ML23339A188
| ML23339A188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/2023 |
| From: | Perry Buckberg Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | |
| Buckberg P | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2023-CRS-0005, LTR-23-0216-1, NRC-2609 | |
| Download: ML23339A188 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement As it Relates to Pressurized Water Reactor Plants and License Renewal Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference Date: Thursday, November 30, 2023 Work Order No.: NRC-2609 Pages 1-33 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (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 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL EMBRITTLEMENT 8 AS IT RELATES TO PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR PLANTS 9 AND LICENSE RENEWAL 10 + + + + +
11 THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER 30, 2023 13 + + + + +
14 The conference call was held at 12:30 p.m.
15 EST, Jamie Heisserer, Chairperson of the Petition 16 Review Board, presiding.
17 18 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 19 20 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 21 JAMIE HEISSERER, Deputy Director, Division of 22 Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL),
23 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 24 (NRR) 25 PERRY BUCKBERG, Petition Manager for 2.206 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 petition, DORL 2 ROBERT CARPENTER, Security and Enforcement 3 Division, Office of General Counsel 4 JESSICA HAMMOCK, Project Manager, Turkey Point 5 License Renewal, NRR 6 EMMA HAYWOOD, Division of New and Renewed 7 Licenses, Vessels and Internals Branch 8 (NVIB), NRR 9 JOHN TSAO, NVIB/NRR 10 ON YEE, Materials Engineer, NVIB/NRR 11 NRC STAFF 12 SAMUEL BINA, DORL/NRR 13 JAMES DELOSREYES, DORL/NRR 14 DAVID DUMBACHER, Branch Chief, Region II 15 THEO EDWARDS, DORL/NRR 16 CAROLYN FAIRBANKS, NVIB/NRR 17 LAUREN GIBSON, Branch Chief, License Renewal 18 Projects Branch (NLRP), NRR 19 ANDY HON, Office of Inspector General 20 AUSTIN IM, NLRP/NRR 21 ANDREA JOHNSON, DORL/NRR 22 JAMES KIM, DORL/NRR 23 DANIEL KING, DORL/NRR 24 LOU McKOWN, Chief, Division of Reactor 25 Projects, Projects Branch 5, Region II NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 LUIS CRUZ ROSADO, DORL/NRR 2 JEFF SMITH, DORL/NRR 3 ZACH TURNER, DORL/NRR 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 C O N T E N T S 2 Page 3 Introduction and Explanation of Hearing . . . . . 5 4 PRB Member Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 NRC Participant Introductions . . . . . . . . . . 9 6 Petitioner Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Licensee Staff Introductions . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 Public Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9 PRB Chair Jamie Heisserer outline of Petition . . 14 10 Thomas Saporito, Petitioner, Presentation . . . . 18 11 Questions and Closing Comments . . . . . . . . . 32 12 Adjourn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 12:31 p.m.
3 MR. BUCKBERG: Good afternoon. Thanks 4 everybody for attending. My name is Perry Buckberg.
5 I'm a Senior Project Manager at the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission, or NRC, and I'm the NRC's Agency 2.206 7 Petition Coordinator.
8 And, people are still joining. We've got 9 it under control.
10 On September 17, 2023, Thomas Saporito 11 submitted a Petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code 12 of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR, Section 2.206, which 13 included a request that the NRC deny the subsequent 14 license renewal application for Turkey Point Nuclear 15 Plant, Units Three and Four, based on concerns 16 expressed regarding the reactor pressure vessel, or 17 RPV, condition.
18 The Petition was later expanded to request 19 that the NRC require all pressurized water reactors, 20 PWRs, operating beyond forty years to shut down to 21 assess their RPV neutron damage and embrittlement.
22 Also, PWR plants with renewed licenses or current license renewal applications under review, 23 take action specified by the Petitioner to test their 24 25 RPV's integrity.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 Pardon me for a second.
2 The purpose of today's meeting is to 3 provide Mr. Saporito an opportunity to address the 4 Petition Review Board, or PRB, and clarify or 5 supplement the Petition based on the results of the 6 PRB's initial assessment of the Petition.
7 The PRB will then consider information 8 obtained today in its final assessment of the 9 Petition's acceptability for further review.
10 Welcome Mr. Saporito.
11 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
12 MR. BUCKBERG: This is the, a little more 13 to kickoff for me and the PRB Chair, we'll just be a 14 couple of minutes.
15 This is a comment gathering meeting being 16 conducted in accordance with NRC Directive Handbook 17 3.5, "Attendance at NRC Staff Sponsored Meetings,"
18 and Section III.F of NRC Directive Handbook 8.11, 19 "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions."
20 As such, the public is invited to observe 21 this meeting and will have an opportunity to provide 22 feedback on the 2.206 process. A description of the 23 three categories of NRC public meetings can be found 24 on the NRC public website.
25 As this is a public meeting, there will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 be no safeguards or official use only information 2 discussed.
3 This meeting began at 12:30 p.m. and is 4 scheduled to end at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. After 5 introductory remarks, Mr. Saporito will address the 6 PRB, followed by a brief question and answer phase.
7 The meeting is being transcribed by a 8 court reporter. The transcript will become a 9 supplement to the Petition. The transcript will also 10 be made publicly available.
11 Is the court reporter present and able to 12 record the meeting? Please acknowledge.
13 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I am.
MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. A PRB, again, 14 a Petition Review Board, is assembled for certain 15 2.206 Petitions and typically consists of a Petition 16 Manager, myself in this case, a Chair, who is usually 17 a Senior Executive Service manager, and members of the 18 NRC staff based on the content of the information in 19 the Petition.
20 The PRB Chair is Jamie Heisserer, Deputy 21 Director of the NRC Division of Operator Reactor 22 Licensing, DORL, in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation, NRR. PRB Members will introduce 24 themselves shortly.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 I'd like to open this meeting with 2 introductions. To better facilitate introductions 3 virtually, I will read attendees names. And, when you 4 hear your name, please introduce yourself.
5 Again, my name is Perry Buckberg. I'm a 6 Senior Project Manager in DORL. So, let me go down 7 the list here for NRC PRB Members first. Bear with 8 me.
9 It's alphabetical, so, Emma, would you 10 like to introduce yourself?
11 MS. HAYWOOD: Yes. Emma Haywood, NRR, Division of New and Renewed Licenses, Vessels and 12 13 Internals Branch.
14 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Jessica?
15 MS. HAMMOCK: Hello. I'm Jessica Hammock.
I'm the Project Manager for the Turkey Point license 16 17 renewal in NRR.
18 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. John Tsao?
19 MR. TSAO: Hi. This is John Tsao from the 20 Vessels and Internals Branch. Thank you.
21 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. On Yee.
22 MR. YEE: On Yee, Materials Engineer, 23 Vessels and Internals Branch.
24 MR. BUCKBERG: And, Mr. Carpenter.
25 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, Robert Carpenter, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 Security and Enforcement Division of the Office of 2 General Counsel.
3 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks everybody. Let me 4 continue with introductions here. Actually, maybe 5 it's my notes. Jamie, please introduce yourself.
6 And, it will probably happen again.
7 MS. HEISSERER: Hi. Good afternoon. My 8 name is Jamie Heisserer, Deputy Director of the 9 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing in NRR.
10 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. Next, NRC 11 participants in general. I'll go down the list again 12 just to make things run smoother. Andrea Johnson.
13 MS. JOHNSON: Good morning, or good 14 afternoon, sorry. Andrea Johnson, I'm a Project 15 Manager in the Division of Operating Reactor 16 Licensing.
17 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Andy Hon?
18 MR. HON: Thanks. Andy Hon with the 19 Office of Inspector General, and here to observe the 20 meeting.
21 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. Austin?
22 MR. IM: My name is Austin Im. I am a 23 Project Manager in the License Renewal Project Branch.
24 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. It's hard for 25 me to tell with some people. I'm going to read the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 names. I'm not familiar with some. Jana Bergman, are 2 you NRC?
3 MS. BERGMAN: No. I'm Jana Bergman. I'm 4 from Curtiss-Wright.
5 MR. BUCKBERG: Okay. Thanks. We might 6 hit you up again in a moment. Let me go to the names 7 I know. Carolyn?
8 MS. FAIRBANKS: Carolyn Fairbanks, Senior 9 Material Analyst, Office of Internals Branch in NRR.
10 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Daniel King?
11 MR. KING: Daniel King. Project Manager 12 in the Division of Operator Reactor Licensing and 13 Member of the 2.206 Core Team.
14 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. James 15 Delosreyes.
16 MR. DELOSREYES: Thanks, James Delosreyes.
17 Project Manager in License Project Branch.
18 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Jim Kim?
19 MR. KIM: Yes. This is Jim Kim. And, I'm 20 a Project Manager in the Division of Operator Reactor 21 Licensing and also a Member of NRC's 2.206 Petition 22 Core Team.
23 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Jeff Smith?
24 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. Jeff Smith, 25 Project Manager in NRR DORL.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Lauren?
2 MS. GIBSON: Hello. I'm Lauren Gibson.
3 I am the Branch Chief for the License Renewal Projects 4 Branch.
5 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Lou?
6 MR. McKOWN: Good afternoon. I'm Lou 7 McKown, Chief Division of Reactor Projects, Projects 8 Branch Five, Region II.
9 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Luis? Luis Cruz 10 Rosado?
11 MR. ROSADO: Hi. Yes, I'm Luis Cruz. I'm 12 from DORL. I'm part of the NRAN Program.
13 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Theo?
14 MR. EDWARDS: Hi, I'm Theo Edwards, 15 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
16 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Zach?
17 MR. TURNER: Zach Turner, Project Manager, 18 Division of Operator Reactor Licensing.
19 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. Thanks everybody 20 from the NRC. Did I miss anybody from the NRC?
21 Please introduce yourself if I did.
22 MR. BINA: Yes. Samuel Bina, Division of 23 Operator Reactor Licensing.
24 MR. BUCKBERG: Oh, sorry Sam. Anybody 25 else?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 MR. DUMBACHER: Perry, my name is David 2 Dumbacher. I'm the Branch Chief in Region II with 3 oversight for the Turkey Point site.
4 MR. BUCKBERG: Apologies to you as well, 5 David, for skipping over you guys. Anybody else from 6 the NRC?
7 (No response.)
8 MR. BUCKBERG: Okay. Moving along, Mr.
9 Saporito, would you like to introduce yourself?
10 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. This is Thomas 11 Saporito. I'm the Executive Director for Nuclear 12 Energy Oversight Project based in Stuart, Florida.
13 MR. BUCKBERG: Thank you. And, you'll have your audience in just a moment here, after some 14 15 more introductory remarks.
Are there any Licensee staff in attendance 16 who would like to introduce themselves?
17 18 (No response.)
19 MR. BUCKBERG: Hearing none, is any --
20 please?
21 MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry, Mike Davis, FPL.
22 MR. BUCKBERG: Welcome. Any Licensee staff who 23 want to introduce themselves?
24 (No response.)
25 MR. BUCKBERG: Any members of the public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 that wish to introduce themselves besides the 2 Petitioner?
3 MS. BERGMAN: Jana Bergman, Curtiss-4 Wright.
5 MR. BUCKBERG: There you are. Thanks 6 Jana. Anybody else?
7 (No response.)
8 MR. BUCKBERG: Okay. It's not required 9 for members of the public to introduce themselves for 10 this call. However, if there are any members of the 11 public on the phone that wish to do so at this time, 12 this is the last chance. No more, please?
13 (No response.)
14 MR. BUCKBERG: I'd like to emphasize that 15 we each need to speak -- sorry, we each need to speak 16 clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 17 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
18 If you do have something that you would 19 like to say, please first state your name for the 20 record.
21 For those who dialed into the meeting, 22 please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 23 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 24 a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys 25 star 6, and then again to unmute, press star 6 again.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 Thank you.
2 At this time, I'd like to turn it over to 3 the PRB Chair, Jamie Heisserer. Thanks.
4 MS. HEISSERER: Hi, and good afternoon.
5 As I said before, my name is Jamie Heisserer. And, 6 I'm the Deputy Director of the Division of Operator 7 Reactor Licensing in NRR at the NRC.
8 Welcome to this meeting regarding the 9 2.206 Petition that was submitted by Mr. Saporito.
10 I'd first like to share some background on our 11 process.
12 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 13 Federal Regulations describes the Petition process, 14 the primary mechanism for the public to request 15 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
16 This process permits anyone to petition 17 the NRC to take enforcement type actions related to 18 NRC Licensees or licensed activities. Depending on 19 the results of this evaluation, the NRC could modify, 20 suspend, or revoke an NRC issued license, or take any 21 other appropriate enforcement action.
22 The NRC's staff's guidance for the 23 disposition of 2.206 Petition requests is in 24 Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly 25 available.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 2 the Petitioner, Mr. Saporito, an opportunity to 3 provide any relevant additional explanation and 4 support for the Petition after having received the 5 PRB's initial assessment.
6 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 7 an opportunity for the Petitioner or other members of 8 the public to question or examine the PRB on the 9 merits or the issues presented in the Petition 10 request.
11 During the question and answer phase, the 12 NRC staff may ask clarifying questions of the 13 Petitioner and the Licensee. The Licensee may ask the 14 PRB questions related to the issues raised in the 15 Petition.
16 And then, the Petitioner and the Licensee 17 may ask the PRB questions related to the 2.206 process 18 in general. This is consistent with Management 19 Directive 8.11, Section 3(f).
20 No decisions regarding the merits of this 21 Petition will be made at this meeting. Following this 22 meeting, the PRB will conduct its internal 23 deliberations. The outcome of this internal meeting 24 will be provided to the Petitioner in a letter.
25 I would like to summarize the scope of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 Petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 2 date. Mr. Saporito submitted a Petition to the NRC on 3 September 17, 2023, and amended the Petition on 4 November 4.
5 The Petition as supplemented, requested 6 that the NRC deny the Turkey Point subsequent license 7 renewal application, require all PWR plants operating 8 beyond 40 years to shut down and assess their RPV 9 condition, and to require all PWR plants with renewed 10 licenses or current applications to take actions 11 specified by the Petitioner to test their RPV 12 integrity.
13 To provide some process background, the 14 PRB first evaluates petitions using Management 15 Directive 8.11, Section 3(c)(1), Criteria for 16 Accepting Petitions, to assess whether or not further 17 review is warranted.
18 A Petition must basically provide facts not previously reviewed and/or resolved by the NRC to 19 20 warrant further review.
On November 3, 2023, the Petition Manager 21 contacted the Petitioner, Mr. Saporito, via email, to 22 inform him of the PRB's initial assessment that the 23 Petition did not meet the criteria for accepting 24 petitions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 The Petition Manger explained in this 2 email that these concerns from your Petition that 3 screened into the 2.206 process, have previously been 4 the subject of facility specific, or generic NRC staff 5 review. And, the Petition does not provide 6 significant new information that the staff did not 7 consider in the prior reviews.
8 The email also included PRB responses to 9 these concerns, consistent with MD, Management 10 Directive 8.11, Section 3(c)(1)(b)(ii). The PRB's 11 initial assessment was to not accept your Petition for 12 further review.
13 The concerns addressed by the PRB were, 14 one, the RPV sample process was only intended for the 15 original 40-year safety design basis, as there were 16 not enough samples to continue that process beyond 40 17 years.
18 Two, consideration of the core samples 19 taken from other reactors cannot provide reasonable 20 assurance that the Turkey Point reactor vessels can be 21 safely operated beyond their license expiration dates 22 of July 19, 2032, and April 10, 2033, respectively, 23 for several reasons.
24 The exact position of the sample metals 25 from other reactors differs from the Turkey Point COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 NEAL R.D.C.
WASHINGTON, GROSS 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 reactors and the stress on the reactor vessels in the 2 other reactors differs from the stress on the Turkey 3 Point reactor vessels stemming from emergency 4 shutdowns or SCRAMs.
5 The Amended Petition then expanded the 6 scope beyond the Turkey Point subsequent license 7 renewal to include all PWR Licensees operating with 8 renewed licenses or with license renewal applications 9 under NRC review.
10 The Petition Manager offered you an 11 opportunity to address the PRB to clarify or 12 supplement your Petition in response to its 13 assessment. And, you requested to address the PRB in 14 this forum.
15 As a reminder for all participants, please identify yourself and if you make any remarks, as this 16 will help us in the preparation of the meeting 17 18 transcript that will be made publicly available.
19 Thank you.
Mr. Saporito, I will now turn it over to 20 you to provide any information you believe the PRB 21 should consider as part of this Petition. You have 50 22 minutes for your presentation. Thank you.
23 MR. SAPORITO: All right. This is Thomas 24 Saporito. I'm the Executive Director for the Nuclear 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 Energy Oversight Project located here in Stuart, 2 Florida.
3 Is this transcript going to be considered 4 by the NRC as a subsequent Amended Petition in 5 addition to the Amendment I've already submitted in 6 November?
7 MR. BUCKBERG: Yes. This meeting will be 8 transcribed and will be made publicly available.
9 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. I understand that.
10 But, I want the NRC to understand that my -- my 11 speaking here today is to be considered an additional 12 amendment, a Second Amendment to the Petition.
13 That's what I'm explaining.
14 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks.
15 MR. SAPORITO: All right. So, the issues 16 I'm going to be talking about today, these issues were 17 not properly addressed by the NRC Licensee, the 18 Florida Power & Light Company, or FP&L in their 19 application for an extended operating license for the 20 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant or by the NRC in their 21 environmental impact statement. But, those two issues 22 are pretty serious.
23 And so, regarding the Petition, the NRC 24 made an initial assessment. And, I'm going to go, 25 there are three issues here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 One that concerns the Charpy testing for 2 the reactor vessel pressures, reactor vessels. And, 3 the second issue regarding rising sea levels, and the 4 third issue that the NRC addressed was regarding solar 5 power being a safe alternative for the Turkey Point 6 Nuclear Plant.
7 So, regarding the reactor pressure vessel 8 embrittlement issue, the NRC said, the initial 9 Petition Review Board's initial assessment was, 10 regarding your concern with Charpy testing, this 11 concern streams out of the 2.206 Petition process 12 consistent with Management Directive 8.11, Section 13 2(a)(ii)(d)(2), General Assertions and Duplicative 14 Requests for Action under 10 CFR 2.206.
15 And, this concern was evaluated by a PRB 16 in response to the October and November 2020, 10 CFR 17 2.206 Petition. The March 11, 2021, PRB response is 18 available in ADAMS.
19 So, addressing that issue first and my 20 supplementary response to that would be concerning the 21 reactor pressure embrittlement issue. It says, as 22 stated in the November 4, 2023, Amended Petition, NRC 23 Licensees rely on Charpy impact testing to validate 24 the integrity of their respective reactor pressure 25 vessels.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 Petitioners maintain that Charpy impact 2 testing alone is not sufficient to adequately 3 determine the amount of neutron damage sustained by 4 any reactor pressure vessel.
5 And, that the NRC Licensees cannot provide 6 the Agency with reasonable assurance that their 7 respective reactor pressure vessels will not fail 8 during a pressurized thermal shock event or other such 9 event that challenges the integrity of the reactor 10 pressure vessel.
11 Petitioners request that the NRC take 12 enforcement action against their Licensees identified 13 in the Petition. And require the Licensees to conduct 14 more comprehensive testing of the reactor pressure 15 vessels by employing one or more of the following type 16 methods, ultrasonic testing, radiographic testing, 17 metallographic examinations, ultrasonic velocity 18 measurements, acoustic emission testing, or pulsed 19 eddy current testing.
20 Petitioners note here that there are 21 approximately three million people living within the 22 greater Miami area and near the Turkey Point Nuclear 23 Plant who would be killed or otherwise seriously 24 injured by a catastrophic nuclear accident at the 25 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, similar to the Fukushima NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 nuclear accident in Japan.
2 Notably, due to the number of people 3 concerned and the highway structure in Florida, a 4 timely evacuation would be impossible. Petitioners 5 note here that other NRC licensed nuclear plants in 6 the USA have similar populations near nuclear plants 7 and have similar evacuation issues.
8 To the extent that the NRC Licensees have 9 pressurized water reactors, which were originally 10 designed with a 40-year safety design basis, are 11 requesting that the NRC allow their reactors to 12 operate 20 or 40 or 80 or 100 years beyond their 40-13 year safety design basis, Petitioners assert that it 14 is reasonable that the NRC require more extensive 15 testing of the Licensees pressurized -- water reactor 16 pressurized vessels integrity other than Charpy impact 17 testing.
18 And, especially the beltlines of the 19 reactor vessels is a very critical area that should be 20 tested. And, it's almost absurd where a United States 21 Government Agency like the NRC to accept a similar 22 test, which is a Charpy impact test for the public's 23 awareness.
24 It's just that the device, it looks like 25 a hatchet, and it's suspended and released by humans.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 And, the gravity pulls the hatchet looking device, 2 which causes an impact on a sample piece of metal 3 which was taken when the reactor vessel was 4 constructed.
5 And then, there's an analog reading by 6 this human. And, that interpretation is to ascertain 7 the damage, the neutron damage to the entire reactor 8 vessel. It's absurd.
9 The NRC should protect the public's health 10 and safety and environment by mandating that these 11 Licensees who have applied for extended operating 12 licenses or that are operating under an extended 13 license, conform to make more, at least three or four 14 of these tests to ascertain the actual integrity of 15 the pressurized water reactor vessel.
16 And, I note here that all these assertions 17 and probabilistic assessments from Florida Power &
18 Light to the NRC to justify the granting of an 19 extended operating license, these are mere assertions 20 and guesses and assumptions. They are not based on 21 any facts.
22 The only way you can get facts is by 23 testing the sample, the metal of the reactor vessel 24 itself through one or more or all of these measures 25 I've stated here and in a previous Petition.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 With respect to the Florida Power & Light 2 Company especially, the NRC cannot rely on these 3 assertions by FP&L. FP&L has been found by the NRC 4 Office of the Investigations to have lied and cheated 5 and falsified documents at their plant.
6 And, these activities were substantiated 7 on plant workers that were never performed. And now, 8 you're going to accept their assessments and 9 assumptions on the integrity of a reactor pressure 10 vessel based on one Charpy test? That's unbelievable.
11 The next issue, the initial assessment by 12 the Petition Review Board states that regarding rising 13 sea levels, this concern screens out under 2.206 14 Petition process consistent with Management Directive 15 8.11, Section 2(a)(2)(d)(ii), General Assertions and 16 Duplicate Request for Action under 10 CFR 2.206.
17 Because, your concern regarding several 18 changes is not accompanied by a specific vulnerability 19 at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant for the staff to 20 consider.
21 And, my subsequent response to that is, 22 Petitioners request that the NRC take enforcement 23 action and require its Licensee, Florida Power & Light 24 Company to identify and state what the Licensee's plan 25 is with respect to the rise in sea level in and around NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant.
2 Basis and justification for that request 3 is that the Petitioners know here that FP&L does not 4 appear to have properly identified or stated any 5 action, any action financed with respect to a rise in 6 sea level in their updated final safety analysis 7 review or in its application to the NRC to extend the 8 operational licenses for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 9 Units Three and Four for an additional 20 years.
10 The Turkey Point Nuclear Plant is situated 11 right on the water's edge, where more than three 12 million people reside and work within the NRC's zone 13 of interest. FP&L's internal documents apparently 14 estimate only one foot of sea level rise by the year 15 2100.
16 However, projects calculated by the 17 University of Florida mapping tools, predict that the 18 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant cooling canal system will 19 be underwater -- underwater by the year 2040 and well 20 before the expiration of FP&L's license extension 21 request.
22 According to a document dated November 21, 23 2023, by FT.com, the world is on track for a 24 temperature rise of up to 2.9 degrees Celsius above 25 pre-institutional -- excuse me, above pre-industrial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 levels, as documented by the United Nations 2 Environmental Program, even assuming countries stick 3 to their Paris Agreement climate pledges.
4 Moreover, the UN asserts that the world 5 now only has 14 percent chance of limiting warning to 6 the 1.5 degree Celsius goal, even if countries honor 7 all pledges, including weaker conditional promises by 8 developing countries, as well as the non-binding net 9 zero goals.
10 The last issue that the PRB responded to, 11 they state that an initial assessment to that 12 regarding solar power being a safe alternative to SLR 13 based nuclear power, this concern screens out the 14 2.206 Petition process consistent with MD 8.11, 15 Section 2(a)(2)(d)(v), requests that would not 16 reasonable lead to an enforcement action because your 17 Petition -- or excuse me, because your position cannot 18 identify a safety issue or a Licensee noncompliance 19 with NRC regulations that could justify the NRC staff 20 pursuing enforcement actions.
21 And, Petitioners response to that is, 22 regarding solar power, Petitioners request that the 23 NRC take enforcement action and require FP&L to 24 properly evaluate, consider, and compare the 25 environmental impact of offering the Turkey Point NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 Nuclear Plant for additional 20 years to including 2 solar systems on various businesses in Florida to 3 protect the environment.
4 And, it is noted in the Amended Petition 5 that I submitted to the NRC regarding this matter, if 6 only 5 percent of the homes and 10 percent of the 7 business in the State of Florida were to employ solar 8 systems, you wouldn't even need the Turkey Point 9 Nuclear Plant, Units Three and Four at all.
10 The megawatt output from those solar 11 systems would eclipse what you're getting out of the 12 Turkey Point Plant.
13 The basis and justification for the solar 14 power according to the FP&L website, Turkey Point 15 Nuclear Plant generates about 1600 megawatts of 16 electricity from two nuclear power units. The thermal 17 power is approximately 5,444 megawatts, which means 18 that about 28.9 percent of the thermal power is 19 converted into electricity and the rest is rejected as 20 waste heat.
21 The amount of heat returned to the 22 environment is the difference between a thermal power 23 input and the electrical power output. Therefore, the 24 heat return to the environment is 3,944 megawatts of 25 heat, or 13.4554 trillion, with a T-, trillion BTUs, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 or British Thermal Units of heat returned to the 2 environment for every hour of operation.
3 This heat, this is heat that would 4 otherwise not be dumped into the environment to 5 contribute to global warning.
6 The next issue that wasn't previously 7 addressed, but is being addressed now, as a further 8 amendment to the Petition, is nuclear waste.
9 Petitioners request number one, that the NRC take 10 enforcement action requiring its Licensee, Florida 11 Power & Light Company, or FP&L, to identify and state 12 what the Licensee's plan is with respect to the 13 disposal and storage of nuclear waste from the Turkey 14 Point Nuclear Plant with the respect to a rise in sea 15 level above the Licensee's one foot estimate for the 16 next 20 years of licensed operations at the Turkey 17 Point Nuclear Plant.
18 And number two, require the Licensee FP&L, 19 to build protective infrastructure around the Turkey 20 Point Nuclear Plant to protect it -- to protect the 21 plant from a sea level rise of at least six feet over 22 the next 20 years.
23 Basis and justification for the request.
24 As stated earlier, FP&L does not appear to have 25 properly identified or stated any action plan with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 respect to a rise in sea level in their updated FSAR 2 or in its application to the NRC to extend the 3 operational licenses for Turkey Point Units Three and 4 Four for an additional 20 years.
5 And, the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant is 6 situated right on the water's edge where more than 7 three million people reside and work within the NRC's 8 zone of interest.
9 FP&L's internal documents have apparently 10 estimated only one foot of sea level rise by the year 11 2100. However, projections calculated by the 12 University of Florida mapping tools predict that the 13 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant cooling canal system will 14 be underwater by the year 2040 and well before the 15 expiration of FP&L's license extension request.
16 According to the United Nation's document 17 that I spoke about earlier, they're looking at a 18 temperature rise of 2.9 degrees Celsius above pre-19 industrial levels. And, that would certainly cause 20 the sea level to rise substantially.
21 The approximate amount of nuclear waste 22 expected to be generated by Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 23 over the next 20 years could range from 1,210 to 1,737 24 metric tons of nuclear waste.
25 This is a rough estimate based on current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 data and assumptions. And, it may change due to 2 various factors such as the plant's operational 3 performance, the fuel cycle, waste management 4 practices, and environmental regulations.
5 And, in conclusion, I'm going to state the 6 NRC's mission statement. The NRC Licensees --
7 licenses and regulates the nations civilian use of 8 radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance 9 of adequate protection to public health and safety, 10 and to promote the common defense and security, and to 11 protect the environment.
12 That's the NRC's mission statement.
13 That's what they are mandated to do by the United 14 States Congress.
15 Petitioners regard here that the NRC has 16 been mandated by the Congress to protect the health 17 and safety of the public and to protect the 18 environment by granting enforcement actions as 19 requested in the Petition as amended.
20 To the extent that over the past 30 years 21 of interfacing with the NRC, the Agency appears to be 22 improperly collaborating with its Licensees and with 23 the nuclear industry in general, resulting in the NRC 24 changing certain and specific Agency rules and 25 regulations to permit its Licensees to extend the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 operational depressurized nuclear reactors beyond 2 their original 40-year safety designed basis.
3 Moreover, the NRC appears to have accepted 4 general assertions and probabilistic assessments and 5 Charpy impact testing as to the inten -- as to the 6 integrity of its Licensee's reactor pressure vessels 7 without any definitive testing of the reactor pressure 8 vessels by the other various means identified in the 9 Petition as amended.
10 Therefore, we grant -- Nuclear Energy 11 Oversight Project has engaged the NRC Office of the 12 Inspector General to open an investigation of the NRC 13 in these circumstances, to provide reasonable 14 assurance of adequate protection of public health and 15 safety, and to promote a common defense of security, 16 and to protect the environment with respect to the 17 NRC's granting extended operational licenses to its 18 Licensees of pressurized water reactors.
19 And, I thank you for your time ladies and 20 gentlemen.
21 MS. HEISSERER: Thank you, Mr. Saporito, 22 for your presentation and for taking the time to raise 23 your concerns.
24 The regulations in 10 CFR 2.206 provide an 25 opportunity for the public to petition the NRC to take NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 enforcement related action. And, the NRC understands 2 that this process takes time, resources, and energy 3 for the Petitioners. So, thank you, Mr. Saporito.
4 I will turn this over to Perry, the 5 Petition Manager, for questions and closing comments.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks Jamie. Again, thank 8 you, Mr. Saporito, for taking the time to provide the 9 NRC staff with clarifying information on the Petition 10 you've submitted.
11 As stated at the opening, we will now 12 enter the question and answer phase of the meeting.
13 At this time, do any PRB Members have questions for 14 the Petitioner?
15 Please speak up if so.
16 (No response.)
17 MR. BUCKBERG: Hearing none, does the 18 Petitioner or Licensee, any Licensee representative 19 have any questions about the 2.206 Petition process?
20 Not specific to this Petition, but the 21 process in general?
22 (No response.)
23 MR. BUCKBERG: Hearing none -- did 24 somebody speak up or no? Before I conclude the 25 meeting, at this time, members of the public may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 provide feedback regarding the 2.206 Petition process.
2 However, as stated at the opening, the purpose of the 3 meeting is not to provide an opportunity for the 4 Petitioner or the public to question or examine the 5 PRB regarding the merits of the Petition request.
6 Any feedback on the process itself? Going 7 twice. No?
8 (No response.)
9 MR. BUCKBERG: Before we close, does the 10 court reporter need any additional information for the 11 meeting transcript?
12 COURT REPORTER: I don't believe so at 13 this time. Thank you.
14 MR. BUCKBERG: Thanks. And, you can 15 always reach out to me via email for names or anything 16 like that.
17 We want to encourage participants 18 outside the NRC to provide public meeting feedback to 19 the NRC staff via the NRC public meeting website.
20 And, with that, this meeting is now 21 concluded. Thanks everybody.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 22 off the record at 1:07 p.m.)
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com