licenses to the North Anna 9 Nuclear Plant to allow Unit 1 or Unit 2 to even become 10 critical ever because the proper free field seismic 11 instrumentation was never installed. There was not 12 digitally capable operating seismic instrumentation 13 installed at the plant whatsoever at the time of the 14 August 23, 2011 earthquake event.
15 So both the licensee and the NRC erred in 16 -- the licensee erred in operating this plant in 17 violation of NRC requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 and 18 its subparts, and the NRC erred as a government 19 regulator and jeopardized public health and safety by 20 granting licenses to the licensee to operate the 21 nuclear reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Plant 22 without first installing digitally operating free 23 field seismic instrumentation.
24 So here we have a situation where a 25 licensee has speculated as to what the acceleration 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 was during the earthquake event on November 23, 2011 2 and because they didn't have a free field seismic 3 instrumentation installed. And the NRC's regulations 4 require that when you have an earthquake event, that 5 the licensee is required under NRC's own regulations 6 that a comparison be made between the free field 7 instrumentation and the other seismic instrumentation 8 at the facility so that a true and accurate record can 9 be obtained and analyzed as to the extent, the 10 duration, and the amplitude of the earthquake event.
11 Well, the licensee never installed the 12 required digitally operated seismic free field 13 instrumentation. Therefore, the licensee, it is 14 impossible for them to make such calculations, 15 evaluations, and analysis to justify restarting the 16 reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant to 17 date. Because the licensee violated NRC regulations 18 under 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC is not authorized as a 19 government agency and the NRC has no authority as a 20 government agency to allow the licensee to restart 21 either of the two reactors at the North Anna Nuclear 22 Power Plant for those reasons standing alone and 23 separate and apart from the other reasons I have 24 stated on the record today.
25 I know here that the NRC is a government 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 regulator, charged by the United States Congress by 2 creation of the agency within the scope and ambience 3 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to protect 4 public health and safety with respect to commercial 5 operations of nuclear power plants in the United 6 States and other radioactive conduct by medical 7 facilities in and around the United States. However, 8 Congress did not authorize, nor did Congress grant the 9 NRC any authority whatsoever to make predictions about 10 when an earthquake event might occur in the 11 continental United States, nor does the NRC have the 12 expertise or capability to make such a determination.
13 Therefore, the NRC cannot predict when the 14 next earthquake might occur. The NRC cannot estimate 15 the severity or duration of any future earthquake 16 event. For these reasons standing alone, the NRC must 17 require the licensee to submit a License Amendment 18 Request in which the licensee will propose to the NRC 19 that they have reevaluated the seismic capacity of the 20 plant and affirm to the NRC under oath and affirmation 21 the plant has been modified, retrofitted, and 22 redesigned to sustain an earthquake event which could 23 have ground acceleration of better than twice what the 24 plant experienced on August 23, 2011. Because that is 25 the only way that the NRC can protect public health 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 and since.
2 Since the NRC is unaware of when the next 3 earthquake event might occur at the North Anna Nuclear 4 Plant and the NRC cannot ascertain the magnitude and 5 scope and duration and acceleration for the next 6 earthquake event which might occur at the North Anna 7 Nuclear Plant, a License Amendment Request is required 8 upon the licensee prior to restart of each and any of 9 the two nuclear reactors at North Anna Nuclear Plant.
10 Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 of the NRC's 11 regulations states that paragraph (v)[V](a)(2) states 12 if vibratory ground motion exceeding that of the 13 operating basis earthquake occurs, shutdown of the 14 nuclear plant will be required. Prior to refueling 15 operations, the licensee will be required to 16 demonstrate to the Commission that no functional 17 damage occurred to those features necessary for 18 continued operation with undue risk to public health 19 and safety, to the health and safety of the public.
20 Some of the nuclear safety systems that that is 21 referring to are the reactor vessels and internals, 22 the reactor system in addition to numerous other 23 facilities and balance of the plant.
24 Again, until the licensee is required by 25 the NRC to inspect the reactor internals of Unit 1, 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 1 the NRC cannot allow and the NRC does not have any 2 authority or justification to allow the licensee's 3 restart of either reactor in North Anna Nuclear Power 4 Plant. It cannot look at the nuclear reactors at Unit 5 2 and say well, there's no physical or visible damage 6 on Unit 2, Unit 1 should be okay, because in the 7 balance is public health and safety. I have family 8 members who live here in Florida. I have friends who 9 live here in Florida. I have property in Florida. My 10 business opportunities are here in Florida. I don't 11 want to have to evacuate because a nuclear accident at 12 the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant spews radioactive 13 particulates into the atmosphere and the wind carries 14 them to Florida.
15 The NRC needs to get its act together and 16 demonstrate as an independent government agency and 17 take affirmative, definitive action and make every 18 inspection possible to protect public health and 19 safety in these circumstances. To allow the North 20 Anna Nuclear Power Plant to restart without requiring 21 the licensee to inspect the Unit 1 internals is a 22 flagrant and blatant disregard for the health and 23 safety of the public on the part of the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission and who appear to be a 25 collaboration and collusion with the licensee 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
29 1 justify the economic interest of the licensee in the 2 restart of the nuclear power plant at the North Anna 3 facility.
4 With respect to the enforcement action 5 requested in the petition itself, the requested 6 significant enforcement action that the NRC issue a 7 Notice of Violation or proposed penalty against the 8 collectively named and each singly named licensee in 9 this matter to a total of $1 million. Why would I 10 request that? Well, number one, the licensee operated 11 these nuclear plants to date from the initial 12 inception of their license granted, improperly granted 13 by the NRC without installing free field seismic 14 instrumentation which is digitally operated as 15 required by NRC regulations. So the licensee has been 16 in violation of NRC regulations for the duration of 17 the operation of those facilities, since the inception 18 of their license, until and upon the occurrence of the 19 August 23, 2011 earthquake event.
20 The $1 million is a very minimal fine in 21 comparison to the economic gained by the licensee in 22 these circumstances for each nuclear reactor generates 23 approximately $1 million per day in revenue for the 24 licensee and in consideration that NRC regulations 25 authorize the Agency to fine the licensee upwards 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
30 1 $100,000 or more per day for -- and up to and until 2 the violation is abated.
3 I also request that the NRC should require 4 licensee to keep the North Anna plant Units 1 and 2 in 5 cold shutdown mode of operation until the licensee 6 completes an independent seismic and geological 7 evaluation of the nuclear plant to ascertain the 8 degree and magnitude inclusive of acceleration 9 considerations of future earthquakes which result in 10 destructive forces outside the safety design basis of 11 the facility and experienced by the licensee's 12 facility during the August 23, 2011 earthquake event.
13 I request that the independent seismic and geologic 14 core evaluation must specifically address in [a] worse 15 case scenario earthquake events based on the result of 16 the area evaluation.
17 So did I request that? Because you had an 18 unprecedented earthquake at the North Anna Nuclear 19 Power Plant. When the NRC granted the licensee a 20 license, two licenses to operate those reactors at the 21 North Anna Nuclear Facility, the NRC estimated that 22 the plant would operate safely, that the plant had 23 margins beyond that which is encompassed within the 24 license and that the earthquake could never be 25 experienced such that the acceleration would exceed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 the plant's safety design basis. But the NRC was 2 wrong. Its operation was more than twice what the 3 safety design basis would have allowed and twice of 4 what the license allows.
5 And to allow the licensee to say that the 6 plant has margin and the margin absorbed the 7 difference. Well, that's not true. Because the CAV 8 measurements are accurate. They can have the free 9 field instrumentation. The licensee is just throwing 10 out numbers to the NRC. These numbers cannot be 11 validated by any experts or more appropriate, they can 12 be invalidated by any expert even by a layman with a 13 little common sense because they didn't have a digital 14 free field instrumentation to compare the licensee's 15 CAV measurements too. So therefore, the licensee nor 16 the NRC has any idea of the exact amplitude, duration, 17 and the scope of the acceleration during the August 18 23, 2011 earthquake event.
19 So we need a new seismic evaluation of the 20 facility prior to restarting those nuclear reactors.
21 Once that is completed by the licensee, then the 22 licensee should be required by the NRC to relicense 23 the plant. They should apply for a License Amendment 24 Request and provide for a public opportunity to 25 challenge that request appropriately. Because right 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 1 now, both in my view, both Unit 1 and Unit 2 NRC 2 licensees are invalid. They're invalid for the 3 reasons I've already talked about. Because those 4 licenses are invalid, the NRC has no authority to 5 allow --
6 (Telephonic interruption.)
7 -- also in my petition I requested that 8 the licensee complete a retrofit of North Anna Nuclear 9 Plant Units 1 and 2 based on --
10 CHAIR HILAND: Mr. Saporito? Mr.
11 Saporito? Mr. Saporito?
12 The phone cut out here over the last one 13 minute and so if you don't mind could you back up your 14 conversation and I would ask the Court Reporter, if 15 you didn't hear -- would you restate the last sentence 16 of Mr. Saporito. We didn't want to lose your train of 17 thought.
18 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 19 reporter. I had about a seven-second gap. The last 20 word that I heard was "allow." There was a comment 21 about a layman with a little common sense.
22 CHAIR HILAND: Could you start from there, 23 Mr. Saporito? We don't want to lose your train of 24 thought.
25 You can ask the court reporter to read 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
33 1 last couple of sentences.
2 PETITIONER SAPORITO: I need more than 3 that.
4 CHAIR HILAND: Can you read the last 5 couple of sentences for him?
6 COURT REPORTER: I can't actually read 7 back. It will take me a moment to get the playback 8 set up. Would that be all right?
9 CHAIR HILAND: That's fine with me.
10 COURT REPORTER: One moment, please.
11 (Pause.)
12 COURT REPORTER: Okay, I'll start it here.
13 One moment.
14 (Read back.)
15 PETITIONER SAPORITO: I can't hear that.
16 COURT REPORTER: That's where it goes 17 silent.
18 PETITIONER SAPORITO: I couldn't hear 19 that. It sounds like it was in a cave or something, 20 very far away.
21 COURT REPORTER: Yes, you were saying that 22 the licenses were invalid.
23 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Okay, all right.
24 Anyway, with respect to the enforcement petition, I'll 25 try to pick up from there if I can.
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 1 I said that the licenses that were issued 2 to the North Anna Nuclear Plant were invalid and the 3 reason that they're invalid is because the licensee 4 since the inception when the licenses were issued by 5 the NRC at the time they were issued, the licensee 6 violated NRC regulation because they did not have free 7 field digitally operating seismic instrumentation 8 installed at the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant.
9 And since that is a requirement, they've been 10 operating the plant outside of the NRC safety 11 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50. And for that reason 12 standing alone, both licenses are invalid.
13 Furthermore, the NRC regulations require 14 that the free field digitally operating seismic 15 instrumentation be installed at all nuclear power 16 plants and at the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant so 17 that after an earthquake event such as the one on 18 August 23, 2011, the licensee can make a comparative 19 analysis of the cumulative acceleration velocity or 20 the acceleration that was experienced during the 21 earthquake event from the licensee's plant 22 instrumentation compared to the free field seismic 23 instrumentation. From those comparison of analysis, 24 it allows the licensee to make an accurate precision 25 measurement of the acceleration that was experienced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 and to analyze whether or not it was outside the 2 operating basis and/or the design basis of the 3 license.
4 Here, that did not occur, so the 5 measurements proffered to the NRC by the licensee are 6 -- that's just guesswork because the licensee had no 7 digital field instrumentation. There was no 8 comparison made as required by the NRC safety 9 regulation and for that reason standing alone, the NRC 10 cannot authorize or justify the restart of the nuclear 11 power plant at the North Anna facility.
12 The petition requests that the licensee 13 complete an independent seismic geologic evaluation of 14 the North Anna Nuclear Plant to ascertain the degree 15 and magnitude inclusive of acceleration considerations 16 of future earthquake which can result in destructive 17 forces outside of the safety design basis of the 18 facility as experienced by the licensee's facility 19 during the August 23, 2011 earthquake event.
20 The independent seismic geologic 21 evaluation must specifically address a worst case 22 scenario earthquake event based on a result of the 23 area evaluation. And the reason that was requested is 24 because the NRC I talked about earlier cannot predict 25 when the next earthquake will occur, its duration, its 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 1 amplitude, its acceleration. And because this August 2 23rd earthquake event produced an acceleration twice 3 outside the safety design basis and license of the 4 North Anna Nuclear Power Plant, then that should set a 5 basis or floor under a seismic evaluation which should 6 be conducted to relicense the plant.
7 The plant licenses are invalid because 8 they -- the NRC did not license this plant to operate 9 in an area where an earthquake could produce an 10 acceleration twice what the plant is currently 11 licensed to receive. So we can have another 12 earthquake tomorrow and it can be an acceleration of 13 .36, .46, .56. No one knows. And certainly the NRC 14 doesn't know. So that's just a matter of common sense 15 that before you allow the plant to restart, let's do a 16 new seismic geological survey, find out what the 17 possibilities are for future earthquakes and then 18 retrofit your plant prior to restarting the plant. So 19 that that plant has a margin of safety.
20 Right now, the licensee is alleging to the 21 NRC that even though the plant experienced a velocity 22 twice of the safety design basis, that there were 23 sufficient margins to protect nuclear safety-related 24 equipment from damage and that they should be allowed 25 to restart the plant under those circumstances. Well, 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 1 that's simply not true because the licensee cannot 2 demonstrate with any measure of assurance that there 3 was sufficient margin for the simple reason they have 4 been operating their plant in violation of NRC 5 requirements because they didn't have digitally-6 operated free field seismic instrumentation to make a 7 comparative analysis of the acceleration that was 8 received on August 23, 2011, a comparison between free 9 field and the non-free field seismic instrumentation.
10 And in fact, the licensee has no digitally operated 11 seismic instrumentation whatsoever at the plant at the 12 time of the earthquake.
13 So the new seismic evaluation must take in 14 a worst case anticipated scenario for at least twice 15 of the acceleration that was received on August 23, 16 2011 to form a foundation to relicense the plant. The 17 licensee should be required by NRC prior to restarting 18 those reactors at the North Anna facility to apply for 19 License Amendment Request to incorporate a new seismic 20 analysis basis and justification for continued 21 operations under 10 CFR Part 50 and provide the public 22 with an opportunity to participate at a hearing with 23 respect to any License Amendment Request before the 24 NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in accordance 25 with NRC 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
38 1 And I've already talked about the final 2 safety analysis report. They should operate the final 3 safety analysis report to incorporate the new seismic 4 evaluation in any License Amendment Request.
5 I'm going to repeat on the record the 6 request for $1 million penalty because I don't know if 7 it was captured because of the interruption. I 8 requested a $1 million penalty, a fine be levied 9 against the licensee by the NRC and I requested that 10 because the licensee has been operating the North Anna 11 Nuclear Power Plant in violation of NRC safety 12 requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 for the duration of 13 its license up to and including August 23, 2011 14 because they failed to install digitally operated free 15 field seismic instrumentation.
16 The penalty is minimal because the 17 licensee generates approximately $1 million a day per 18 nuclear reactor at the facility when they're operating 19 and because the NRC has authority under its 20 regulations to accept at least $100,000 per day for 21 each day that the licensee is in violation of NRC 22 regulations and safety requirements.
23 And finally, because it's so important I'm 24 going to again repeat that the NRC must require the 25 licensee to inspect Unit 1 nuclear reactors prior 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
39 1 granting any restart authorization for the licensee.
2 You have to look at the internals to say whether or 3 not there's damage incurred. Just because you look at 4 Unit 2's internals, Unit 2 inspection activities 5 cannot support and cannot bound the physical operation 6 and capabilities of any nuclear instrumentation and 7 support systems with any Unit 1 reactor core. You 8 could have bent fuel rods in there. You could have 9 displacement of fuel rod assemblies. After all, as 10 the NRC is certainly aware by this time, when that 11 earthquake occurred on August 23, 2011, and it 12 occurred for more than one second. The assertion by 13 the licensee that it occurred for one second, is not 14 only absurd, it lacks common sense.
15 That earthquake event caused movement of 16 the fuel rod assemblies and the fuel assemblies, fuel 17 racks with the end -- the reactor and core. The 18 reason I say that is the reactors trip from a negative 19 flux rate trip signal. That means that fuel moved and 20 caused a displacement of a nuclear flux because the 21 reactors were both under power at the time. They were 22 both critical. And when they disrupted the nuclear 23 flux that would have caused the negative flux rate 24 trip. And for that reason alone, you have to open 25 Unit 1 and inspect the fuel rod assembly. While 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 1 you're in there, you need to inspect the CDRM, main 2 core instrumentation, loose parts equipment, etcetera, 3 etcetera. And to allow restart with that inspection, 4 like I said early on in this record, would be a 5 blatant disregard on the part of the NRC to protect 6 public health and safety in these circumstances.
7 That includes my comments on the record 8 and I will stay on the line to entertain questions by 9 the NRC or any member of the public or media which may 10 be participating today.
11 CHAIR HILAND: Thank, you Mr. Saporito.
12 At this time does the staff here at headquarters have 13 any questions for Mr. Saporito?
14 (Chorus of nos.)
15 CHAIR HILAND: What about Region II? Do 16 you have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
17 MR. McCOY: No questions from Region II.
18 CHAIR HILAND: Do the licensee 19 participants who listened to this discussion have any 20 questions?
21 LICENSEE PARTICIPANTS: No, we have no 22 questions.
23 CHAIR HILAND: If there are any members of 24 the public, before I conclude the meeting, members of 25 the public may provide comments regarding the petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
41 1 and ask questions about the 2.206 petition process.
2 However, as stated at the opening, the purpose of this 3 meeting is not to provide an opportunity for the 4 Petitioner or the public to question or examine the 5 Petition Review Board regarding the merits of the 6 petition request.
7 Any members of the public have questions?
8 (No response.)
9 Hearing none, Mr. Saporito, thank you for 10 taking time to provide the NRC staff with clarifying 11 information on the petition you submitted.
12 Before we close, does the court reporter 13 need any additional information for the meeting 14 transcript?
15 COURT REPORTER: I think that I'm fine. I 16 would only request a list of the participants along 17 with organizations. I believe that's usually 18 generated in these procedures.
19 CHAIR HILAND: Yes, Mr. John [Jon]
20 Thompson will provide that list to you.
21 With that, this meeting is concluded and 22 we'll be terminating the phone connection. Thank you 23 all.
24 (Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the conference 25 call was concluded.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com