ML18044A509
| ML18044A509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/2018 |
| From: | Lois James NRC/NRR/DMLR/MRPB |
| To: | |
| James L, NRR-DMLR 415-3306 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18044A508 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML18044A509 (9) | |
Text
February 28, 2018 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting Summary
Title:
Meeting with Petitioner regarding the Petition Review Boards Recommended Decision on the September 13, 2017, Petition Meeting Identifier: 20180026 Date of Meeting: January 31, 2018 Location: One White Flint North 11B4 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Type of Meeting: Category 3 Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to permit the petitioner to address the NRC Petition Review Board (PRB) regarding their recommended decision regarding the September 13, 2017, petition.
General Details: The meeting began at 3:10 P.M. EST and ended at 4:20 P.M.
EST. Participation in the meeting included in-person attendees and remote attendance by phone (a list of attendees is included in Enclosure 1). As many as 10 people (including individuals from Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT) and Nuclear Energy Information Service called in, and 14 people (11 NRC staff, two facilitators, and one member of the public) actively participated in the meeting. Two NRC staff members served as meeting facilitators.
Summary of Presentations:
The purpose of this meeting was to permit the petitioner to provide additional information to the PRB following its initial recommendation to deny the September 13, 2017, petition. No decisions regarding the merits of this petition were made at this meeting. The meeting was transcribed and the transcript can be found in the NRCs Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18036A031).
After the welcome and introductions, the facilitator provided general background information on the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 process. Specifically, 10 CFR 2.206 describes the petition process. This process permits anyone to petition the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, the NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement actions.
During the meeting, the PRB Chair, Joseph Donoghue, summarized the September 13, 2017, petition and the PRBs initial recommendation:
Petition:
The Petitioner requested the NRC to:
- 1. Suspend licensees' authorizations to operate their plants for any periods beyond their originally licensed plant lifetimes until they demonstrate that their license renewals will not cause a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated, particularly with respect to Condition III events.
- 2. Suspend the review of licensees' applications for authorizations to operate their plants for any periods beyond their originally licensed plant lifetimes until they can demonstrate that their license renewals will not cause a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated, particularly with respect to Condition III events.
- 3. Allow licensees, who are already operating their plant beyond their originally licensed plant lifetimes, a maximum of one year from the date of the Petition, to submit a plan and schedule that will produce a verifiable demonstration that continued operation of their plants will not cause a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated, particularly with respect to Condition III events.
The basis for this request is the Petitioners belief that "an extension of the operating lifetime by 20 years, that is by 50 percent, will cause an increase in the frequency of infrequent incidents (Condition III events) by 50 percent."
PRBs Initial Recommendation:
The PRB initially recommended denial of the Petition because the Petition does not meet the criteria for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. More specifically, because the issues raised are not fact or constitute the basis for taking the enforcement action specified or that warrant further inquiry.
Mr. Donoghue also reviewed the timeline associated with this petition:
October 5, 2017 Petition Manager offered the Petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB prior to its internal meeting to make the initial recommendation to accept or reject the Petition for review.
October 10, 2017 The Petitioner stated he wanted to address the PRB at a public meeting.
November 17, 2017 The PRB held a public meeting with the Petitioner.
December 5, 2017 The PRB met internally to discuss the petition and the information provided by the Petitioner during the November 17, 2017, public meeting and make an initial recommendation.
January 3, 2018 The Petition Manager informed the Petitioner of the PRB's initial recommended decision and the Petitioner requested the opportunity to provide additional information to the PRB at a public meeting.
The Petitioner used notes during his presentation (ADAMS Accession No. ML18036A077).
During his presentation and in a follow-up email, the Petitioner also mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that can found at the following web link:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903366504576488553640956660).
Mr. Samuel Miranda began by addressing his basis for not agreeing with the PRB initial recommendation provided by the Petition Manager in an email dated January 4, 2018 (see enclosure 2). Mr. Miranda pointed out that the withdrawal of American Nuclear Society (ANS) standards is irrelevant because the licensees have performed accident analysis for Chapter 15 of their Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs) according to the categories of events and the accepted criteria that are specified in ANS 18.2, Nuclear Safety Criteria for the Design of Stationary Pressurized Water Reactor Plants. Therefore, according to Mr. Miranda, the ANS standard is part of the licensing basis.
Mr. Miranda pointed out that 10 CFR Part 54 defines the current licensing basis (CLB), 10 CFR Part 50 is in the CLB, and 10 CFR 50.92 is part of 10 CFR Part 50. Mr. Miranda stated that, based on this definition, 10 CFR 50.92 is part of the current licensing basis. Mr. Miranda also stated that, during and after his employment with the NRC, he was and is concerned that aging management is a rather narrow approach to license renewals. Further, Mr. Miranda stated one thing neglected in reviews for license renewal is the effect on the current licensing basis definition of Condition III events as expressed in ANS N18.2. According to Mr. Miranda, Condition III events are only supposed to occur once or twice during the lifetime of a plant. He also stated that a Condition III event could end the lifetime of a plant as it did for Three Mile Island in 1979.
Mr. Miranda stated Conditions I and II are categories for normal operation. Condition I events are events that happen during the normal operation of the plant, such as maneuvering of the power level of the plant, reducing load, increasing load, or repositioning rods. They are not events that require protective action, but they are tracked. Condition II events are more extreme versions of Condition I events and might result in a reactor trip. Condition II events are events that a plant must be able to accommodate with the plant being able to return to normal operation within a short time. These events are anticipated, managed, and tracked. During a 40-year design lifetime of a plant, the plant is designed to handle numerous reactor trips.
Components in the reactor are designed to handle a limited number of thermal transients or pressurization transients before the components are subject to failure.
Mr. Miranda used a paperclip as a simple example. A paperclip can be bent back and forth many times before it breaks. In the example, the paperclip should not be bent more than five times or it could break. Mr. Miranda explained that, in design specification terms, cyclical loading should be limited to no more than five bends of this paperclip. When five is reached, you stop. Mr. Miranda stated this is called a cumulative usage factor and cumulative usage factors are in the FSAR.
Returning to power plants, Mr. Miranda stated that components in the power plants have cumulative usage factors. When the cumulative usage factor is reached, the component should be removed and not used. Some of these components could be used throughout the lifetime of a plant, however, in some cases, these components may not reach the initial 40 years, let alone reach 60 years.
Mr. Miranda concluded by stating that the NRC review is basically philosophical. He asked what a license renewal has to do with protecting the health and safety of the public, and how it
improves the health and safety of the public. He said it improves the bottom line of the utilities, and at best, the public is protected at the same level at the end of a reactors life as the public is protected at year one of operations. Mr. Miranda said it is more likely the public is protected less than that.
Mr. Donoghue ended by summarizing the staffs understanding of Mr. Mirandas statements.
First, Part 54 of 10 CFR defines the current licensing basis of a plant and there is a connection to Part 50 requirements. Second, Mr. Mirandas viewpoint is that the license renewal review approach that the NRC takes focuses on aging management and neglects other considerations - in particular, the frequency of Condition III events. Several examples were provided to illustrate the point.
During the meeting, the staff asked several questions. These questions and responses are summarized below:
Staff question: Are you aware that the NRC's mission is to ensure that there's no adverse impact to the public health and safety, not to improve public health and safety?
Petitioner response: Exactly. Yes. To protect the public health and safety. At best, if you take into consideration every aspect of a license renewal, aging management and everything else, at best you'll be protecting the public health and safety.
Staff question: Regarding the definition of current licensing basis in Part 54, could you clarify why you believe that definition is relevant to your request? How Section 50.92 fits?
Petitioner response: Section 50.92 is part of the licensing basis and the entire licensing basis needs to be considered in license renewal. When a license is renewed, the life of a plant is extended by 50 percent and no requirements are relaxed. The plant will be just as safe in the 60th year of operation as it was in the first year.
Staff question: As part of rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 54, active versus passive components were considered. Were you aware that the statements of consideration for Part 54 identified that active components are managed through the maintenance rule and that passive components will be managed through license renewal?
This is explained in the statements of consideration in the license renewal rule.
Petitioner response: Yes. Active components like valves are always surveilled and tested and operated once in a while to demonstrate they are working, but this leaves a lot of other things that are not considered in license renewal, including the definition of Condition III events.
Staff question: So is there something specific in that standard or in any of the current licensing basis for any of the plants that have been renewed or are going through license renewal that indicate that
the probability or occurrence of Conditions I, II, III, and IV events would increase as a result of the license renewal?
Petitioner response: Whether a licensee refers to the ANS standard or not is irrelevant as long as those categorization of events and the acceptance criteria for each of these categories of events is in Chapter 15 of the licensees FSAR. The FSAR states that no Condition II event is going to cause fuel damage and licensees have to do an analysis to show that no Condition II event is going to cause fuel damage. Whether that requirement comes from ANS 18.2 or whether it comes from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, it doesn't matter.
Public Participation Themes: One member of the public provided a comment at the end of the meeting:
Jessie Collins, CRAFT, stated that she believes Mr. Miranda knows the laws better than any of those in the room and the staff would have a hard time dismissing the Petition.
Action Items/Next Steps: The PRB plans to meet internally within a week to discuss the information provided in the petition, as supplemented, and to make its final recommendation on the petition. Following that meeting, the petition manager will inform the petitioner of the PRBs final recommendation to either accept or reject the 2.206 petition for review, in accordance with the criteria in Management Directive 8.11, Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions, and issue a closure or response letter.
Enclosures:
- Meeting Attendance List
- E-Mails Between Petitioner and Petition Manager Regarding Follow up meeting with 2.206 Petition Re: Enforcement Petition (10 CFR §2.206) Regarding Plant Lifetime Extension Attachments:
- Incoming Petition: ML17256B257
- Public meeting agenda: ML18010A698
- Petitioners meeting notes: ML18036A077
- Transcript of meeting: ML18036A031
- Public meeting summary ML18044A509
(Package) ML18044A508 (Meeting Summary) ML18044A509 (Transcript) ML18036A031 *concurrence via email OFFICE PM:MRPB:DMLR LA:MRPB:DMLR ARCB:DRA SRXB:DSS NAME LJames YEdmonds JDozier RBeaton DATE 2/22/2018 2/22/2018 2/25/2018 2/23/2018 OFFICE BC: MRPB:DMLR DD:DMLR PM: MRPB:DMLR NAME EOesterle JDonoghue LJames DATE 2/26/2018 2/27/2018 2/28/2018 MEETING WITH THE NRC STAFF AND THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE PETITION REVIEW BOARDS RECOMMENDED DECISION REGARDING THE 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2017, FOR ALL RENEWED LICENSE OPERATING LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR REACTOR RENEWED OPERATING LICENSES ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST JANUARY 31, 2018 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Lois James, Sr. Project Manager and Division of Materials and License Renewal (DMLR)
Petition Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Joseph Donoghue, Deputy Director and DMLR, NRR, NRC PRB Chair Marcia Simon, Senior Attorney Office of General Counsel (OGC), NRC Jerry Dozier, Senior Reliability and Risk Division of Risk Assessment, NRR, NRC Analyst Merrilee Banic, Project Manager for the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL),
2.206 Process NRR, NRC Douglas Broaddus, Chief DORL, NRR, NRC Robert Beaton, Reactor Systems Division of Safety Systems (DSS), NRR, NRC Engineer Eric Oesterle, Chief DMLR, NRR, NRC (previously DSS, NRR, NRC)
Cris Brown, Facilitator Office of Chief Information Officer Meg Gold, Facilitator Office of Administration David Jones, Enforcement Specialist Office of Enforcement (OE)
Samuel Miranda Petitioner, Public Jessie Collins Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT)
Jan Boudart Nuclear Energy Information Service David Gullott Exelon Generation Enclosure 1
MEETING WITH THE NRC STAFF AND THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE PETITION REVIEW BOARDS RECOMMENDED DECISION REGARDING THE 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2017, FOR ALL RENEWED LICENSE OPERATING LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR REACTOR RENEWED OPERATING LICENSES ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND E-MAILS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PETITION MANAGER REGARDING FOLLOW UP MEETING WITH 2.206 PETITION RE: ENFORCEMENT PETITION (10 CFR §2.206)
REGARDING PLANT LIFETIME EXTENSION Enclosure 2