ML13162A744

from Andrea Russell: Meeting Agenda, Script Attached

ML13162A744
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	04/17/2012
From:	Andrea Russell Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
2.206, FOIA/PA-2013-0010, G20120172, TAC ME8189
Download: ML13162A744 (8)

Text

Doerflein, Lawrence

Subject:

Script Attached: New Dial-in Provided: Change in Time: Confirmed Date: Public Meeting with Petitioner (Gunter et. al.) (G20120172) Fitzpatrick 2.206 (TAC ME8189)

Location: Commissioner's Conference Room Start: Tue 4/17/2012 12:30 PM End: Tue 4/17/2012 2:30 PM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none)

Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Russell, Andrea Required Attendees: Lee, Samson; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Bickett, Brice; Doerflein, Lawrence-J.nricL. Malthbw; Dennig, Robert; Ulses, Anthony; MorganButler, Kimyata; Fretz, Robert; (b)(7)(cl Eul, Ryan; Richards, Karen; Safford, Carrie; Monninger, John; McIntyre, Da,( r-- /

Optional Attendees: Ruland, William; Collins, Timothy; Scott, Catherine; Albert, Michelle

All, Purpos : For Gunter et.al. to address the PRB in person before the PRB meets internally to make an initial recommendation to accept or reject the petition for review.

Scri t: Please bring a copy of the attached script to the meeting Tuesday April 17, 2012.

Scrlpt.CallGunter et al 2206_...

Dial-In: [We currently have approximately 220 co-petitioners and we keep getting more each day]

2206 Participants (approximately 200 lines available):

Telephone Number: .888-282-0374 Access Code:

M Conference Details (APR 17, 20...

Meetinq

Contact:

Bhalchandra Vaidya and/or Andrea Russell Thank you, Andrea Russell, 2.206 Coordinator 301-415-8553

April 17, 2012 1 t Petition Review Board Public Meeting With Petitioners James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Paul Gunter, et. al., 10 CFR 2.206 Petition G20120172 Agenda

[Note on Seating Arrangements: Samson Lee, the PRB Chairman, Bhalchandra Vaidya, the Petition Manager, and Catherine Scott, OGC should sit at the Commissioners' table on the side facing the window. The opposite side of the Commissioners' table is reserved for the petitioners. The other Petition Review Board members should sit at the Commissioners' table, as seating allows, or in the first row of seats surrounding the table.]

Purpose:

For the petitioners, Paul Gunter, et. al., to address the Petition Review Board (PRB) for the petition on Emergency Enforcement Action for Suspension of James A. FitzPatrick (FitzPatrick) Operating License.

A. Welcome and Introductions (Bhalchandra K. Vaidya, Petition Manager)

B. PRB Chairman's Introduction (Samson Lee, PRB Chair)

C. Petitioner's Presentation (Paul Gunter, et. al.)

D. Clarifying Questions from the NRC staff and/or the licensee E. Questions from members of the public on the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process F. PRB Chairman's Closing Remarks (Samson Lee)

Talking Points A. Welcome and Introductions (Bhalchandra Vaidya)

" I'd like to thank everybody for attending this meeting. My name is Bhalchandra Vaidya and I am an NRC Project Manager in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing. We are here today to allow the petitioners, Paul Gunter, et. al, to address the NRC Petition Review Board, regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated March 9, 2012 and the supplements dated March 13, and March 20, 2012. I am also the Petition Manager for the petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Samson Lee.

• As part of the Petition Review Board's (or PRB's) review of this petition, Paul Gunter, et. al, has requested this opportunity to address the PRB. In accordance with MD 8.11, the petitioner may request that a reasonable number of associates be permitted to assist in addressing the PRB concerning the petition. Through the point-of-contact for all the petitioners and co-petitioners, Ms. Azulay, they were notified about this meeting.

• This meeting is scheduled for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, from 12:30-2:30 PM (Eastern Time). The meeting is being recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court reporter.

The transcript will become a supplement to the petition. The transcript will also be made pubricly available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The meeting is also being webcast.

" For those at the NRC headquarters, we have public meeting feedback forms that you are welcome to fill out. These forms are forwarded to our internal communications specialists, You may either leave them here following the meeting or mail them back. They are already post-paid. If you are participating by phone and would like to leave e-mail feedback on this public meeting, please forward your comments to me by e-mail (Bhalchandra.vaidya@nrc.gov)

• I'd like to open this meeting with introductions of the meeting participants. I ask that all of the participants clearly state for the record your name, your position or occupation, and your organization. For those here in the room, please speak up or approach the microphone so the persons on the phone can hear clearly and so that the court reporter can accurately record your name. I have already introduced myself. Let us start with the other NRC participants here in the room. Other NRC-HQ participants introduce themselves.

" We've completed introductions at the NRC headquarters. At this time, pre there any NRC participants from Headquarters on the phone? [please introduce yourself]

" Are there any NRC participants from the Regional Office on the phone? [please introduce yourself]

" Are there any representatives for the licensee on the phone? [please introduce yourself]

• At this time, I would like to have the petitioners, who are here at NRC headquarters, introduce themselves. I ask that all petitioners please clearly state for the record your name, your position, and your organization. Again, please speak up or use one of the microphones at the table or at the podium located over here.

" At this time, I would like to have any petitioners on the phone introduce themselves. Again, please speak up so that the court reporter can accurately record your name.

" It is not required for members of the public to introduce themselves for this meeting, but we would like a record of your participation. Please send this record of your participation to my email at bhanchaldra.vaidva(.nrc.oov. For the public question period at the end of the meeting, we will ask you to introduce yourself and state your name if you are asking a question.

• For those members of the public who are dialing into the meeting and are not petitioners, I would remind you that your lines will be on mute until the public question period at the end of the meeting.

• At this time, the phone line for general public will be changed to "Listening Mode" to minimize any background noise or distractions during the petitioners' presentations, and will be re-opened for the comment period for the Public.

• I'd like to reemphasize that we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. Also, if you do have something that you would like to say, please state your name for the record first and then make your statement.

0 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB Chairman, Samson Lee.

B. Openinq Remarks For Samson Lee

" Good afternoon. Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Paul Gunter, et. al.

" I'd like to first share some background on our process:

Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process

- the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staff's guidance for the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is publicly available.

" The purpose of today's meeting is to give the petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional explanation or support for the petition before the Petition Review Board's initial consideration and recommendation.

a. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the petitioner to question or examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request.

b. No decisions regarding the merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.

c. Following this meeting, the Petition Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.

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

d. The Petition Review Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the senior executive service level at the NRC. It has a Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator. Other members of the Board are determined by the NRC staff based on the content of the information in the petition request.

e. At this time, I would like to introduce the Board.

I am Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board Chairman. Bhalchandra Vaidya is the Petition Manager for the petition under discussion today. Andrea Russell is the office's PRB Coordinator. Our technical staff includes:

Anthony Ulses from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Reactor Systems Branch John Monninger from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Japan Lessons Learned Project Directorate Brice Bickett, Mathew Jennerich, and Lawrence Doerflein from Region 1.

We also obtain advice from our Office of the General Counsel, represented by Catherine Scott.

f. As described in our process, the NRC staff and the Licensee may ask clarifying questions in order to better understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the petitioner's requests for review under the 2.206 process.

I would like to briefly summarize the scope of the petition under consideration and the NRC activities to date.

a. On March 9, 2012, as supplemented March 13 and March 20, 2012, Mr. Paul Gunter, et. al.,

submitted a joint petition to the NRC, under Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations, Part 2.206, regarding James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

b. In this petition request, the joint petitioners are requesting the following actions:

The joint petitioners request that the FitzPatrick operating license be immediately suspended as the result of the undue risk to the public health and safety presented by the operator's reliance on non-conservative and wrong assumptions that went into the analysis of the capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing ductwork containment vent system. The joint petitioners state that the risks and uncertainty presented by FitzPatrick's assumptions and decisions, in regard to NRC Generic Letter 89-16, as associated with the day-to-day operations of this nuclear power plant now constitute an undue risk to public health and safety. The joint petitioners request that the suspension of the operating license be in effect pending final resolution of a public challenge to the adequacy of the pre-existing vent line in light of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

The joint petitioners do not seek or request that FitzPatrick operators now install the Direct Torus Vent System (DTVS) as it is demonstrated to have experienced multiple failures to mitigate the severe nuclear accidents at Fukushima Daiichi.

The joint petitioners request that the NRC take action to suspend the FitzPatrick operating license immediately until the following emergency enforcement actions are enacted, completed, reviewed, and approved by the NRC and informed by independent scientific analysis:

1) Entergy Nuclear Operations' FitzPatrick nuclear power plant shall be subject to public hearings with full hearing rights on the continued operation of the Mark I BWR and the adequacy and capability of a pre-existing containment vent which is not a fully hardened vent line as recommended by NRC Generic Letter 89-16. As such, the FitzPatrick operator uniquely did not make containment modifications and did not install the DTVS, otherwise known as "the hardened vent," as requested by NRC Generic Letter 89-16 and as installed on every other GE Mark I in the US;

2) Entergy Nuclear Operations shall publicly document for independent review its post-Fukushima re-analyses for the reliability and capability of the FitzPatrick pre-existing containment vent system as previously identified as "an acceptable deviation" from NRC Generic Letter 89-16 which recommended the installation of the Direct Torus Vent System and as outlined in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated September 28, 1992. The publicly documented post-Fukushima analysis shall include the reassessment of all assumptions regarding the capability and reliability of the pre-existing containment venting and specifically address non-conservative assumptions regarding:

a) the FitzPatrick cost-benefit analysis used to justify not installing a fully hardened vent system and;

b) "unlikely ignition points" as claimed in the FitzPatrick pre-existing vent line system that would otherwise present increased risks and consequences associated with the detonation of hydrogen gas generated during a severe accident.

As a basis for the request, the joint petitioners state that in light of the multiple failures of the GE Mark I containment and hardened vent systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in the days following the March 11, 2011, station black out event, the joint petitions seek the prompt and immediate suspension of the FitzPatrick operations because:

" The GE Mark I BWR pressure suppression containment system is identified as inherently unreliable and likely to fail during a severe accident.

" The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent as approved for severe accident mitigation is not a fully "hardened vent" system.

• The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent as approved relies upon non-conservative and faulty assumptions.

" The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent system uniquely allows for a severe nuclear accident to be released at ground level.

" The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe dramatically and exponentially changes the FitzPatrick cost-benefit analyses.

• The continued day-to-day reliance upon the significantly flawed pre-existing containment vent system as would be relied upon to mitigate a severe accident at the FitzPatrick Mark I reactor presents an undue risk to the public health and safety.

" The identified containment vulnerability, the non-conservative if not false assumption of "no likely ignition sources" in the pre-existing vent line and the unacceptable consequences of failure of the FitzPatrick pre-existing containment vent place both greater uncertainty and undue risk on public health and safety and are not reasonably justified by arbitrarily assigning a low probability of the occurrence of a severe accident.

In the March 20, 2012, supplement to the petition, the joint petitioners state that the Temporary Instruction 2515/183 provides the NRC inspection results in the "Followup to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Event." The joint petitioners draw attention to what is described at page 8 of the enclosure as an "apparentbeyond design and licensing basis vulnerability"involving the FitzPatrick operator's refusal to install the DTVS as recommended by NRC in Generic Letter 89-16.

To summarize the supplement, the joint petitioners state that:

" The Commission's March 12, 2012, Order states that "Current regulatory requirement and existing plant capabilities allow the NRC to conclude that a sequence of events such as the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in unlikely to occur in the US. Therefore, continued operation and continued licensed activities do not pose an imminent threat to public health and safety." The Order further states, "While not required, hardened vents have been in place in U.S. plants with BWR Mark I containments for many years but a wide variance exist with regard to the reliability of the vents."

• The NRC inspection report identifies that FitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" and "current procedures do not address hydrogen considerations during primary containment venting" which is further identified as a "current licensing basis vulnerability." The joint petitioners further reiterate that the NRC inspection finding that FitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" as assumed by the Order are in fact negated by the finding that "FitzPatrick's current licensing basis did not require the plant to have a primary containment torus air space hardened vent system as part of their Mark I containment improvement program."

• The Commission Order timeline setting December 31, 2016 for installing the hardened vent Order does not address in a timely way the unique condition of the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant.

• The FitzPatrick nuclear power plant uniquely does not have a fully hardened vent system on the vulnerable Mark I containment. As a result, FitzPatrick's current capability is identified with "a beyond design and licensing bases vulnerability, in that FitzPatrick's current licensing basis did not require the plant to have a primary containment torus air space hardened vent system as part of their Mark I containment improvement program."

Given that the FitzPatrick unit willfully refused to install the DTVS, the documented discovery of the "licensing basis vulnerability" of its chosen pre-existing vent now uniquely warrants the suspension of operations pending closer scrutiny, public hearings, and full disclosure for its adequacy and capability in the event of a severe accident.

" The additional identified "vulnerability" and the relatively remote and uncertain mitigation strategy places the public health and safety unduly and unacceptably at risk by the continued day-to-day operations where "current procedures do not address hydrogen considerations during primary containment venting" and will not for nearly five (5) more years.

c. Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to date.

On March 13, 2012, the petition manager contacted Mr. Gunter via e-mail to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process and offered him an opportunity to address the PRB by phone or in person.

On March 13, 2012, Mr. Gunter provided the petition manager an acknowledgement via e-mail and indicated that Ms. Jessica Azulay is the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners and submitted a supplement to the March 9, 2012, petition.

On March 14, 2012, the petition manager contacted the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners, via e-mail, to describe the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process and offered her an opportunity to address the PRB by phone or in person.

On March 16, 2012, the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners provided the petition manager an acknowledgement, via e-mail, and also requested the public meeting and teleconference details to enable the petitioners to address the PRB.

On March 20, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action. The PRB denied the request for immediate action on the basis that there was no immediate safety concern to the plant, or to the health and safety of the public.

From March 22 through April 2, 2012, additional petitioners contacted the petition manager, via e-mail, to indicate that each of them wish to co-sign the petition, they agree to the 10 CFR 2.206 process, and that Ms. Jessica Azulay is their point-of-contact. The petition manager subsequently contacted each co-petitioner via e-mail to acknowledge the respective e-mails.

On March 27, 2012, the petition manager contacted the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners via e-mail to inform her about the PRB decision for the immediate action.

On March 27, 2012, the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners confirmed the date of the public meeting to address the PRB.

As a reminder for the phone participants, please identify yourself if you want to make any remarks, as this will help us in the preparation of the meeting transcript that will be made publicly available. Thank you.

C. Petitioner's Presentation (Bhalchandra Vaidya Remarks Below)

• Ms. Jessica Azulay, as the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners, I'll turn it over to you to address the PRB and to provide any additional information you and other petitioners believe the PRB should consider as part of this petition. We have allotted 90 minutes for all of you to address the PRB, If any petitioner feels that they do not have an adequate opportunity to address the PRB during this meeting because of time constraints, then we welcome any supplemental information that they can provide in writing for the PRB's consideration. This supplemental information for the PRB's consideration should be mailed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) by April 24, 2012.

D. Clarifying Questions from the NRC staff and/or the licensee (Bhalchandra Vaidva)

• At this time, does the NRC staff here at headquarters have any questions for Ms. Azulay and others?

• What about the Region?

" As I previously stated, the licensees are not part of the PRB's decision-making process.

However, does the licensee have any clarifying questions for the NRC's PRB or for the petitioners?

E. Questions from Members of the Public on the 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Process (Bhalchandra Vaidya)

Before I conclude the meeting, members of the public may ask questions about the 2.206 petition process. However, as stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting does not include the opportunity for the petitioner or the public to question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of the petition request. As a reminder, if members of the public do not have the opportunity to ask their questions about the 2.206 process because of time limitations, then they can submit their questions in writing to the Petition Manager, Bhalchandra Vaidya, at bhalchandra.vaidyatnrc.gov. Operator can you unmute the toll free lines for members of the public? Are there any questions from members of the public?

F. PRB Chair Closing Remarks (Samson Lee)

• Ms. Azulay, and participating petitioners, thank you for taking time to provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on the petition you've submitted.

" Before we close, does the court reporter need any additional information for the meeting transcript?

" With that, this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating the phone connection.

Adjourn