ML13176A417

G20120875 - Indian Point, Riverkeeper 2.206 Petition/Closeout Letter

ML13176A417
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/16/2013
From:	John Lubinski Division of License Renewal
To:	Brancato D Riverkeeper
Pickett D
Shared Package
ML13176A398	List: ML13176A417 ML13176A429
References
G20120875, NRC-4235
Download: ML13176A417 (31)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555"()001 July 16, 2013 Ms. Deborah Brancato, Esq.

Riverkeeper, Inc.

20 Secor Rd.

Ossining, NY 10562

Dear Ms. Brancato:

In an email dated November 14, 2012, addressed to Mr. R. William Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), you submitted a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, "Requests for action under this subpart," asking that the NRC take enforcement action by ordering the permanent shutdown of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian Point). Your petition has been referred to a Petition Review Board (PRB) within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for action. The NRC has made your petition publicly available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML12321A317.

In your petition, you state that there is no assurance that Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the licensee for Indian Point, could control the total quantity of hydrogen generated following a severe reactor accident. You also state that following such an accident, it is highly likely that there would be hydrogen combustion in the containment either in the form of a deflagration or a detonation. You note that NRC's resolution of combustible gas control issues for large, dry containments, similar to Indian Point, is predicated on static loading and does not consider the potential effects of hydrogen fast deflagrations, detonations, or deflagration to detonation transition (DDT). You assert that using these assumptions would result in dynamic loadings which, in turn, would result in more severe results than static loads. You request that the NRC revoke the operating licenses of the Indian Point reactors because hydrogen fast deflagrations, detonations, or DDT could breach the Indian Point containments following a severe reactor accident and expose the public to a large radiological release.

In your petition, you state that an unintended ignition following a severe reactor accident could cause a hydrogen detonation. You also state that the passive autocatalytic recombiners (PARs) at Indian Point Unit No.2 can be overwhelmed by the generation of hydrogen following a severe reactor accident and can act as igniters in environments containing elevated concentrations of hydrogen. You quote a 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency report stating that electrically powered thermal recombiners, similar to those used at Indian Point Unit No.3, can act as igniters in environments containing hydrogen concentrations greater than 4 percent.

In your petition, you reference NRC documents that estimated the peak calculated containment pressures following postulated severe reactor accidents at the Oconee, Three Mile Island, and Turkey Point nuclear facilities. These calculations, which assumed 75 and 100 percent zirconium metal-water reactions along the active fuel length, predicted pressures that approached the estimated containment ultimate failure pressures. You state that the NRC calculations are non-conservative because they assume static loads and do not consider the effects of dynamic loads that would occur if fast deflagrations, detonations, or DDT were assumed. Furthermore, you assert that the estimated ultimate containment failure pressures may be non-conservative due to the lack of data.

D. Brancato - 2 In your petition, you state that the NRC's design basis analyses do not consider internally generated missiles that may be the result of hydrogen deflagrations or detonations. Such missiles may damage safety-related mitigation systems inside containment. You state that the Indian Point severe accident management guidelines do not address internally generated missiles resulting from hydrogen combustion.

Finally, you stated that the Riverkeeper petition is plant-specific for Indian Point due to the following considerations:

• The Indian Point site is located within one or two miles of the Ramapo seismic zone.

The petition asserts that the site is susceptible to a 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale and Indian Point is only designed for a 6.1 magnitude earthquake. An earthquake, in addition to human error, can lead to a severe reactor accident.

• The population within a 50-mile radius of the site is approximately 17 million which is significantly greater than any other plant in the country.

• A large radiological release over the New York City area would have a significant financial impact on the country.

On December 20, 2012, a telephone conference call was held between you and the PRB in which you provided further explanation and support for your petition. A transcript of that conference call, which supplements your petition, is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML13030A486.

On January 17 and February 5, 2013, the PRB met internally to discuss your petition and make its initial recommendation in accordance with Management Directive 8.11 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328). The PRB noted that the 2003 revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, "Combustible gas control for nuclear power reactors," removed combustible gas control requirements for large, dry pressurized-water reactor (PWR) containments. The NRC staff concluded that even with a 75 percent zirconium metal-water reaction, large, dry PWR containments would be expected to withstand a deflagration resulting from hydrogen combustion. The staff believes that hydrogen deflagrations are the most likely mode of combustion in degraded core accidents. Multiple ignition sources would be present inside containment to initiate combustion at lower flammability limits which would generally be expected to keep hydrogen concentrations below detonable levels. Detonations of sufficient magnitude to fail containment are considered to have an extremely low probability of occurrence. The PRB also noted that both Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 currently meet the NRC's licensing design basis with respect to hydrogen control.

The PRB further noted that your petition takes issue with the existing regulations in 10 CFR 50.44 regarding NRC's assumptions and methodology for handling combustible gases.

Specifically, you state in your petition that (1) one or two recombiners are insufficient for a severe reactor accident and recommended that PWR containments include 30-60 recombiners distributed throughout containment, (2) NRC assumptions for hydrogen production are non-conservative because the total quantity of hydrogen produced in a severe reactor accident could exceed the total quantity of hydrogen produced from the oxidation of 100 percent of the active fuel length, and (3) NRC calculations of peak containment pressures are non conservative because the NRC assumes static loads whereas the petitioner believes that dynamic loads associated with fast deflagrations, detonations and DDT are more appropriate modeling techniques.

D. Brancato -3 As a result, the PRB concluded that the petition implicitly implies that deficiencies exist within the Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 50.44. Therefore, the initial recommendation of the PRB was to reject the Riverkeeper petition for review as it met the criterion for rejection pursuant to Management Directive 8.11. On March 29, 2013, you were informed of the PRB's initial recommendation and provided with a detailed discussion that included the basis of our findings (ADAMS Accession No. ML13088A224).

On May 29, 2013, a second telephone conference call was held with you and the PRB in which you provided further explanation and support for your petition. The transcript of that conference call, which supplements your petition, is enclosed and is publicly available at ADAMS Accession No. ML13176A429.

On June 17, 2013, the PRB met internally to discuss the second telephone conference call and determine whether any changes to the initial recommendation were necessary. The PRB concluded that the additional information was not sufficiently persuasive to change its initial recommendation.

In summary, the PRB concludes that the NRC staff has extensively studied the issue of post-accident combustible gas control at operating facilities and that the PRB's final recommendation is to reject this petition for review under 10 CFR 2.206 because you have asserted deficiencies within the Commission's regulations.

The PRB notes that the October 14, 2011, petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted under 10 CFR 2.802 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, proposes extensive revisions to 10 CFR 50.44 on hydrogen control (ADAMS Accession No. ML11301A094). This petition is being tracked by the NRC staff as PRM-50-103. The PRB is placing the information from your petition on the PRM-50-103 docket so that your concerns can be further evaluated in conjunction with that petition for rulemaking. You can monitor the docket for PRM-50-103 on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0189.

Thank you for your interest in these matters.

Sincerely,

/ Joh inski, Director Division of cense Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosure:

Transcript of May 29, 2013, Conference Call cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board Riverkeeper Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Docket Numbers: (50-247,50-286)

Location: Rockville, MD Date: Wednesday, May 29,2013 Edited by: Douglas Pickett Work Order No.: NRC-4235 Pages 1-26 ML13176A429 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 INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER 8 + + + + +

9 1JIJEDNESDAY 10 MAY 29, 2012 11 + + + + +

12 conference call was held, John 13 Lubinski, of the Petition Board, 14 presiding.

15 16 PETITIONER; RIVERKEEPER 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 18 JOHN LUBINSKI, Office Nuclear Reactor 19 Regulation, ion of License 20 DOUGLAS PICKETT, PRB Petition r=.UQL~ , Office of 21 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating 22 Reactor censing 23 ANDREA RUSSELL, PRB Coordinator, Office of 24 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, c Communications 25 Branch NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1

2 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 3 RAJENDAR AULUCK, Japan Lessons 4 rectorate 5 RICHARD DUDLEY, Office of Reactor 6 ion, Rulemaking Branch 7 FARHAD FARZAM, Office of Nuclear Reactor 8 nC~UL~ation, Mechanical and Civil Branch 9 CHRISTOPHER HAIR, Office of Counsel 10 ASIMIOS MALLIAKOS, Office and State 11 s and Environmental Management 12 ALLEN NOTAFRANCESCO, Office of 13 AHSAN SALLMAN, Office of Reactor 14 ation, Containment and Ventilat 15 16 NRC REGIONAL STAFF 17 BRICE BICKETT, Region 1 sion of Reactor 18 ects 19 PAUL KROHN, Region 1 ion of Reactor Safety 20 21 REPRESENTATIVES OF PETITIONER 22 DEBRA BRANCATO 23 MARK LEYSE 24 ALSO PRESENT 25 STEVEN PRUSSMAN, ENTERGY 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

2 3 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 4 Welcome and Introductions, Doug Pickett ............ 4 5 Opening Statement, John Lubinski ............. 7 6 Debra Brancato and Mark Leyse, Representatives the 7 Petitioner .................. , , , , .................. 14 8 Q&A, . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 9 Adjourn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1 P-R-O C E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:04 a.m.

3 MR. PICKETT: Welcome and good morning. I 4 would like to thank everybody for attending this 5 My name is Douglas ckett and I am the Indian 6 project manager the Office of Nuclear Reactor 7 Regulation.

8 We are today to allow the peti 9 Riverkeeper, assis by Mr. Mark Leyse, to 10 Petition Review known as the PRE, 11 Riverkeeper's 2.206 dated November 14, 2012 12 concerning Indian Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 13 3. I am the petition manager for the petition.

14 Petition Review Chairman is Mr. John Lubinski.

15 As part the PRE's review of this on 16 Riv~rkeeper has requested this opportunity to 17 the PRE. Today' s meeting scheduled for one hour 18 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being 19 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and 11 be 20 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 21 become a supplement to petition. The 22 will also be made publ ly available.

23 I would 1 to open this meeting wi th 24 introductions. As we go around the room, please sure 2 to clearly state your name, your position, and fice NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 that you work for within the NRC 2 I'll start with myself. I'm Douglas 3 ckett.

4 MR. SA.L.LMAN: My name Iman. I 5 work in the Containment and Ventilation of NRR.

6 MR. AULUCK: I'm Rajendar 1'm in 7 Japan Lessons Learned Directorate wi Office 8 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

9 MR. FARZAM: Farhad Farzam, Mechanical 10 Engineering Branch, Office ear Reactor 11 Regulations.

12 MR. DUDLEY: Richard Rulemaking 13 ect Manager in the Rulemaking Branch Office 14 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

15 MR. NOTAFRANCESCO: Notafrancesco, 16 fice of Research involved in a hydrogen 17 related issues.

18 CHAIR LUBINSKI: John Lubinski. I'm the 19 Director of the Division of e Renewal in NRR and 20 I'm the Petition Review Board rman.

21 MR. PICKETT: \fJe have completed 22 introductions at NRC At this time are 23 there any NRC participants headquarters on the 24 phone?

25 MS. RUSSELL: Yes. This is &~drea NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C 20005*3701 www,nealrgross,com

6 1 Russ 1, the PRB Coordinator in the fice of Nuclear 2 Reactor Regulation.

3 MR. PICKETT: Are any NRC 4 participants from the regional office on  ?

5 Are there any representat the 6 licensee on the phone?

7 MR. PRUSSMAN: Steven Prussman, 8 MR. PICKET7: Ms. Brancato, you 9 please introduce yourself for the record.

10 MS . BRAl.""JCA70 : Yes. s 11 Brancato. I'm a staff attorney with 12 MR. PICKETT: And Mr. Mark you 13 please introduce yourself for the record?

14 MR. M. LEYSE: Sure. Mark e.

15 MR. PICKETT: Mr. Robert Leyse, would you 16 introduce yourself for the record?

17 MR. R. LEYSE: No.

18 MR. PICKETT: It is not required for 19 members of the public to introduce themselves for this 20 call. However, if there are any members of the publ 21 on the phone that wish to do so at this timel please state 22 your name for the record.

23 I would like to emphasize that we each need 24 to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court can accurately transcribe this meeting. If you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

7 1 do have that you would 1 to say, please first 2 state your name for the record.

3 For those dialing meeting, please 4 remember to mute your phones to minimi ze any background 5 noise or tractions. If you do not have a mute button, 6 this can done by pressing keys

• 6. To unmute 7 press the

• 6 key again.

8 At this time I'll turn it over to the PRB 9 chairman John Lubinski.

10 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Good morning. Welcome to 11 this regarding the 2.206 tion submitted by 12 Riverkeeper. I would like to first share some 13 background on our process.

14 Section 2.206 of tle 10 of the Code 15 Federal ations describes tion process, 16 primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement 17 action by NRC in a public process. This process 18 permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement type 19 action to NRC 1 or licensed ac es.

20 Depending on results of 21 evaluation, NRC could modi suspend, or an 22 NRC- license or any other appropriate 23 actions to res a problem.

24 The NRC s 's guidance for 25 disposition of 2.206 petition request is in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW.

(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 Directive 8.11 which is publicly available. The purpose 2 of today' s meeting is to provide the petitioner an 3 opportuni ty to comment on the initial recommendation of 4 the PRB to reject the Riverkeeper petition because it 5 asserts deficiencies within the Commission's 6 regulations on combustible gas control.

7 The PRB also recommends referring 8 Riverkeeper petition for rulemaking with regarq to the 9 October 14, 2011 petition for rulemaking submitted by 10 NRDC. This meeting is not a hearing. Nor is it an 11 opportuni ty for the peti tioner to question or examine the 12 PRB on the meri ts or the issues presented in the peti tion 13 request. No decision regarding the meri ts of the 14 petition will be made at this meeting.

15 Following this meeting the Petition Review 16 Board will conduct its internal deliberations.

17 outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with 18 the petitioner.

19 The Peti tion Review Board typically 20 consists of the Chairman, usually a manager at the senior 21 executive level at the NRC. It has a petition manager 22 and a PRB coordinator. Other members of the Board are 23 determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the 24 information in the petition request.

25 At this time I would like to introduce the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTm" D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 Board. I am John Lubinski, the Petition ew Board 2 chairman. Doug Pickett is peti tion manager for the 3 petition under discuss today. Andrea Rus 1 is the 4 off 's PRB coordinator.

5 Our techni staff Ahsan 6 Sal of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 7 Containment and venti Branch; Farhad Farzam from B the fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mechanical and

r Civil Engineering Branch; Asimios Malliakos, Office of l(D and State Materials and Environmental Management 11 Programs; Brice Bickett NRC's Region I ion of 12 Reactor Projects; and Krohn from NRC's Region 1 13 Division of Reactor Safety.

14 We o obtain advice from our Office of Counsel 15 represented by Chris Hair.

16 As described our process. the NRC may ask 17 cl questions to better tand the 18 pe tioner' s presentation and to a reasoned 19 decision whether to modify the PRB's initial 20 recommendation.

21 I would 1 to suml'Tlarize scope of the 22 tion under cons and the NRC activities to 23 date. On November 14, 2012 Riverkeepe::::- submitted to the 24 NRC a 2.206 petition regarding Indian Units 2 and 25 3.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgro55.com

10 1 The peti tion was prepared by Mr. Mark Leyse.

2 The petitioner requested the permanent shutdown of 3 Indian Point units 2 and 3 because fast hydrogen 4 deflagrations or detonations could breech the 5 containment following a severe accident exposing the 6 public to a large radiological release.

7 The petitioner states that there is no 8 assurance that Entergy, the licensee, could control the 9 total quanti ty of hydrogen that would be generated in the 10 event of a severe reactor accident at Indian Point. It 11 is highly likely that there would be hydrogen combustion 12 in the containment either in the form of a deflagration 13 or detonation.

14 As the basis for this request, the peti tion 15 states the following:

16 The Indian Point site is located within one 17 or two miles of the Ramapo seismic zone. Research 18 suggests the site is susceptible to an earthquake of 7.0 19 magni tude on the Richter scale and the petitioner 20 indicates the si te was only designed for a 6.0 magni tude 21 earthquake. As a result, the sites are susceptible to 22 a severe reactor accident.

23 A population of nearly 17 million people 24 reside within a 50-mile radius of the site and they would 25 be adversely impacted by a large radiological release.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 VV\/'/\N.nealrgross.com

11 1 NRC's resolution of combustible gas control sues 2 large dry containment such as Indian Point did not 3 assume hydrogen deflagrations or detonations.

4 Indian Point 2 has passive 5 , or PARS, which could be overwhelmed by 6 ion of hydrogen during a severe reactor acc 7 PARs been observed to have unintended tions 8 experiments with high initial concentrat of 9 These ignitions could lead to a fl ion 10 or 11 Indian Point 3 has electri 12 hydrogen recombiners that, according to 13 it could also have unintended 14 lowing a severe reactor accident. Whi 15 containment design pressure is 47 psi, 16 acknowledges that the ultimate 17 is estimated to be approximately 126 18 The peti tioner notes that due to an 1 19 of data, estimated containment fai pressures 20 are questionable. It states that the an 21 could fail from the maximum poss e 22 tion load.

23 Finally, the petitioner states 24i integrity and essent system d I

compromised by internally generated missiles by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3701 'Mvw.nealrgross.com

12 1 flame acceleration or DDT. The peti notes that 2 the licensee's severe accident mi tigation ternatives, 3 known as SAMA, do not address internal generated 4 missiles from hydrogen combust 5 me to discuss the NRC ties to 6 date. On November 16, 2012, the peti manager 7 contacted the ioner to discuss the NRC 2.206 process 8 and to offer oner an opportuni to address the 9 PRB by phone or person. On December 20, 2012 the 10 peti tion ass by Mr. Mark Leyse address PRB in 11 advance of PRB's initial deliberations on the 12 petition. On 13 COURT REPORTER: This court 14 reporter. Can non-speakers please mute phones at 15 this time.

16 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Thank you. On January 17 17 and February 20, 2013, the PRB met internal to discuss 18 the petition and to make its initial 19 recornrnendat The PRB concluded the peti tioner 20 asserted encies in the Cornrniss 's regulations 21 regarding post-accident generat hydrogen and the 22 subsequent ing of combustion.

23 In accordance wi th NRC Directive 24 8.11 this supports rejecting petition from 2 review 10 CFR 2.206. The PRB so noted that Mr.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005~3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 Mark Leyse, who prepared the Ri verkeeper tion, also 2 prepared the October 2011 NRDC 2.8 peti tion for 3 rulemaking proposing rulemaking to revise the 4 Commission's regulations on t e gas control.

5 The PRB also recommended that Riverkeeper 2.206 6 ition be referred to the NRDC rulemaking petition.

7 On March 27, 2013 PRB's initial 8 recommendation was submitted to s NRR management 9 for approval. This approval was provided on March 29, 10 2013. On March 29, 2013 the it was informed that 11 the PRB's initial recommendation was to reject the 12 petition because the petitioner asserted deficiencies 13 within existing NRC rules.

14 =n addition, the PRB recommended referring 15 the Riverkeeper 2.206 peti to emaking under the 16 NRDC peti tion noted previously. At the time Riverkeeper 17 was offered an opportunity to the PRB regarding 18 its initial recommendation. ly, on April 23, 2013 19 Riverkeeper and NRC agreed upon May 29th, for their 20 second petition before the PRB. As a reminder 21 for the phone participants, please identify yourself if 22 you make any remarks as s will help us in the 23 preparation of the meeting that will be made 24 publicly available. Thank you. Also, as a reminder, 25 when you're not talking e mute your phone so that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

14 1 other people can hear the conversations.

2 Ms. Brancato, I will turn over to you to 3 allow you to provide any information you believe the PRB 4 should cons as part of this ition.

5 MS. BR.AI:JCATO: Thank you. This is Debra 6 Brancato. I'm a staff at with Riverkeeper.

7 First, I just wanted to thank you the opportuni ty to 8 address PRB in this follow-up conference call.

9 Riverkeeper disagrees wi PRB's ini 10 recommendation to reject 's 2.206 petition.

11 As Mr. Leyse will scuss in further detail, 12 the peti does present site-specific concerns 13 which c consideration another form 14 rulemaking proceeding is not appropriate and 15 warrants PRB ' s acceptance peti tion for further 16 review consideration.

17 To the extent the PRB timately decides to 18 uphold s initial recommendation to ect 19 's petition, the alternative only 20 does Riverkeeper support any recommendation the 21 issues concerns raised our 2.206 petition 22 cons in the context of petition for emaking 23 PRM-50 103.

24 With that very introductory 25 I'll turn it over to Mr. to discuss in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 www.nealrgrosS.CQm

15 detail why we disagree with the PRB's init 2 recommendation. Thank you.

3 MR. M. LEYSE: Mark Leyse speaking. Thank 4 you. First, I would like to thank Petition Review 5 Board, PRB, this second meeting. In this second PRB 6 meeting I will respond to the PRB's initial decision to 7 not consider Riverkeeper's 2.206 petition.

8 In an email dated March 29, 2013/ that Doug 9 ckett, the PRB manager sent to Debra Brancato of 10 Ri verkeeper, there is an explanation of the PRB' s t 11 decision. The email states that, "The PRB's initial 12 recommendation is to reject the petition because the 13 peti tioner asserts deficiencies wi thin existing NRC 14 rules.

15 In addition, the PRB recommends referring 16 the Riverkeeper peti tion to emaking under PRM-50 103.

17 I guess PRM-50 103 was just covered. That's the NRDC 18 rulemaking peti tion is requesting revisions to the 19 NRC's regulations on combustible gas control.

20 First, I would like to say that I think that 21 Riverkeeper's 2.206 petition does se a number of 22 issues are plant specific. For one thing, Indian 23 Point Unit 2 is the only unit licensed by the NRC that 24 has passive autocatalytic recombiners, Pk~s.

25 In the event of a severe accident, there is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE" N,W II (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C, 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 possibility that a PAR will malfunc by having an 2 ignition. Such an ignition could cause a detonation 3 that could potentially jeopardize Unit 2 containment.

4 That would most likely be in form of a deflagration 5 that would transition to a detonation. Then on 6 page 6 through 8 the petition we cover plant specific 7 characteristics regarding the location of Indian Point.

8 On pages 8 and 9 of the tion we cover plant specific 9 charac tics regarding the particular volume of 10 Indian Point's containments as well as the particular 11 distribution steel and concrete masses in 12 containments.

13 finally, the NRC l f in its 14 resolution of Generic Saf Issue 121 stated, "It was 15 ieved plant specific vulnerabilities may st 16 mainly due to the effects of local hydrogen detonation 17 activi es for estimating the likelihood local 18 hydrogen detonation and access the consequences would 19 require plant specific information."

20 The second problem with PRB's tial 21 recommendation to reject the petition and referring it 22 to the emaking branch that the rulemaking process 23 years, decades some cases. It could more 241 than 10 years or the NRC to correct '[he def encies in 25 its current regulations on cowbustible gas control.

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 Unfortunately the NRC has decided to 2 relegate combustible gas control s issues to the 3 lowest priori ty of its response to the Fukushima Dai ichi 4 accident. There is a very important reason the PRB 5 should accept Riverkeeper s peti tion .

I I think are 6 enty of plant specific issues to justify the PRB 7 accepting the petition.

8 As discussed in the petition, Indian ant 9 was built within a couple miles of the Ramapo seismic 10 zone. Research suggests that Indian Point is 11 susceptible to an earthquake of 7.0 in magnitude on the 12 chter scale.

13 Hence, if there were a large earthquake, 1.;1, there could be a severe accident at Indian Point. Severe 15 accidents can o occur wi thout being caused by natural 16 disasters. Three Mile Is unit 2 accident was not 17 caused by a natural ter.

18 Or there could be perhaps a fire at Indian 19 Point that could cause a severe accident. Incidentally, 20 NRC has allowed Indian Point to have lower 21 protection standards than are permitted at other 22 commerc buildings in New York.

23 Now I will discuss information that 24 indicates that Point I S large dry PWR containments 2 could be vulnerable to hydrogen combustion. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 Fukushima Dai i accident demonstrated that NRC's 2 hydrogen experiments, many of which were conducted at 3 Sandia National Laboratories, SNL, just did not 4 icate what d occur in a severe accident.

5 In September 8, 2011 ACRS meeting Dana 6 Powers of SNL s that, "It's extraordinarily hard to 7 " detonations experiments because of tion 8 problems. He pointed out that were detonations in 9 Fukushima -ichi accident. It seems to me that the 10 experiments have been conducted just were not 11 realistic enough so conclusions from such experiments 12 could be non-conservative.

13 I want to point out that NRC's 14 SECY-00-0198 states that, "A detonation would impose a 15 dynamic pressure on the containment structure that could 16 more severe than the static load from an equivalent 17 flagration." The point that a dynamic pressure 18 load on the containment be more severe than the 19 static load.

20 In a July 2011 IAEA report, tigation of 21 Hydrogen in Severe Accidents in Nuclear Power 22 ants states, "Hydrogen ion can pose various 23 sks to the containment and other plant systems.

24 combustion can give large pressure varying 25 rom rela ti ve low pressure loads bound by AICC loads, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 W'Mv.nealrgross.com

19 1 adiabatic isochoric complete combustion loads, up to 2 large loads :rom accelerated flames and detonations.

3 Such acceleration can already occur above 8 percent 4 hydrogen volume so that above that value the AICC load 5 may not always be the bounding value."

6 The NRC may have determined that Generic 7 Safety Issue 121, hydrogen control for large dry PWR 8 containments, has been resolved. However, there are 9 culations that indicate that hydrogen combustion 10 could cause a large dry H"ffi containment to fail.

11 Such culations were done in 1982 in 12 Indian Point probabilistic safety study by the power 13 authori ty of State New York and Con Edison. This 14 is covered in the petition on pages 23 and 24. Some of 15 the calculations found that the peak pressure could reach 16 160, 169, about 157, and 180 pounds per square inch.

17 18 Absolutes were greater. Such results 19 indicate that hydrogen combustion could, in fact, cause 2 Indian Point's containments to fail because the 21 estimated lure pressure of Indian Point's 22 containments is about 141 pounds per square inch 23 absolute.

24 Since these calculations were done back in 2 1982, it I S very doubtful that these ca::"culations mode::"

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W (202) 234-4433 Ilv'ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 loads from flame erat Hence, they would have 2 for s c loads and not dynamic loads so they 3 could be actual non-conservative some ways.

4 Riverkeeper's tion discuss the 5 fact that in a severe accident more hydrogen could 6 produced than not produced from a reaction, a me water 7 reaction of 100 percent of the active fuel cladding 8 length.

9 Despite that t, the NRC does not seem to 10 too worried about large concentrations of hydrogen 11 building up and exploding in a severe accident if it 12 occurs if it were to occur at a PWR with a large dry 13 contaip~ent.

14 In a recent proposed decision the NRC made 15 regarding 2.206 petition that NRDC, Natural Resources 16 Defense Council, submitted regarding Indian Point Unit 17 2, the NRC stated, "Hydrogen deflagrations are the most 18 likely mode combus on in degraded core accidents.

19 The 1 ihood in nature of lagrations insi 20 contaip~ents are influenced gas mixture composition 21 and availability of tion sources.

22 Due to the small amounts of energy needed 23 to ignite combus e mixtures I there are numerous 24 potential tion sources such as sparks from 2 elec equipment I elec'Crostatic discharges I hot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW.

(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 jets, gases, hot surfaces including PARs, core-melt 2 icles, etc."

3 In that same decision the NRC concluded 4 that, "Mult e ignition sources would be present in the 5 containment to initiate combustion at lower flammability 6 limi ts which would be expected to maintain hydrogen 7 concentrations below detonable levels."

8 It clear that the NRC has overlooked the 9 fact that a hydrogen deflagration could transi tion into 10 a detonation a severe accident at a PWR wi th a large 11 dry containment. Of course, NRC is correct that in 12 a severe accident hydrogen could randomly deflagrate 13 when its concentrations were low because only a small 14 quantity energy is required for igniting hydrogen.

15 However, other scenarios could also occur.

16 In a severe accident average hydrogen concentration 17 in containment could reach 16 volume percent or 18 higher. Loc concentrations could much higher.

19 Hermi t Karwat, K-J..-R-W-A-T, a safety expert, in a paper 20 he wrote entitled, "Igniters to Mitigate the Risk of 21 Hydrogen Explosion: A Critical Review" concluded, 22 "wi thin the large geometries of PWR containments, a slow 23 laminar deflagration would be very unlikely. I~ most 24 cases highly ficient combustion modes must be 25 expected. "

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C,' 20005-3701

22 1 Scenarios in which large quanti ties of 2 steam were present in containment, the hydrogen gas

3. could reach high concentrations because of the inerting 4 effect of steam. That would prevent the hydrogen from igniting at lower concentrations.

6 After steam condensed, which is 7 inevitable at some point, a deflagration could 8 transition into a detonation. A detonation could cause 9 the containment to fail. It could also in particular 10 cause the containment to fail at containment 11 penetrations. P'VVRs typi ly have about 90 containment 12 penetrations.

13 To conclude, I think this is a very s ous 14 ety sue regarding Indian Point. As discussed, 15 Riverkeeper's 2.206 petition raises issues that are 16 plant specific. I would happy to answer any questions 17 that you may have regarding what I discovered. Thank 18 you.

19 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Thank you, Mr. Leyse and 20 Ms. Brancato. We apprec additional 21 information.

22 At this time does the staff here at 23 headquarters any ques tions for ei ther ltIr. Leyse or 24 Ms. Brancato? We have no ques ons here at 25 headquarters.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 WW'N.nealrgross.com

23 1 Did anyone from our Region I office join us?

2 MR. KROHN: Yes. Paul Krohn. I joined 3 about five minutes ago. I have no other questions.

4 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Thank you, Paul.

5 Appreciate it.

6 Does the licensee have any ques ons at this 7 time?

8 MR. PRUSSMAN: No, we do not.

9 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Okay. Before I conclude 10 the meeting, members of the public may provide comments 11 regarding the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 12 petition process.

13 However, as stated at the beginning of the 14 meeting, the purpose of this meeting is not to provide 15 an opportunity for the petitioner or the public to question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of the 17 peti tion request. Are there any members of the public at 18 this time who have any comments or questions? Okay.

19 Hearing none, Ms. Brancato and Mr. Leyse, 20 thank you for taking the time to provide NRC staff 21 with clarifying information on the petition you've 22 submi 23 Before we close, does court ::::-eporter 24 need any additional information for the meeting 2 transc::::-ipt?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .. N,W (202) 234-4433 Wf\SHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 Wv'l/w.nealrgross.com

24 1 COURT REPORTER: I'm all right. Thank 2 you, sir.

3 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Okay. Wi th that this 4 meeting is concluded and -

5 MR. M. LEYSE: Actually, I'm sorry. This 6 is Mark Leyse speaking. May I just ask one question and 7 if the PRB does not want to answer it, would you please 8 consider question?

9 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Yes.

10 MR. M. LEYSE: Sorry. It's just something 11 I thought of ter I concluded. Sena tor Edward J.

12 Markey's office asked the NRC some questions regarding 13 statements that were made by the NRC on this petition.

14 The NRC responded on March 7, 2013.

15 In the attachment it said that the NRC said 16 that a severe accident management in the SAMGs, severe 17 accident management guidelines, they provide advice, and 18 I quote, "Indian Point operators with multiple options 19 to control hydrogen including controlled burns in 20 containment by starting motors and initiating sparks. "

21 Now, do you really think of turning motors on in the 22 containment? Do you really consider that a controlled 23 burn? It seems a very random thing.

24 CHAIR LUBINSKI: ~1r. Leyse, thank you for 25 that. addi tional ece information. If you requested NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 WWIN.nealrgross.com

25 1 it, we weren't going to respond to that today. We would 2 consider that in our deliberation and we will consider 3 that question as well as the information that is in 4 response to Congressman Markey.

5 MR. M. LEYSE: Sure, sure. I just want to 6 add there is an IAEA report which I know I've referred 7 to it in Riverkeeper 2.206 petition. It was published 8 in 2011 and the title is Mitigation of Hydrogen Hazards 9 and Severe Accidents in Nuclear Power plants. They 10 talked about that. Also about switching components on 11 and off. They qualify it. They say, "The operator may 12 try to generate sparks by switching components on an 13 off."

14 You know, they - just like I say - I 15 appreciate the fact that you will consider this. It just 16 really doesn't seem to me to really be a controlled burn.

17 If that's what we have up at Indian Point to save the day 18 the event of a mel tdown accident, I think that is not 19 going to really save the day. I think that is a real 20 problem.

21 Then there is also the option of containment 22 venting but that would not really solve the problem 23 because there would be no way you could vent a large P'iAJR 24 dry containment in a timely fashion such that you would 25 be able to prevent hydrogen combus on.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C 20005-3701 ....'W\.'V. nealrgross.com

26 1 Anyway, that is the last comment I have.

2 Thank you.

3 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Thank you, Mr. Leys e . We 4 will consider that information in making our final 5 deliberation.

6 MR. M. LEYSE: Okay. Thank you.

7 CHAIR LUBINSKI: Okay. Thank you for that 8 additional information. At this point we will conclude 9 the meeting and terminate the phone connection. Thank 10 you, everyone.

11 (Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m. the conference 12 call was adjourned.)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DISTRIBUTION: G20130875 PUBLIC LPL1-1 R/F RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorlLpl1-1 RidsNrrPMlndianPoint RidsNrrLAKGoldstein RidsNrrMailCenter RidsNrrOd RidsNrrAdes RidsNrrAdro RidsNrrDlr RidsOGCRp Resource RidsEDOMailCenter RidsOeMailCenter RidsOiMailCenter RidsOpaMail RidsRgn1 MailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter PKrohn, R1 ARussell, PGCB SRutenkroger,RI RidsNrrDssScvb SSa"man, SCVB FFarzam,EMCB RidsNrrDeEmcb WReckley, JLD ANotafrancesco, JLD RDudley, PRMB RidsNrrDprPrmb AMalliakos, FSME RAuluck, JLD CHair,OGC RidsNrrDprPrmb ADAMS Package: ML13176A398 Response to Petitioner: ML13176A417 Transcript of May 29,2013 ML13176A429 Incoming Petition: ML12321A317 Transcript of Dec 20, 2013: ML13030A486

• Concurrence via email QFFICE LPL1-lIPM LPL 1-1/LA PGCB/PM SCVB/BC NAME DPickett KGoldstein ARusse"* RDennig

'DATE 06/27/13 06/26/13 06 128 113 06/27/13 OFFICE LPL 1-1/BC(A) EMCB/BC PRNB/BC JLD NAME RBea" ~McMurtra~ SHelton Y\lReckley DATE 06/28/13 07 I 08/13 07/01/13 07/03/13 iOFFICE OGC Region 1/DRS DORUD DLRlD NAME CHair PKrohn* MEvans JLubinski DATE 07/11 113 07/01/13 07/15/13 07116113 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy