ML19184A466
| ML19184A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/2019 |
| From: | Justin Poole Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Poole J, NRR/DORL/LPLI, 301-415-2048 | |
| References | |
| NRC-0413 | |
| Download: ML19184A466 (38) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board (PRB)
Re: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket Number:
N/A Location:
Teleconference Date:
June 26, 2019 Work Order No.:
NRC-0413 Pages 1-37 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 HEARING 5
RE 6
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY 9
JUNE 26, 2019 10
+ + + + +
11 The hearing was held at 1:00 p.m. via 12 teleconference, Brian Smith, Chairperson of the 13 Petition Review Board, presiding.
14 15 PETITIONER: ERIC EPSTEIN, Chairman 16 SCOTT D. PORTZLINE, Security Consultant 17 Three Mile Island Alert 18 19 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 20 BRIAN SMITH, Deputy Director, Division of 21 Engineering 22 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 23 JUSTIN POOLE, Petition Manager 24 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 PERRY BUCKBERG, Petition Coordinator 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
CHERYL KAHN, Senior Project Engineer 3
Region I 4
ANDREW JOHNSON, Materials Engineer 5
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 6
PAUL KLEIN, Senior Materials Engineer 7
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8
JOE GILLESPIE, Attorney 9
Office of General Counsel 10 ALAN HUYNH, Materials Engineer 11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 12 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 (202) 234-4433
3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:00 p.m.
2 MR. POOLE: Hi, this is Justin Poole from 3
the NRC. It is 1:00 p.m. Mr. Portzline, are you on 4
the line?
5 MR. PORTZLINE: Yes, I am.
6 MR. POOLE: And Mr. Epstein, are you on 7
the line?
8 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
9 MR. POOLE: Okay, then we will get 10 started. Id like to thank everybody for attending 11 the meeting today.
12 My name is Justin Poole, I am a Project 13 Manager in the Division of Operator Reactor Licensing 14 in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'm also 15 the petition manager for this petition.
16 We're here today to allow the Petitioner, 17 TMI Alert, to address the Petition Review Board 18 regarding the 2.206 petition dated March 11, 2019.
19 The Petition Review Board Chairman is 20 Brian Smith, Deputy Director in the Division of 21 Engineering in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 22 Regulation.
23 This is a Category 1 Meeting, the public 24 is invited to observe this meeting and we'll have one 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC 1
after the business portion but before the meeting is 2
adjourned.
3 I ask that you please silence your cell 4
phones at this time so as to not interrupt the meeting 5
or any of its speakers.
6 As part of the Petition Review Board's 7
review of this petition, TMI Alert has requested this 8
opportunity to address the PRB, that is the Petition 9
Review Board.
10 This meeting was scheduled to begin at 11 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time and introductory remarks we'll 12 allow TMI Alert approximately 35 minutes to address 13 the Board. The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 14 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 15 reporter.
16 The transcript will become a supplement to 17 the petition and the transcript will also be made 18 publicly available. Id like to open the meeting with 19 introductions.
20 As I stated, the PRB Chair is Brian Smith.
21 I would like to the rest of the Petition Review Board 22 here at NRC Headquarters and one individual calling in 23 to introduce themselves, first here at Headquarters 24 and then on the phone.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 Please be sure to clearly state your name, 1
your position, and the office that you work for within 2
the NRC for the record.
3 Again, my name is Justin Poole, I am a 4
Project Manager in the Division of Operator Reactor 5
Licensing in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
6 MR. BUCKBERG: I am Perry Buckberg, I am 7
the NRC's Agency 2.206 Petition Coordinator.
8 MR. HUYNH: I'm Alan Huynh.
9 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
10 MR. POOLE: Go ahead.
11 MR. EPSTEIN: No, I'm listening. I didn't 12 hear the gentleman's first name.
13 MR. BUCKBERG: Perry or Alan.
14 MR. EPSTEIN: How do you spell your last 15 name? You know what, it will be on the record so go 16 ahead.
17 MR. POOLE: Go ahead.
18 MR. HUYNH: This is Alan Huynh, I'm a 19 Materials Engineer, Division of Materials and License 20 Renewal.
21 MR. SMITH: This is Brian Smith, I am the 22 Deputy Director of the Division of Engineering in the 23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
24 MR. KLEIN: I'm Paul Klein, I'm a Senior 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 Materials Engineer in the Division of Materials and 1
2 MR. GILLESPIE: Joe Gillespie, I am an 3
attorney in the Office of General Counsel, Division of 4
Materials, Litigation, and Enforcement.
5 MR. JOHNSON: Andrew Johnson, Materials 6
Engineer, Division of Materials and License Renewal.
7 MR. POOLE: And there's one other Member 8
in Headquarters here that's on the Board. His name is 9
David Jones from the Office of Enforcement. He was 10 not able to attend the meeting today.
11 Cheryl, can you go to your introduction?
12 MS. KAHN: Sure. This Is Cheryl Kahn, I'm 13 a Senior Project Engineer with the Division of Reactor 14 Projects in the Region I Office.
15 MR.
POOLE:
- Okay, are there any 16 representatives from the licensee on the phone?
17 MR. MASCITELLI: Frank Mascitelli from 18 Corporate Licensing.
19 MR. GOLDMAN: Also with TMI, Jeff Goldman, 20 Regulatory Assurance Manager.
21 MR. WUNDERLY: Blair Wunderly, Engineering 22 Director, TMI.
23 MR. FITZWATER: Mike Fitzwater with 24 Regulatory Assurance.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 MR. POOLE: And TMI Alert, would you 1
please introduce yourselves for the record?
2 MR. EPSTEIN: Eric Epstein, Chairman of 3
the Three Mile Island Alert.
4 MR. PORTZLINE: Scott Portzline. I do a 5
lot of work on security and safety.
6 MR. POOLE: Okay, and are there any 7
members of the public not directly involved in this 8
petition on the line? Okay.
9 Id like to emphasize that we each need to 10 speak clearly and loudly to make sure the court 11 reporter can accurately transcribe the meeting.
12 If you do have something that you would 13 like to say, please first state your name for the 14 record. For those dialing into the meeting, please 15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 16 background noises or distractions.
17 If you don't have a mute button this can 18 be done by pressing star 6. At this time, I'll turn 19 it over to the Petition Review Board Chairman, Brian 20 Smith.
21 MR. SMITH: Welcome to this meeting 22 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by TMI Alert.
23 Id like to first share some background on our 24 process.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 1
Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 2
the primary mechanism for the public to request 3
enforcement action by the NRC, a public process.
4 This process permits anyone to petition 5
the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 6
licensees or licensed activities.
7 Depending on the results of its 8
evaluation, the NRC can modify, suspend, or revoke an 9
NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate 10 enforcement action to resolve a problem.
11 The NRC Staff's guidance for the 12 disposition of 2.206 petition request is in the 13 Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly 14 available.
15 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 16 the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any relevant 17 additional explanation and support for the petition 18 after having received the Petition Review Board's 19 initial assessment.
20 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 21 an opportunity for the Petitioner or other members of 22 the public to question or examine the Petition Review 23 Board on the merits or the issues presented in the 24 petition request.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 No decisions regarding the merits of this 1
petition will be made at this meeting. Following this 2
meeting the Petition Review Board will conduct its 3
initial deliberations. The outcome of this internal 4
meeting will be discussed with the Petitioner.
5 The Petition Review Board typically 6
consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the 7
Senior Executive Service level at the NRC. It has a 8
petition manager and a PRB coordinator.
9 Other Members of the Board are determined 10 by the NRC Staff based on the content of the 11 information in the petition request. The Members have 12 already introduced themselves.
13 As described in our process, the NRC Staff 14 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 15 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 16 a reasoned decision on whether or not to accept the 17 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 18 process.
19 I would like to summarize the scope of the 20 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 21 date.
22 On March 11, 2019 you submitted to the NRC 23 a petition under 2.206 regarding concerns about the 24 design of the replacement steam generators at Three 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
1 Specifically, you state that the analysis 2
and testing used to confirm the design of the steam 3
generators was insufficient when it came to 4
identifying steam tube fluttering, causing tube-to-5 tube wear.
6 And due to this, TMI is in violation of 10 7
C.F.R. 50.59 and the plant appears to be at a 8
significant increased risk of an accident.
9 Due to your concerns, your petition 10 requests enforcement action including shutting down 11 the reactor until the problem is properly evaluated 12 and remediated.
13 On June 5, 2019 the petition manager 14 contacted you to inform you of the PRB's initial 15 assessment that your petition does not meet Management 16 Directive 8.11,Section III.C.1 criteria for petition 17 evaluation because the NRC has been aware of and has 18 been involved with the issues raised in your petition 19 since 2011.
20 Documents that you referred to in your 21 petition as well as other publicly available documents 22 reflect the NRC's Staff detailed knowledge of the 23 tube-to-tube wear issues and the NRC Staff's position.
24 The petition manager offered you an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 opportunity --
1 MR. EPSTEIN: Can you repeat that 2
sentence, the one where you said you had detailed 3
knowledge? What was that sentence that you were 4
reading?
5 I couldn't get that.
6 MR. SMITH: Okay, I'll repeat that 7
sentence.
8 Documents that you referred to in your 9
petition as well as other publicly available documents 10 reflect the NRC's Staff detailed knowledge of the 11 tube-to-tube wear issues and the NRC Staff's position.
12 The petition manager offered you an 13 opportunity to address the PRB to clarify or 14 supplement your petition in response to this 15 assessment and you requested to address the PRB via 16 teleconference.
17 As a reminder for the phone participants, 18 please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 19 this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 20 transcript that will be made publicly available.
21 Thank you.
22 Mr. Epstein and Mr. Portzline, I will turn 23 it over to you now to allow you the opportunity to 24 provide any information you believe the PRB should 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 consider as part of this petition. You have 35 1
minutes for your presentation.
2 MR. PORTZLINE: Eric, Id like to say 3
something first. I'm reading the same paragraph that 4
you were questioning and I couldn't hear the wording 5
quite right.
6 The Petition Review Board refers to 7
detailed knowledge in the documents that we had 8
examined from the licensee or the NRC, or from Areva.
9 And so what we want to know is, although 10 you claim to be very familiar with that, nowhere in 11 these documents is there any point about the exact 12 problem that we are describing, which is the secondary 13 flow between the steam tubes that has buckled and are 14 now in a different geometry than has ever been 15 analyzed.
16 The analysis process used by Areva could 17 not detect that the fluttering was going to occur and 18 so I'm questioning how the Review Board could state 19 that we got detailed knowledge of this and there's 20 nothing new here.
21 But there is something new, because I have 22 never seen any documents discussing the fluttering and 23 what would happen during even higher temperatures and 24 pressures.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 So, Id like to ask you about that.
1 MR. BUCKBERG: Hi, this is Perry Buckberg, 2
the Agency Petition Coordinator. Sticking to the 3
guidelines of this meeting, we will not answer 4
questions regarding the contents of the petition.
5 This is your opportunity to supplement the 6
petition but we have noted your question and it's 7
something we'll consider afterwards.
8 MR. PORTZLINE: Well, in your statement 9
you refer to detailed documents so you opened the door 10 to it, not us.
11 If you say, oh, it's all in the detailed 12 documents and then we ask you where, tell us what it 13 is? And you say, oh, no we can't refer to that 14 anymore.
15 Well, you opened that door, not me.
16 MR. BUCKBERG: That statement was of the 17 PRB's current position and considering that statement, 18 which was information relayed to you in the June 5th 19 email, you can take this opportunity to supplement the 20 petition or respond to what our position is.
21 But this is not an opportunity for a back 22 and forth type of a hearing. This is your time to 23 supplement.
24 MR. PORTZLINE: It doesn't matter what we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 would supplement because it's already been decided 1
through legal --
2 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
3 MR. SMITH: All right, I'm not sure if it 4
was Mr. Portzline or Mr. Epstein that was asking the 5
question but this is Brian Smith.
6 Just in a general response to your 7
question about the documents that may be publicly 8
available, there have been several inspections that 9
have been conducted by the NRC where they have looked 10 into these issues.
11 So, there are publicly available 12 inspection reports that document those reviews and 13 there are other reviews that were conducted by folks 14 here at Headquarters as well as some meeting summaries 15 from public meetings that were conducted as well on 16 related topics.
17 And those are the documents that we're 18 referring to.
19 MR. PORTZLINE: And Brian, I have scoured 20 those for years and everything I could get my hands on 21 is publicly available, and nowhere in those documents 22 does it talk about what would happen under transient 23 conditions to the increased bowing that can occur 24 because of the temperature differences between the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 shell and so forth.
1 So, when you give me that answer, you are 2
incorrect, there's no reference to that. If you're 3
resting on what those documents say, you're wrong, 4
they don't say that.
5 There's no analysis there and that's why 6
we're questioning the Petition Review Board. That's 7
a perfect point, you've got to be able to stand up and 8
say we really did analyze that and you're not, you're 9
not able to say that.
10 MR. SMITH: Okay, we understand your 11 comment and we will consider that as we further our 12 deliberations.
13 MR. EPSTEIN: This is Eric Epstein from 14 Three Mile Island Alert.
15 I have drafted our presentation and I'll 16 send it to share with you but I did want to ask or 17 make some requests, if you can tell me if they're 18 appropriate or inappropriate, which would actually 19 help us respond.
20 I've got to tell you, it's difficult to 21 respond because the information we received from the 22 PRB was sparse, it was a cursory dismissal. I've been 23 litigating for 30 years and I've never had an 24 experience like this.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 But I don't know if you can provide it, 1
what would be interesting if you could confirm is it's 2
my understanding that you had two meetings previous to 3
this.
4 Is that correct?
5 MR. POOLE: Who had two meetings? Sorry, 6
this is Justin Poole.
7 MR. EPSTEIN: The NRC.
8 MR. PORTZLINE: The Petition Review Board.
9 MR. POOLE: We have met internally a few 10 times, yes.
11 MR. EPSTEIN: I mean when you say a few 12 times, again, this is kind of oblique. Did you meet 13 once, twice? I'm just trying to determine how many 14 times you guys have met before you drafted a decision.
15 MR. POOLE: I would have to look at a 16 calendar but my guess would be at least three or four 17 times.
18 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, do you have minutes to 19 those meetings?
20 MR. POOLE: We do not, no.
21 MR. BUCKBERG: Those are internal closed 22 meetings.
23 MR. EPSTEIN: Are you allowed to disclose 24 who attended the meetings?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 MR. BUCKBERG: No.
1 MR. POOLE: It's the Members of the PRB 2
that we said here today.
3 MR. EPSTEIN: Right, but that doesn't mean 4
that everybody attended every meeting.
5 So, if we have three or four meetings, 6
what I'm trying to drill down and find out is who 7
attended the meetings, who missed the meetings?
8 Frankly, I haven't seen anybody resumes.
9 Are you able to acknowledge if anybody has prior steam 10 generator experience?
11 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Brian Smith.
12 What I mentioned in my presentation before 13 about the selection of the PRB Members based upon the 14 content of the petition, basically that means what is 15 the topic of the petition?
16 In this case it's steam generators and so 17 when we selected the Members to be on the Petition 18 Review Board, we selected those Staff that had 19 experience with steam generators.
20 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, Brian, that answers my 21 question. I'm wondering as a follow-up to that 22 question, you generally refer to having knowledge and 23 experience. Do you have any documents?
24 I'm a professor normally, when I review a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 student's graduate or undergraduate research, it's 1
documented. Can you provide us a footnote or 2
annotated bibliography of what documents you're 3
referring to?
4 MR. SMITH: As we follow through in the 5
process and if we continue through with the position 6
that we have now, you would receive documentation from 7
us that would include references to some of those 8
documents.
9 MR. EPSTEIN: Right, but it puts us at a 10 disadvantage when you make a decision without 11 substantiating the premise for your decisions.
12 So, basically, you can basically -- the 13 initial review is dismissal but in order for us to 14 respond to your argument, I need to know what I'm 15 arguing against. I need to know what I'm referring 16 to.
17 There is no meter on the phones here so 18 what I'm saying, moving forward that's great but down 19 to the facts prior to that, are you allowed to share 20 with us the documents you referenced to make your 21 initial decision?
22 It's a real simple question, yes or no.
23 MR. BUCKBERG: No.
24 MR. EPSTEIN: So, basically, just so that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 I understand, you had a meeting that the public was 1
not invited to, we're not really sure who attended it, 2
the decision is based on documents you can't share.
3 Is that a fair characterization?
4 MR. BUCKBERG: This is Perry Buckberg.
5 I'll be more general, we are following the 6
MD 8.11 petition process which you submitted your 7
petition under and there's no call for a meeting open 8
to the prescribe or to be transcribed or anything when 9
it's an internal PRB meeting.
10 This is the first public meeting while 11 following that process.
12 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Right, but you had 13 gatherings that informed you to make the decision. If 14 you can't tell us who was in the meeting, I was 15 wondering if you could tell us what was utilized to 16 come to a conclusion?
17 We're kind of in an Alice-in-Wonderland 18 place here. If you can't tell me, you can't tell me.
19 I just need to know.
20 After I go get this and respond, it would 21 be great to have a footnoted annotated bibliography to 22 know what you're basing your decision on.
23 MR. BUCKBERG: We're going to go on mute 24 for a minute here since you haven't begun your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 presentation yet.
1 MR. EPSTEIN: What?
2 MR. BUCKBERG: We're going to go on mute 3
and discuss this for a brief moment.
4 MR. EPSTEIN: All right, do you need to 5
mute the sound?
6 MR. SMITH: Just hold on for a minute if 7
you would. Give us a chance to talk privately.
8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 9
went off the record at 1:20 p.m. and 10 resumed at 1:21 p.m.)
11 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you for your 12 patience. We just wanted to make sure we were on the 13 same page here as far as the procedure goes.
14 Where we were when this meeting began was 15 the Petition Chair ended his comments at 1:10 p.m.
16 giving the Petitioners 35 minutes to present, to 17 supplement. And we're taking up a few of those 18 minutes right now.
19 If there's no presentation or supplement 20 that you want to offer, we can move to adjourn the 21 meeting or you can take the rest of your time to make 22 that presentation.
23 But we're going to go back to the process 24 where this is not a back and forth and this is not an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 opportunity to question the PRB. The petition process 1
2 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
3
-- is how it's spelled out in MD 8.11 and 4
we're sticking closely to the process.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: In order for me to 6
substantiate a response, I need the documents and 7
please give us three minutes credit because we should 8
not be timed for the time that you took.
9 Let me just say this to you and you can 10 not respond, but I think this is the crux of the case.
11 During your deliberations was Exelon consulted?
12 MR. POOLE: No.
13 MR. EPSTEIN: All right.
14 I think moving forward I'm going to send 15 you documents and we're kind of in a never-world here 16 because in order for us to supplant the supplement, 17 what we're doing, it's difficult to understand what 18 detailed knowledge is about documentation or to 19 understand what research you relied on.
20 Can I ask if you've met with the 21 manufacturer, Areva, during your deliberations?
22 MR. SMITH: No, we did not.
23 MR. EPSTEIN: So, as part of the public 24 record, this was an internal deliberate process that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 was conducted without the manufacturer and without the 1
licensee, is that correct?
2 MR. BUCKBERG: Correct, in accordance with 3
Management Directive 8.11. These were internal NRC 4
meetings.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: All right.
6 I'd just like for the record to also point 7
out that you have not as part of your initial denial 8
provided any documentation that would disprove our 9
contentions concerning the fact that we believe that 10 steam generators can self-destruct with excessive 11 vibration and fluttering under reactor-transient 12 conditions.
13 So, again, our position remains the 14 fluttering can be so severe that the steam generator 15 tubes within the generator can bang into each other 16 and rupture. And again, as we argued, this triggering 17 mechanism can formally induce steam generator tube 18 failure.
19 I'm probably going to request the same 20 information, I don't know if you can give it, but 21 you'll have to provide any documentation that 22 disproves that theory. Basically, have you disproved 23 the theory?
24 I
know we're working within the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 limitations of the petition process but we haven't 1
received anything to disprove the theory. Did you 2
send that to us?
3 MR. POOLE: No.
4 MR. EPSTEIN: All right. Were you able to 5
verify that Exelon address of the design did not 6
decrease safety margins? Because I didn't receive 7
that either.
8 MR. SMITH: We did not provide that to 9
you, no.
10 MR. EPSTEIN: Let me just get to the final 11 question, which is we asserted that some of the steam 12 tubes at TMI have exhibited excessive wear and I think 13 you've acknowledged receipt of that.
14 And our feeling is that the behavior under 15 normal temperatures, especially what we saw in the 16 first 22 months of operation, would have a damaging 17 impact and potentially destroy the radiation barrier.
18 I didn't receive anything disproving that 19 theory, did you supply that to us as well?
20 MR. SMITH: No, we did not.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: All right, were you at all 22 aware of prior steam generator issues that occurred 23 while 29,000 steam generators through the use of 24 thiosulfate were damaged between November '81 and '82?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 Were you aware of this and did this factor 1
into your decision-making?
2 MR. SMITH: We're going beyond the 3
petition here and as Perry has pointed out several 4
times, the purpose of this meeting wasn't really 5
intended to be a back and forth and a questioning of 6
the Petition Review Board.
7 And so I'm going to have to ask you to 8
stop asking questions. And if you want to make a 9
presentation --
10 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
11 MR. PORTZLINE: I do have a question.
12 MR. EPSTEIN: Go ahead, Scott, I'm sorry.
13 MR. PORTZLINE: Did the Review Board base 14 this decision or make this decision on technical 15 matter or on purview qualification matter?
16 MR. POOLE: Can you explain that last one?
17 MR. PORTZLINE: Well, I got an email from 18 Justin Poole and it says that the petition falls 19 within one of the following categories, the issue 20 raised by the Petitioner has not previously been a 21 subject of a facilities-restricted or generic NRC 22 Staff review.
23 And therefore, it doesn't fall within your 24 criteria to be accepted for review. So, that's what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 I'm asking.
1 Has the Review Board made the decision 2
that its currently standing by on technical matters or 3
on the purview qualification matter?
4 MR. BUCKBERG: I don't think we understand 5
the question.
6 MR. EPSTEIN: This is Eric. The question 7
is this and it gets to the heart of the problem.
8 Was the petition initially dismissed based 9
on the merits or based on a technical flaw that we 10 somehow didn't follow the ABCs of the process?
11 What we're trying to determine is has the 12 content of the petition actually been examined or has 13 it been dismissed due to procedural error?
14 MR. SMITH: No, it was not a procedural 15 error on your part. As I said in my opening remarks, 16 I said that we wanted to -- let's see, I'll read the 17 sentence over again.
18 On June 5, 2019, the petition manager 19 contacted you to inform you of the PRB's initial 20 assessment that your petition does not meet Management 21 Directive 8.11,Section III.C.1 criteria for petition 22 evaluation because the NRC has been aware of and has 23 been involved with the issues raised in your petition 24 since 2011.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 MR. PORTZLINE: So, you're saying that you 1
would make your decision on purview qualification or 2
criteria merit? Is that right?
3 MR. KLEIN: We obviously looked at the 4
technical merit so --
5 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
6 MR. PORTZLINE: In other words, no matter 7
what we technically, you're saying it doesn't fit 8
your criteria?
9 MR. SMITH: So, to clarify, it's probably 10 a combination of both of those.
11 The fact that we were involved and aware 12 of the issues since 2011, we were involved in a 13 technical manner in that aspects of it were reviewed 14 during inspection and aspects of it were reviewed from 15 a Headquarters perspective as well.
16 MR. PORTZLINE: And we're saying that the 17 Review Board did not review or look at any documents 18 that had to do with the secondary flow causing the 19 fluttering during the transient conditions. There's 20 no document about that anywhere.
21 So, the fact that it's the same thing that 22 Eric's been asking, how can we have a good discussion 23 about the process when you haven't even looked at the 24 details?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 MR. BUCKBERG: Are you declining your 1
opportunity to supplement right now?
2 MR. PORTZLINE: No. All right, look, 3
you're getting so legalistic it's just a waste of our 4
time.
5 If this is a legalistic discussion and we 6
can't even involve details, although you've opened the 7
door to them too, I feel I'm wasting my time with what 8
you're doing. You're really legally obstructing 9
safety.
10 So, if a citizen or a citizen's group sees 11 or believes that there's a safety problem and I've 12 presented it to many different people within the 13 industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 specifically, what process is available to me to have 15 it addressed?
16 MR. SMITH: It's this process.
17 MR. PORTZLINE: But you didn't test it.
18 You just decided you don't want it, you don't want to 19 look at it and you claim you did. In a technical 20 manner also, is what you said.
21 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
22 MR. SMITH: So, part of this, part of the 23 purpose of this meeting is for you to provide more 24 information to us, clarification to us.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 So, in a way, you're telling us we focused 1
on the wrong issue and that we now need to go off and 2
focus on the issue that you're raising. So, that's 3
part of --
4 MR. PORTZLINE: I didn't say that. I 5
don't know how you're getting that.
6 MR. SMITH: Well, you're saying that we 7
didn't evaluate the technical aspects of the tube-to-8 tube rubbing as well as the flow that could cause 9
problems.
10 You're saying that we haven't evaluated 11 that, right?
12 MR. PORTZLINE: The rubbing is caused by 13 the flow and the fact is that these things have flows 14 or have buckled and so they don't flutter until 15 there's flow of water through the secondary system.
16 You didn't study it under reactor-17 transient conditions. That's nothing new but you 18 still haven't substantiated that.
19 And so what I'm saying to you is I'm going 20 to be sure the Congressmen know about this because I 21 hear these reports from the Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission, how you have all these channels for 23 citizens to go through and then this is what happens.
24 And I had one other issue in the past --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 this is off topic so I'm going to make it short and 1
I'll stop -- with the petition for entrance guards, G-2 U-A-R-D-S, at nuclear plants.
3 45 occasions the NRC broke their own 4
guidelines and rules and ultimately didn't even issue 5
a decision, which was against the regulations. So, I 6
know what to expect from you guys and you ought to be 7
embarrassed.
8 MR. EPSTEIN: This is Eric. Let me just 9
say that we will -- what's the timeline for submitting 10 additional information?
11 MR. POOLE: The timeline was today. That 12 was the point of the meeting today. This is Justin 13 Poole.
14 MR. EPSTEIN: But for us the point of the 15 meeting was to understand how the decision was denied 16 and basically, we're chasing our tails.
17 I've never been involved in a adjudicatory 18 process in 30 years where a claim or a concern or a 19 contention has been dismissed, and when you ask people 20 why they tell you that's not how the process works.
21 We're simply trying to find out how to 22 cure this issue. As a historian, if a crime is 23 committed and you have knowledge, as you say, and you 24 have studies it, as you say, it doesn't mean the crime 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 has been solved. It just means you're aware of the 1
problem.
2 We're trying to work with you to defeat 3
the problem because while you may not think it has 4
continuity, we've been through this before. The 5
licensee at the time introduced thiosulfate at least 6
half a dozen times and it damaged the tubes.
7 In addition to that, we're trying to be 8
proactive because the plant is going to shut and if 9
they're going to soak them, its tubes have damaged the 10 plant, I think the buyer should be aware.
11 This is where we're coming from. We're 12 trying to work with you but it's hard to do it when 13 we're blindfolded with our hands behind our back. You 14 have not been able to substantiate anything.
15 You're basically just telling us trust us 16 because we're aware and we have knowledge.
17 You're not telling us what that knowledge 18 is and our position would be -- and I'll send you the 19 comments this evening, Justin, I'll supply to you what 20 our concerns are.
21 We just don't think a record has been 22 developed. It may have been but you're denying us 23 access to the data. It's kind of frustrating on our 24 side.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 MR. POOLE: Understood.
1 MR. SMITH: All right, is there a 2
presentation that you'd like to make?
3 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, how much time do we 4
have?
5 MR. SMITH: You have another 20 minutes.
6 MR. POOLE: Yes.
7 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, the presentation was 8
contained in our petition and since you didn't respond 9
to specific concerns, I think there's two frustrations 10 here.
11 One is the design of the process, that 12 it's the end all and bee all but it's not all 13 inclusive. It's basically exclusive. It is what it 14 is and I don't know what we would have got for 15 ourselves after this.
16 I'm trying to understand when you render 17 a final decision, maybe you can walk us through, what 18 happens next?
19 Is this an appealable decision?
20 MR. BUCKBERG: Yes.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, who would we appeal it 22 to? I'm just trying to figure out where this goes.
23 MR. BUCKBERG: I'm not really sure, 24 probably the Executive Director's office.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 MR. EPSTEIN: All right, well, if you're 1
not really sure and you guys are basically 2
facilitating this process, that's disturbing. My 3
sense is the petition will likely be denied, which is 4
your right.
5 I'm asking you as the Petitioner what is 6
my right to readdress? You said there was somebody 7
from General Counsel. Can that person answer the 8
question?
9 What is the next legal step?
10 MR. GILLESPIE: I'll say my role here is 11 to advise the NRC Staff on this issue, not to provide 12 legal advice to individuals who are not my clients.
13 MR. SMITH: We will get back to you.
14 MR. EPSTEIN: You're not offering advice.
15 I'm simply asking you what the next step is, real 16 clear. We know where you guys are at. If you're not 17 able to or are unwilling to provide the information, 18 just tell me so.
19 MR. SMITH: Mr. Epstein, this is Brian 20 Smith. We will get back to you on any appeal rights 21 you have and the process for that.
22 MR. EPSTEIN: All right, so let me ask you 23 this. When we get a final decision, will there be any 24 meat on the bones or will it be simply another 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 paragraph?
1 I'm just trying to figure out how this 2
works. You guys are going to deny the petition, we 3
all know what's happening, and then I'm trying to 4
figure out where we appeal.
5 Actually, this is what Scott was getting 6
at, where we can discuss the merits of the case. I 7
don't know how many people are sitting there on the 8
taxpayer dollar, but I've got to tell you, I'm not 9
feeling like I'm getting a bang for my buck.
10 That's a personal decision but if you're 11 going to commit to me to get that information, that 12 would be great. And when will the decision be 13 rendered?
14 Is it going to be in the Federal Register 15 or is it going to be another email sent by Justin?
16 MR. POOLE: It would be a formal letter.
17 MR. EPSTEIN: That would be nice. So, as 18 we get down to the final part of this, I've got to 19 say, this is really dissatisfying for us.
20 We've been doing this, just so you're 21 aware, I think I tried to detail it, the steam 22 generators, since 1982, almost 40 years.
23 We have experience, we have technical 24 experts, this was totally unsatisfying, and I'm just 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 telling you guys, I don't know if we can get a 1
positive, this is disappointing.
2 We've spent a lot of time, money, and 3
resources to put this together and if this is the best 4
you can do, I've got to tell you it's pretty sad.
5 MR. POOLE: Understood.
6 MR. EPSTEIN: I hope it is, I hope it is 7
because I've been doing it 40 years and I've got to 8
tell you, we're almost back to where we were pre-'79.
9 Scott, do you have anything else you want 10 to add?
11 MR. PORTZLINE: No.
12 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, we'll hang around. I 13 don't know if anybody else from the public is going to 14 comment.
15 MR. SMITH: Okay, this is Brian Smith --
16 go ahead, Mr. Epstein.
17 MR. EPSTEIN: No, I'm just wondering if 18 you're going to be done or there's a conclusion.
19 MR. SMITH: If you're finished, I have 20 some closing remarks.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: That would be great.
22 MR. SMITH: Okay, so at this time does the 23 Staff or Headquarters have any questions for the 24 Petitioners?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 Are there any questions from NRC Staff on 1
the phone? Right now it's only the Petition Review 2
Board. So, for the licensee, do you have any 3
questions?
4 MR. MASCITELLI: None from TMI.
5 MR. SMITH: Okay, and just to be sure, did 6
any members of the public other than the Petitioners 7
join the bridge line? No, okay.
8 So, Mr. Epstein and Mr. Portzline, thank 9
you for taking time to provide the NRC Staff with some 10 clarifying information and your concerns on the 11 petition you've submitted.
12 Before we close, does the court reporter 13 need any additional information for the meeting 14 transcript?
15 COURT REPORTER: Yes. Someone on the 16 phone named Mike Fitzwater, it sounded like?
17 MR. FITZWATER: That is correct.
18 COURT REPORTER: Could I get the spelling 19 of your name, please?
20 MR. FITZWATER: F-I-T-Z-W-A-T-E-R.
21 COURT REPORTER: I heard a term, it 22 sounded like DPL. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
23 MR. FITZWATER: I didn't follow that.
24 COURT REPORTER: That's okay. The name of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 the turbine manufacturer, Areva? Never mind, 1
someone's helping me with that. And then I heard a 2
chemical --
3 MR. FITZWATER: A-R-E-V-A.
4 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. And then I 5
heard the name of a chemical, it sounded like TS 6
sulfate? That's what I heard.
7 MR. SMITH: Mr. Portzline and Mr. Epstein, 8
you mentioned that chemical?
9 COURT REPORTER: Never mind, someone has 10 provided it to me.
11 (Simultaneous Speaking.)
12 MR. EPSTEIN: No, I mentioned thiosulfate.
13 Thiosfulate was a sulfur compound introduced by GPU.
14 I don't have the spelling handy.
15 MR. POOLE: We got it. One of the Staff 16 provided it. Thank you, though.
17 MR. EPSTEIN: This is Mr. Epstein, I'm 18 just confused. Will the transcript, the whole 19 transcript, be available for public inspection?
20 MR. POOLE: Yes, it will be.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: And I wanted to thank the 22 NRC. This is the third teleconference I've been in 23 and this is the first one where the phone lines worked 24 so I'm glad you guys finally got that together.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 MR. POOLE: We are too.
1 MR. SMITH: Yes, unfortunately it's a 2
somewhat common occurrence. That's being remedied.
3 MR. EPSTEIN: It's not a technology 4
confidence-builder.
5 MR. SMITH: Okay, so with that this 6
meeting is concluded and we will be terminating the 7
phone connection. Thank you. The meeting is over.
8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 9
went off the record at 1:41 p.m.)
10 11 12 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 (202) 234-4433