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