ML11332A046

G20110668/EDATS: OEDO-2011-0622 - Corrected Transcript of 10 Crr 2.206 Petition Review Board, North Anna, Units 1 and 2 - November 7, 2011, Pages 1-41

ML11332A046
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/29/2011
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Thompson Jon, NRR/DORL/LPL 2-1, 415-1119
References
NRC-1170, 2.206
Download: ML11332A046 (41)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

2.206 Petition by Thomas Saporito Docket Number: n/a Location: by teleconference Date: September 29, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1170 Pages 1-37 Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]

NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (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 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 8 + + + + +

9 THURSDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 11 + + + + +

12 The conference call was held, Patrick 13 Hiland, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.

15 16 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 17 18 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:

19 PATRICK HILAND, Petition Review Board Chairman 20 JON THOMPSON, Petition Manager 21 TANYA MENSAH, 2.206 Coordinator 22 GUJENDRA BEDI, NRR/DCI/CPTB 23 KAMAL MANOLY, NRR/DE 24 GERALD McCOY, R-II/DRP/RPB5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 DAVID RAHN, NRR/DE/EICB 2 SHIH-LIANG WU, NRR/DSS/SNPB 3

4 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 5 MAURI LEMONCELLI, OGC 6 RICHARD STATTEL, NRR 7

8 LICENSEE STAFF PRESENT:

9 MARGARET EARLE 10 PATRICK [PAGE] KEMP 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:03 p.m.

3 MR. THOMPSON: On the record.

4 This is John [Jon] Thompson, the 5 Petition Manager. I'd like to call the meeting to 6 begin. First of all, I would like to thank 7 everybody for attending this meeting. As I said, my 8 name is John [Jon] Thompson and I'm the Petition 9 Manager for this Petition.

10 We're here today to allow the 11 Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the 12 Petition Review Board regarding the 2.206 Petition 13 dated September 8, 2011. That is a public document 14 for those who would like to look it up. The 15 Petition Review Board Chairman is Patrick Hiland.

16 As part of the Petition Review Board's 17 review of this Petition, Thomas Saporito has 18 requested this opportunity to address the Petition 19 Review Board. This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 20 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

21 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 22 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 23 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement 24 to the Petition. The transcript will also be made NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1 publicly available.

2 I'd like to open this meeting with 3 introductions. As we go around the room please be 4 sure to clearly state your name, your position and 5 the office that you work for within the NRC for the 6 record. And I'll start off.

7 My name is John [Jon] Thompson. I'm the 8 Petition Manager. I work in the Division of 9 Operating Reactor Licensing.

10 MR. STATTEL: My name is Richard 11 Stattel. I'm a technical reviewer in the INC [I&C]

12 Branch of NRR.

13 MS. MENSAH: My name is Tanya Mensah.

14 I'm the 2.206 coordinator in the Office of Nuclear 15 Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and 16 Rulemaking.

17 CHAIRMAN HILAND: My name is Pat Hiland.

18 I work in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 19 in the Division of Engineering.

20 MS. LEMONCELLI: Mauri Lemoncelli. I'm 21 with the Office of the General Counsel.

22 MR. WU: Shih-Liang Wu. Nuclear 23 Performance and Code Review Branch, NRR.

24 MR. MANOLY: Kamal Manoly, Division of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 Engineering.

2 MR. BEDI: Gujendra Bedi, NRR, 3 Department of Component Performance and Testing 4 Branch.

5 MR. RAHN: My name is David Rahn. I'm 6 an INC [I&C] Technical Reviewer in the Office of NRR 7 in the Instrumental and Controls Branch.

8 MR. THOMPSON: We have completed 9 introductions at the NRC Headquarters. At this 10 time, are there any NRC participants from 11 Headquarters that are on the phone?

12 (No verbal response.)

13 Hearing none, are there any NRC 14 participants from Region II on the phone?

15 MR. McCOY: Yes, this is Gerald McCoy.

16 I'm in the Division of Reactor Projects, Region II.

17 And I'm the only one here at this phone.

18 MR. THOMPSON: All right. Are there any 19 representatives for the Licensee on the phone?

20 MR. KEMP: Yes. This is Page Kemp, 21 Project Manager, at North Anna Power Station.

22 MS. EARLE: And this is Margaret Earle, 23 Licensing Engineer at Innsbrook Technical Center for 24 Dominion.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Saporito, would you 2 like to please introduce yourself for the record?

3 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. My name is Thomas 4 Saporito. I'm the Senior Consultant with Saprodani 5 Associates based in Jupiter, Florida. And I'm the 6 Petitioner in this.

7 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. It is now 8 requested for members of the public to introduce 9 themselves for this call. I don't think there 10 should be any. However, if there are any members of 11 the public on the phone that wish to do so at this 12 time please state your name for the record.

13 (No verbal response.)

14 Hearing none, I'd like to emphasize that 15 we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make 16 sure that the court reporter can accurately 17 transcribe this meeting. If you do have something 18 that you would like to say, please first state your 19 name for the record and then make your remarks.

20 For those dialing into the meeting, 21 please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 22 background noise or distractions. If you do not 23 have a mute button on your telephone, this can be 24 done by pressing the keys

• and then 6. And to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 unmute you can press *6 again and you'll come back 2 on and be able to speak where people can hear you.

3 So thank you for observing that.

4 At this time, I'll turn it over to the 5 Petition Review Board Chairman Patrick Hiland.

6 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Good afternoon. My 7 name is Patrick Hiland. And welcome to this meeting 8 regarding the 2.206 Petition submitted by Mr.

9 Saporito.

10 First, I'd like to share some background 11 on our process. Section 2.206 of Title X [10] of 12 the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 13 Petition process. The primary mechanism for the 14 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a 15 public process. This process permits anyone to 16 Petition NRC to take enforcement[-]type action 17 related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.

18 Depending on the results of its 19 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke NRC 20 [-]issued license or take any other appropriate 21 enforcement action. The NRC staff's guidance, the 22 disposition of 2.206 Petition request, is in 23 Management Directive 8.11 which is publicly 24 available.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 The purpose of today's meeting is to 2 give the Petition an opportunity to provide any 3 additional explanation or support for the Petition 4 before the Petition Review Board's initial 5 consideration and recommendation. This meeting is 6 not a hearing nor is it an opportunity for the 7 Petitioner to question or examine [the] Petition 8 Review Board on the merits or the issues presented 9 in the Petition request. No decisions regarding the 10 merits of this Petition will be made at this 11 meeting.

12 Following this meeting, the Petition 13 Review Board will conduct its internal 14 deliberations. The outcome of this internal meeting 15 will be discussed with the Petitioner.

16 The Petition Review Board typically 17 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the 18 senior executive service level at the NRC. As 19 explained, Patrick Hiland, that's me. I'm the 20 Chairman of this Petition Review Board. And [and]

21 I am at the senior executive level.

22 It has a Petition manager and a Petition 23 Review Board coordinator. Other members of the 24 Board are determined by the NRC staff based on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 content of the information in the Petition request.

2 And very briefly, I'll go over the Petition Review 3 Board members.

4 John [Jon] Thompson is Petition manager 5 for the Petition under discussion. Tanya Mensah is 6 the Office's Petition Review Board Coordinator. Our 7 technical staff who are on the phone today include 8 Gerald McCoy from Region II, Gurjendra Bedi from the 9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Component and 10 Performance and Testing Branch, Kamal Manoly from 11 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of 12 Engineering, Shih-Liang Wu from the Office of 13 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Performance and 14 Code Review Branch, David Rahn from the Office of 15 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instrumental and Controls 16 Branch. We also have advice from our Office of 17 General Counsel represented by Mauri Lemoncelli.

18 As described in our process, the NRC 19 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to 20 better understanding [understand] the Petitioner's 21 presentation and to reach a reasoned decision 22 whether to accept or reject the Petitioner's request 23 for review under the 2.206 process. The Petition is 24 a public document available in the NRC's electronic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 library.

2 I would like to briefly summarize the 3 scope of the Petition under consideration and the 4 NRC's activities to date. On September 8, 2011, Mr.

5 Saporito submitted to the NRC a Petition under 2.206 6 regarding the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 7 2. In this Petition request, Mr. Saporito 8 identified concerns with the safe operation of North 9 Anna Power Station after the earthquake of August 10 23, 2011.

11 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC:

12 (1) take escalated enforcement action 13 against the North Anna Power Station to suspend or 14 revoke the licenses for that facility; 15 (2) issue a notice of violation with a 16 proposed fine of $1 million; 17 (3) issue an order to keep the North 18 Anna Power Station in cold shutdown until the 19 completion of four sets of activities described in 20 the Petition which are meant to ensure the safety of 21 the North Anna Power Station.

22 As the basis for this request, Mr.

23 Saporito states that the North Anna Power Station 24 experienced ground acceleration on August 23, 2011 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 in excess of the design basis earthquake and that 2 licensee inspection and testing activities at the 3 site are incomplete.

4 But the Petitioner states that the Licensee 5 cannot meet the requirements of the updated facility 6 safety analysis report as a result of this event 7 because the plant sustained damage outside the 8 Licensee's safety design. The Petitioner also 9 expressed concerns with the scope of testing and 10 inspection activities for the reactor core and fuel 11 assemblies.

12 Allow me now I want to discuss the NRC 13 activities to date. On September 14, 2011, the 14 Petition Manager contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss 15 the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer him an 16 opportunity to address the Petition Review Board by 17 phone or in person. Mr. Saporito requested to 18 address the Petition Review Board by phone prior to 19 its internal meeting to make the initial 20 recommendation to accept or reject the Petition for 21 review.

22 On September 20, 2011, the Petition 23 Review Board met internally to discuss the request 24 for immediate action. The Petition Review Board NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 denied Mr. Saporito's request for immediate action 2 on the basis that there was no immediate safety 3 concern to the plant or to the health and safety of 4 the public.

5 The Petition Review Board also 6 determined that the requirement to demonstrate that 7 no functional damage has occurred to those features 8 necessary for continued operation without undue risk 9 to the health and safety already exists in 10 CFR 10 2.100 [100,] Appendix A. Mr. Saporito was informed 11 on September 21, 2011 of the Petition Review Board's 12 decision to deny his request for immediate action.

13 As a reminder for the phone 14 participants, please identify yourself if you make 15 an [any] remarks as this will help us in the 16 preparation of the meeting transcript that will be 17 made publicly available.

18 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you 19 to allow you to provide any information you believe 20 the Petition Review Board should consider as part of 21 this Petition.

22 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, 23 Mr. Chairman.

24 For the record, my name is Thomas NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 2 Associates. And we're located in Jupiter, Florida.

3 Before I get into the part of this 4 matter, I want to put a correction in the record.

5 The Petition which we filed on September 8, 2011 at 6 pages four and six speaks to the North Anna Nuclear 7 Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2. Those unit numbers 8 were inadvertently interchanged. So where it says 9 Unit 2, it should really be Unit 1. And where it 10 says Unit 1, it should really be Unit 2 at page four 11 and page five of the Petition. All right.

12 CHAIRMAN HILAND [Jon Thompson]: Mr.

13 Saporito, I'm sorry. Just for clarification, that's 14 pages four and five or four and six where those 15 number units are inverted.

16 MR. SAPORITO: I'm sorry. Yes, you're 17 correct. It's four and five. I'm sorry, sir. It's 18 four and five where those two corrections are.

19 CHAIRMAN HILAND [Jon Thompson]: Okay.

20 We'll address that.

21 MR. SAPORITO: And another housekeeping 22 issue is on September 8, 2011 I authored a letter on 23 behalf of Saprodani and Associates to Oscar 24 Demiranda, D-E-M-I-R-A-N-D-A. He works for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He's a 2 Senior Allegations Coordinator out of Region II 3 Headquarters based in Atlanta, Georgia. And these 4 allegations set forth in this two-page letter are 5 relevant to this proceeding and they are 6 specifically addressing nuclear safety concerns with 7 respect to the August 23, 2011 earthquake event at 8 the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant. And through 9 this reference I'm going to incorporate that two-10 page document which is a September 8, 2011 letter 11 from Saprodani Associates to Oscar Demiranda of the 12 NRC into this public record.

13 And while I'm on the subject in 14 accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11 all my 15 comments today that are made to the NRC's Petition 16 Review Board are to be accepted into the record and 17 are required to be considered by each member of the 18 Petition Review Board sitting here today just the 19 same as if I had placed these comments and 20 information and references into the record and when 21 I initially initiated the 2.206 Petition on 22 September 8, 2011.

23 All right. First, I want to identify 24 into the record a news article issued by Los Angeles NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 Times, LATimes.com on September 8, 2011. And it's 2 entitled "NRC: Earthquake Shook Nuclear Past Design 3 Limits." And I'm just going to read a couple of 4 relevant portions of this into the record.

5 It says, "A nuclear power plant in 6 Central Virginia may have experiences twice as much 7 shaking as it was designed to withstand during last 8 month's rare east coast earthquake according to 9 Federal Nuclear Regulators, although no major damage 10 has been found." So that document references an NRC 11 opinion that the earthquake event had a magnitude 12 which was twice the rate of design based license of 13 the North Anna Nuclear Units 1 and 2.

14 The next document I want to put into the 15 record is issued by the Washington Post on September 16 8th entitled "Virginia Nuclear Plant Experienced 17 Strong Shaking in August 23 Earthquake." And what I 18 want to put into the record is specifically it says 19 "The event that occurred at North Anna had high 20 acceleration spikes but did not have sufficient 21 duration of energy to cause any damage." And that 22 was made by a senior vice president for Dominion, a 23 fellow by the name of Grecheck, G-R-E-C-H-E-C-K.

24 And the next article is an article dated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 September 9, 2011 by Reuters, R-E-U-T-E-R-S, 2 Robertson's (phonetic) Agency. And the part I'm 3 going to put in here is a quote. It says, "It looks 4 like the fuel rods were going into the core prior to 5 the transformer opening." And that comment was made 6 by Dominion executive. And that was also reflected 7 in a post[-]earthquake meeting held by the NRC and a 8 Dominion executive representing the North Anna Power 9 Station.

10 And finally I want to put into the 11 record a USA Today news article dated September 18, 12 2011 entitled "Weeks After Quake Town Near Nuclear 13 Plant Remains Rattled." And specifically I want to 14 reference -- It says here, "North Anna" which 15 they're talking about the North Anna Nuclear Plant 16 Units 1 and 2. It says, "North Anna 90 miles 17 southwest of the White House is emerging as a test 18 case for the nuclear industry as it faces increased 19 scrutiny."

20 Okay. Ninety miles from the White House 21 is what this articles says. And if you recall just 22 a few minutes ago I put in the record quoted 23 comments made by the senior executive vice president 24 for Dominion, the Licensee, that the earthquake that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1 wasn't of a significant duration.

2 Well, the day before yesterday and 3 yesterday I viewed news articles by national press, 4 various national press agencies, over the internet 5 which showed a video which was taken by security 6 cameras located inside the Washington Monument 7 during the earthquake event. And I would like the 8 Petition Review Board members to review that video.

9 It's available on the internet.

10 And the video specifically shows a 11 significant shaking the Washington Monument at the 12 particular level that security camera was located 13 at. And there's a clock, a timer, timing the 14 duration of the event. And it lasted almost three 15 minutes. So it was a significant earthquake.

16 This Washington Monument is 90 miles 17 from the North Anna Nuclear Facility. So Dominion's 18 opinion through that executive vice president is 19 wholly false. And it calls into question the 20 reliability of the seismic instrumentation which the 21 Licensee used to gather data as to the acceleration 22 of this earthquake event and as to the duration of 23 this earthquake. The NRC should look into that 24 issue.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 Also in this September 18, 2011 news 2 article issued by USA Today it says and NRC is 3 quoted here, Eric Leeds, a [the] Director of Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission [the Office of Nuclear Reactor 5 Regulation]. It says, "We don't have a lot of 6 experience in this area." He was quoted as saying 7 that. "We don't have a lot of experience in this 8 area." And I believe that was also captured on the 9 NRC's video tape in a subsequent meeting subsequent 10 to the earthquake with the Licensee.

11 It also says in this article that "The 12 earthquake moved 25 casks," that's nuclear fuel 13 storage casks that weigh 115 tons each and holds 14 spent nuclear fuel up to -- it moved the casks up to 15 4.5 inches.

16 And finally it says, "An NRC document 17 estimated a quake strong enough to exceed North 18 Anna's design would occur once in 5,000 years."

19 Okay. "Once in 5,000 years." And based on that 20 this fellow Donal, D-O-N-A-L, Day, D-A-Y, a nuclear 21 physicist who is employed at the University of 22 Virginia was quoted as saying, "It just shows 23 they're wrong." And he's talking about the NRC.

24 The NRC is dead wrong with respect to how frequent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 an earthquake can occur.

2 Not only is the NRC wrong and all its 3 evaluations wrong and incorrect with respect to how 4 frequent an earthquake can occur, this particular 5 earthquake occurred where there was no known 6 earthquake fault line. And there wasn't supposed to 7 be an earthquake occurring here. No one expected an 8 earthquake to occur here.

9 And it certainly calls into question all 10 the NRC's seismic evaluation to date, all the NRC's 11 reliance on those seismic evaluations to date, all 12 the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 CFR 13 Part 50 to date with respect to all licenses issued 14 to some 104 nuclear power plants in the United 15 States.

16 As I mentioned earlier, I personally 17 attended via an internet link a video conference 18 that was held with the Licensee shortly after the 19 August 23rd earthquake event. And during that 20 conference or during my monitoring of that meeting 21 between the NRC and the Licensee, the NRC stated 22 that a restart of North Anna 1 and 2 nuclear 23 reactors required NRC approval because of the 24 Appendix A regulation cited earlier by someone here NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 today in this meeting by the NRC.

2 The Licensee stated at that time of the 3 earthquake on August 23rd Units 1 and 2 were 100 4 percent power and that there was a -- Eleven seconds 5 into the event as I understand -- these are my 6 personal notes -- there was a negative flux signal 7 trip of the nuclear reactor. They tripped because 8 of a negative flux indication. And then 9 subsequently there was an alert declared. And on 10 the 24th Units 1 and 2 were brought into cold 11 shutdown mode of operation.

12 Then on August 26th, the Licensee 13 recovered scratch plates which are a piece of 14 equipment used to record the acceleration of the 15 earthquake and that the Licensee states that it was 16 outside of the design basis. It was in excess of 5 17 Hertz.

18 And they had no positive -- At that 19 time, they had no positive root cause for the 20 negative flux rate trip of the nuclear reactor to 21 provide to the NRC. And there was no control room 22 indication with this particular seismic event.

23 They talked about the 25 casks that 24 shifted as much as four and a half inches. And the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 Licensee stated to the NRC that there are two seals 2 inside of these spent fuel casks. And they 3 validated that the seals were intact. They affirmed 4 to the NRC during that meeting that the casks seals 5 remained intact because there were no alarms.

6 Well, that's not validation because 7 there were no alarms in the control room to give the 8 operators a heads-up about the seismic event.

9 What's to say these alarms even were operable in 10 these spent fuel casks? The NRC needs to go in 11 there and look at the surveillance testing. When 12 was the last time those alarms were tested and 13 validated prior to this earthquake event before the 14 Licensee can be allowed to rely on an alarm 15 indication to validate a seal for nuclear fuel? You 16 know, that's a pretty incredible statement by the 17 Licensee.

18 And they talked a little bit about some 19 roof panels being moved on a roof. And then the 20 Licensee -- Oh yeah. There was an anchor bolt up on 21 the roof that was apparently displaced by the 22 earthquake event. And it was on page 24 of their 23 handout I believe if I recall correctly according to 24 my notes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 Anyway, this anchor bolt you could see 2 it in this slide handout. It was physically ripped 3 out of the concrete slab. And there were other --

4 There was at least one other picture provided by the 5 Licensee, one other slide, which shows another 6 anchor bolt on a tank I believe where the piece of 7 concrete had been dislodged from the movement of the 8 earthquake.

9 So this calls into question whether any 10 and how many other supports within the plant and 11 specifically this nuclear safety related equipment, 12 support brackets, snubbers, piping support and other 13 hardware where the bolts are actually sheared. The 14 Licensee doesn't know about it because they just did 15 a visual inspection.

16 I request that the NRC order the 17 Licensee to do torque testing of all those -- of any 18 retaining bolts throughout the plant on all 19 equipment which is safety related for both nuclear 20 reactors. You can't just look at a bolt and say 21 it's fine because it could be very well sheared 22 beneath the surface where you can't see it. So 23 that's another issue of importance for the NRC to 24 look at.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1 They talk about a tape that was made of 2 the seismic event. It's a tape that was sent 3 offsite because it had to be converted digitally.

4 It's an analog recording and they needed to have it 5 converted to a digital signal that could be 6 evaluated to ascertain the magnitude of the 7 earthquake or the acceleration, the movement.

8 My concern here is what was the sampling 9 rate by the contractor from -- You know, you have to 10 sample an analog signal. The more you sample that 11 analog signal, the higher the sampling rate, the 12 more accurate the conversion is going to be. So if 13 it was not a sufficient sampling rate, then the 14 result supplied from the contractor to the Licensee 15 to the NRC is erroneous.

16 So there has to be some standard applied 17 to these types of conversions. And I don't know 18 what that standard is. But I would hope that the 19 NRC would look into that.

20 And again there was discussion about the 21 failure of the control room panel to alert the 22 operators of the earthquake event. There were some 23 other technical discussion with respect to CoMetrics 24 [ ]who was the contractor apparently who read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24 1 this tape and converted it from an analog to 2 digital.

3 Then there was a discussion about this 4 negative flux that had affected both units. So 5 again you could have a common mode significant 6 problem to both reactors tripped offline for the 7 same reason. So this is something the NRC needs to 8 look at. Was it a common mode failure? If so, why?

9 What actually caused the negative flux rate trip?

10 I'll get into that a little bit more later on.

11 We talked about the design based 12 earthquake. And then the Licensee stated that Unit 13 2 was in a refueling outage. And that Unit 1, it 14 was their intent to bring it back online. In the 15 latter part of September, I think it was September 16 22nd, the executive vice president intended to bring 17 the Unit 1 back online.

18 And his opinion was, the Licensee's 19 opinion was, that Unit 1 reactor internal did not 20 have to be inspected because the inspection of Unit 21 2 during the refueling outage would bound any damage 22 that would have been suspected on Unit 1. And 23 that's an outrageous opinion and that doesn't hold 24 any water. And that's in violation of NRC's safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25 1 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50. And I'll get into 2 that a little bit more here later on.

3 Now let me just grab this. With respect 4 to the enforcement petition, the specific request 5 set forth in this petition, page three, beginning of 6 page three, the escalated enforcement action is 7 asked to be taken against the Licensee. And one of 8 the reasons is the arrogance of the Licensee of 9 wanting to restart these nuclear reactors as early 10 as September 22nd. They wanted to restart Unit 1 as 11 early as September 22nd of this year even before the 12 NRC's augmented inspection team had concluded its 13 inspection activities and without investigating and 14 testing and inspecting the internals of the nuclear 15 reactor at Unit 1. So clearly the Licensee's 16 attitude and arrogance is based on their economic 17 needs and concerns to generate revenue through 18 operation of Unit 1 rather than to protect public 19 health and safety by ensuring that there is no 20 damage to the internals of Unit 1 and to other 21 systems and components of Unit 1.

22 And the NRC needs to take into 23 consideration what the Licensee's attitude and 24 behavior is with respect to protecting public health NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26 1 and safety by their action and their comments when 2 they speak to the NRC and affirm to them their basis 3 for wanting to restart the nuclear reactor without 4 required safety inspections under their license 5 which requires them to make these safety 6 inspections. They're willing to forego NRC safety 7 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC should 8 just go ahead and revoke that license until the NRC 9 has reasonable assurance that those executive 10 managers have been replaced with others who think 11 otherwise and would rather comply with the NRC 12 safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 rather than 13 jeopardize public health and safety in a rush to 14 restart a nuclear reactor.

15 The civil penalty of $1 million goes 16 towards again the Licensee's attitude and arrogance 17 as to jeopardizing public health and safety for the 18 reasons I just stated and the NRC request for 19 confirmatory order requiring the Licensee to keep 20 the units into a cold shutdown. Again, I defer to 21 the Chairman, not the NRC chairman, the NRC -- Well, 22 the Petition Review Board Chairman, that's the word 23 I was looking for.

24 In early comments today, we referred to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27 1 Appendix A I believe under the 10 CFR 50 which 2 requires NRC authorization before the Licensee can 3 restart these reactors. That would suffice to cover 4 that requirement.

5 However, within the petition, it is 6 requested that the Licensee completes an independent 7 seismic and geological evaluation of the North Anna 8 Nuclear Plant Site to ascertain the degree and 9 magnitude inclusive of acceleration consideration of 10 future earthquake events which could result in 11 destructive forces outside the safety design basis 12 of the facility as experienced by the Licensee's 13 facility during the August 23, 2011 earthquake 14 event. And that independent evaluation should look 15 at a worst case based earthquake scenario.

16 Since this was a 5.8 magnitude with a 17 significant acceleration above 5 Hertz and twice of 18 what the plant was licensed for by the NRC, it 19 stands to reason that the NRC cannot allow either 20 one of these nuclear reactors to restart until a 21 proper seismic evaluation has been done so that the 22 NRC can evaluate whether these reactors can ever 23 restart and without a significant retrofit. I mean 24 they may be able to be retrofitted with more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28 1 supports and heavier brackets and other replacement 2 of safety related equipment. I don't know.

3 But they certainly cannot be restarted 4 in their present condition because neither nuclear 5 reactor is licensed to operate sitting in a nuclear 6 reactor site where an earthquake of 5.8 magnitude 7 occurred and where that earthquake is twice of what 8 the NRC license allow those nuclear plants to 9 operate.

10 Third in the petition, it says the NRC -

11 - one other requirement is that the NRC approves a 12 submittal by the Licensee which upgrades the 13 Licensee's current final safety analysis report 14 and/or updated final safety analysis report to 15 incorporate the plant retrofit for Units 1 and 2 16 described in the first two items that I addressed 17 here. So their current FSAR and updated FSAR are 18 inadequate and erroneous at this point. Because 19 what you have is you have two nuclear reactors which 20 are in an unanalyzed condition at this point.

21 So those documents, the FSAR and the 22 updated FSAR, are no longer relevant to the licenses 23 issued by the NRC. And the Licensee cannot rely on 24 them to provide reasonable assurance to the NRC that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29 1 those nuclear reactors can be operated in a safe and 2 reliable manner to protect public health and safety.

3 Fourth, the Licensee needs to complete 4 an investigation of both Units 1 and 2 to North Anna 5 facility to determine the extent of any damage to 6 the physical plant and safety related systems and 7 components including but not limited to:

8 (1) the nuclear reactor core fuel 9 assemblies, components, structures, supports, CRDMs 10 which is control rod drive mechanisms, etc.;

11 (2) installation of three field seismic 12 instrumentation because none exists at the 13 Licensee's facilities to date; 14 (3) torque test all safety related 15 equipment, support installation and retention bolts 16 to assure that the bolts have not sheared with the 17 recent earthquake event; 18 (4) inspect all snubbers throughout the 19 entire facility to ensure that the license remains 20 intact and enable to perform the design function; 21 (5) inspection and validate all nuclear 22 steam supply piping and related piping systems 23 including the nuclear reactor hot and cold leg 24 piping on both units to validate its integrity and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 1 to evaluate the seismic capability of the piping to 2 withstand an earthquake event greater than the 3 plant's current design basis and to meet any 4 enhanced plant design basis described in Items 1, 2 5 and 3 above that I recently spoke of; 6 (6) determine that digital sample rate 7 used and relied upon by metrics [ ] and 8 converting the analog tape captured the earthquake 9 event to assure that a sufficient sample rate was 10 used during the conversion process; 11 (7) hire and/or train personnel to 12 ensure that any future acceleration determination 13 can be quickly completed in-house by the Licensee 14 rather than spend critical time to have such 15 determinations made offsite; and 16 (8) ensure through an independent 17 evaluation that the measured earthquake event 18 acceleration was not skewed by the location of the 19 scratch plate in the auxiliary building of Unit 1 20 due to a shift in the soil from the earthquake 21 event.

22 Now the Licensee is required under its 23 updated final safety analysis report and its final 24 safety analysis report at Section 3.7.4.6 and by NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31 1 safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 to ensure 2 that all safety related equipment and systems are 3 fully operational and can function within the 4 plant's safety design basis. The Licensee cannot 5 meet this requirement to date because the Licensee 6 refuses to inspect the Unit 1 nuclear reactor 7 internals. That's significant.

8 There is no leeway or exception that can 9 be made by the NRC to allow the Licensee to restart 10 Unit 1 without opening that vessel and doing the 11 required inspection. If the NRC allows the Licensee 12 to restart Unit 1 without complying with current 13 regulations that I've just delineated, then perhaps 14 this matter needs to go to Federal Court to 15 challenge the NRC's oversight of this Licensee.

16 As I spoke earlier, both units, 17 inspection of both units in their entity [entirety]

18 is required. The Licensee admitted there was a 19 negative flux rate trip which caused both reactors 20 to trip offline. And at the recent conference 21 meeting held with the NRC which I talked about 22 earlier that I attended through the internet video, 23 they had no root cause for it at that time. They 24 hinted that there were four possible reasons, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

32 1 they didn't know why.

2 So the reactor internals must be 3 physically inspected for damage. A negative flux 4 rate trip most likely was caused by the movement of 5 nuclear fuel during the earthquake event. As the 6 NRC Petition Review Board members fully well know 7 the nuclear fuel rod assembly [assemblies] are 8 strategically positioned within the core could cause 9 a nuclear reaction, nuclear fission. And during an 10 earthquake event which apparently lasted for almost 11 three minutes or more, that nuclear fuel certainly 12 moved. The retaining brackets certainly moved. And 13 the fuel rod assemblies entirely [entirety] surely 14 moved. Instrumentation inside that nuclear reactor 15 vessel certainly moved.

16 All those internals on both units have 17 to be inspected. CRDMs have to be inspected. They 18 are very precise pieces of equipment that are 19 electronically engaged to support the poison rod, 20 control rod, within the nuclear reactor core to 21 control the power levels of the reactor and to 22 automatically open during the reactor trip, to scram 23 the reactor, to prevent a nuclear accident.

24 But you have fuel rods that need to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

33 1 inspected. You have fuel rod assemblies that need 2 to be inspected. You have nuclear fuel reactor 3 supports that need to be inspected. Control rod 4 drive mechanisms that need to be inspected.

5 Instrumentation like the loose parts monitors in 6 there that need to be inspected. The reactor 7 coolant system piping needs to be inspected in its 8 entirety including snubbers, brackets and supports.

9 Units 1 and 2 are currently in an 10 unanalyzed condition. The earthquake was outside of 11 the design basis of the licenses issued to the 12 Licensee by the NRC by a factor of two. They were 13 twice the magnitude outside, twice the acceleration 14 outside, of the design basis. And because the NRC 15 issued the Licensee a license for Unit 1 and Unit 2 16 under 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC did so with the 17 assurances proffered by the Licensee at the time of 18 issuance that those plants were physically located 19 and would be operated under 10 CFR Part 50 within a 20 certain expectation of seismic activity.

21 Well, we know now that on August 23, 22 2011 an earthquake event shook the North Anna 23 nuclear reactors at twice the design basis, twice 24 outside the design basis that the NRC issued those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

34 1 licenses for. Therefore, the plants, Units 1 and 2, 2 are in an unanalyzed condition. So the NRC -- Even 3 if the Licensee would be willing at this point to 4 inspect the internals of Unit 1 as they did Unit 2 -

5 - and I'm hoping they did. I have no certification 6 they did to date, but they made that affirmation to 7 the NRC during the meeting -- but even if they 8 would, the Licensee would, inspect Unit 1's 9 internals, that would not be sufficient for the NRC 10 to authorize the Licensee to restart either of the 11 nuclear units, either of the nuclear reactors, under 12 their current licenses because they could not meet 13 the Appendix A, Appendix 100 or Appendix A, 14 requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 to provide 15 reasonable assurance to the NRC that those nuclear 16 safety equipment will operate as designed because 17 we're operating in an unanalyzed condition.

18 The Licensee actually has to go back and 19 redesign the plant to meet an earthquake greater 20 than a 5.8 magnitude or greater than the peak of the 21 acceleration detected by those scratch plates 22 because it occurred and put the plant outside of its 23 design basis, outside of its license requirements.

24 Finally, the Licensee during the context NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

35 1 of that meeting which I subsequently watched the 2 video at least two times, nowhere during that 3 meeting, did I learn from the Licensee's comments to 4 the NRC that they made any effort at all to inspect 5 the offsite power structures and facilities 6 providing power to North Anna nuclear reactors 1 and 7 2. And that's critical.

8 And the NRC must require that because 9 you could have a station blackout event caused by 10 damage which the Licensee is currently unaware of.

11 You could have damage to the physical transmission 12 lines, the installators which separate the 13 transmission lines from the support structures. You 14 could have damage at any number of substations 15 which could cause the nuclear reactors to trip 16 through an unbalancing of the power over those 17 transmission lines. And the list goes on and on.

18 So the Licensee has to inspect the 19 entirety of its high voltage distribution lines, its 20 offsite power, before any consideration can be made 21 to restart these nuclear reactors.

22 Now I'm going to sum up here and close 23 so that the NRC has an opportunity and anyone else 24 who may be attending this meeting, public or media, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

36 1 to ask questions. But in summation what we have 2 here is two nuclear power plants, North Anna Units 1 3 and 2, who were subjected to a significant seismic 4 event on August 23, 2011 of a duration of almost 5 three minutes when you compare the video footage of 6 the security tape from the Washington National 7 Monument which is available to the NRC. It's a 8 public document, a public video. And where that 9 seismic event was twice outside the design basis of 10 the license issued by the NRC for the operation of 11 North Anna Units 1 and 2 under 10 CFR Part 50.

12 Therefore, Units 1 and 2 are now in an 13 unanalyzed condition. And they can never be 14 restarted under the current licenses because the 15 current licenses are null and void as a result of 16 this earthquake event. And at that, I have 17 concluded. I will stay on the line to answer any 18 questions.

19 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Thank you, Mr.

20 Saporito. At this time, does the staff here in 21 Headquarters have any questions for Mr. Saporito?

22 (No verbal response.)

23 There are no questions in Headquarters.

24 Region II, do you have any questions for Mr.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

37 1 Saporito?

2 MR. McCOY: No questions here. Region 3 II.

4 CHAIRMAN HILAND: I understood that a 5 representative or more from the Licensee is on the 6 phone. Do you have any questions for Mr. Saporito?

7 MS. EARLE: No, I don't.

8 CHAIRMAN HILAND: I didn't hear any 9 members of the public announce themselves. But at 10 this time if there are any members of the public on 11 this phone conversation, do you have any questions 12 for Mr. Saporito?

13 (No verbal response.)

14 Hearing none --

15 MS. LEMONCELLI: Mr. Saporito, this is 16 Mauri Lemoncelli from the Office of the General 17 Counsel. As long as there is no other objection, 18 would you mind if I took just a minute or two to 19 confirm with some members of the NRC staff before we 20 adjourn?

21 MR. SAPORITO: Take all the time you 22 want.

23 MS. LEMONCELLI: Just a moment, sir.

24 Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

38 1 (Pause.)

2 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Ms. [Mr.] Saporito, 3 are you still on the phone? This is Pat Hiland.

4 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, sir. I'm here.

5 CHAIRMAN HILAND: The question that 6 we're mulling over early in your presentation you 7 mentioned and some concerns you had distributed or 8 you had sent to the Region II Allegation Office.

9 And as you may be aware the petition and all its 10 contents are public documents.

11 And so what I will do is I will approach 12 our team coordinator for Allegations in the Office 13 of NRR and I will ask her to coordinate with Region 14 II and this is a formality. They will have to 15 contact you and get permission from you to make that 16 document you sent them a public document.

17 And I assume you are aware of how we 18 handle incoming correspondence at alleged 19 activities. We handle it in confidence and I just 20 want to make sure [,] as well as the people in the 21 room[,]you understood that.

22 MR. SAPORITO: Let me suggest something.

23 Why don't you just go ahead and send me an email 24 and request that document. And I'll email it to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

39 1 you.

2 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Certainly you can 3 enter that into the public record via this way 4 separately. And what we'll do is we'll accept your 5 email and we will enter it into the record as you've 6 requested.

7 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. I will wait for 8 your email and I'll send it right out to you.

9 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Okay. As stated at 10 the opening, the purpose of this meeting is not to 11 provide an opportunity for the Petitioner or the 12 public to question or examine the Petition Review 13 Board regarding the merits of the petition request.

14 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time 15 to provide the NRC staff with clarifying information 16 on the petition you've submitted.

17 Before we close, does the court reporter 18 need any additional information for the meeting 19 transcript?

20 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I need the 21 Dominion representatives to spell their last names 22 and that's it.

23 MS. EARLE: Margaret Earle, E-A-R-L-E.

24 COURT REPORTER: All right.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

40 1 MR. KEMP: Page Kemp, K-E-M-P.

2 COURT REPORTER: K-E-M-P. Thank you 3 very much.

4 MR. KEMP: Correct.

5 COURT REPORTER: That's all I need.

6 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Okay. With that, this 7 meeting is concluded and we'll be terminating the 8 phone conversation. Thank you all. Off the record.

9 (Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the above-10 entitled matter was concluded.)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com