ML11242A013: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
| docket = 05000335, 05000389
| docket = 05000335, 05000389
| license number = DPR-067, NPF-016
| license number = DPR-067, NPF-016
| contact person = Orf T J
| contact person = Orf T
| case reference number = 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2011-0357, G20110365, OEDO-2011-0357, NRC-1082
| case reference number = 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2011-0357, G20110365, OEDO-2011-0357, NRC-1082
| package number = ML11242A004
| package number = ML11242A004
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Offi cial Transcript of Proceedings  
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


NUCLEAR  REGULATORY COMMISSION Title:
==Title:==
10 CFR 2.206 Petition
10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Number:    (n/a)
Location:    (telephone conference)
Date:        Tuesday, August 16, 2011 Work Order No.:  NRC-1082                    Pages 1-27 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433


RE St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Number:     (n/a)  
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                        ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 8                                  + + + + +
9                                  TUESDAY 10                            AUGUST 16, 2011 11                                  + + + + +
12                  The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m.,
13 Samson Lee, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.
15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 18            SAMSON LEE, Chairperson, NRR 19            MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 20            TRACY ORF, Petition Manager for 2.206 21              Petition, NRR 22            GERARD PURCIARELLO, NRR 23            MARCIA SIMON, OGC 24 NRC REGION STAFF 25            STEPHEN ROSE, Region II 26                                NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com


Location:        
2 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S 2                                                            1:06 p.m.
  (telephone conference)  
3                  MR. ORF:    Good afternoon.          This is Tracy 4 Orf.      It sounds like we've got everybody on the line 5 now.      So, we'll go ahead and get started.            Okay.
6                  I would like to thank everybody for 7 attending this meeting and again, my name is Tracy Orf 8 and I am the St. Lucie Project Manager.
9                  We are here today to allow the Petitioner 10 Thomas Saporito to address the Petition Review Board 11 regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated May 12th, 12 2011.
13                  I am the Petition Manager for this 14 petition and the Petition Review Board Chairman is Sam 15 Lee.
16                  As part of the Review Board or PRB's 17 review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested 18 this opportunity to address the PRB.
19                  This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 to 20 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the meeting is being 21 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 22 transcribed by a court reporter.                  The transcript will 23 become a supplement to the petition and a transcript 24 will also be made publicly available.
25                  I'd like to open this meeting with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


Date:
3 1 introductions and as we go around the room, please be 2 sure to clearly state your name, your position and the 3 office that you work for with the NRC for the record.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
4                I'll start it off.          My name is Tracy Orf 5 and I work in NRR.
6                MS. SIMON:      Marcia Simon, Office of the 7 General Counsel.
8                MS. BANIC:      Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 9 Coordinator.
10                MR. PURCIARELLO:          Gerry Purciarello, 11 Balance of Plant in NRR.
12                CHAIRMAN LEE:       Samson Lee, Deputy 13 Director, Division of Risk Assessment, NRR.
14                MR. ORF:    Okay.      At this time, are there 15 any NRC participants from headquarters on the phone?
16 Are there any NRC participants from the regional 17 offices on the phone?
18                MR. ROSE:      This is Steven Rose.        I was the 19 Component Design Basis Inspection Team Lead for the 20 St. Lucie Inspection, Region II.
21                MR. ORF:    Are there any representatives 22 from the Licensee on the phone?
23                And, Mr. Saporito, would you please 24 introduce yourself for the record?
25                MR. SAPORITO:        Yes, 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


Work Order No.:
4 1 Saporito.      I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 2 Associates in Jupiter, Florida and I'm the Petitioner 3 in these proceedings.
NRC-1082 Pages 1-27
4                MR. ORF:    It is not required for members 5 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
6 However, if there are any members of the public on the 7 phone who wish to do so at this time, please state 8 your name for the record.
9                I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 10 speak clearly and loudly to insure that the court 11 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
12                If you do have something that you would 13 like to say, please state your name for the record.
14                For those dialing into the meeting, please 15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 16 background noise or distraction.                If you do not have a 17 mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.
18 To un-mute, press the *6 keys again.                Thank you.
19                At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 20 Chairman Sam Lee.
21                CHAIRMAN LEE:       Good afternoon.      Welcome to 22 this teleconference regarding the 2.206 petition 23 submitted by Mr. Saporito.
24                I would like to first share some 25 background on our process.            Section 2.206 of Title 10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.  
5 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 2 petition process, a primary mechanism for the public 3 to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 4 process.      This process permits anyone to petition NRC 5 to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 6 licensees or licensed activities.
7                  Depending on the result of this 8 evaluation, NRC could modify such plant or revoke an 9 NRC issued license or take any other appropriate 10 enforcement action to resolve the problem.
11                  The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 12 of 2.206 petition request is the Management Directive 13 8.11 which is publicly available.
14                  The purpose of today's meeting to give the 15 Petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional 16 explanation or support for the petition following the 17 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation.
18                  This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 19 opportunity for the Petitioner to request or examine 20 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 21 petition request.
22                  No decisions regarding the merits of this 23 petition will be made at this teleconference.
24 Following this teleconference, the Petition Review 25 Board will conduct internal deliberations.            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


Court Reporters and Transcribers
6 1 outcome of this initial teleconference will be 2 discussed with the Petitioner.
3                The Petition Review Board typically 4 consists of the Chairman, usually a member at the 5 Senior Executive Service level at NRC.                  It has a 6 Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
7                Other members of the Board are determined 8 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 9 information in the petition request.
10                At this time, I would like to introduce 11 the Board.      I'm Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board 12 Chairman.      Tracy Orf is the Petition Manager for the 13 petition under discussion today.                Lee Banic is filling 14 in as the Office PRB Coordinator.                  Our technical staff 15 includes Gerry Purciarello from the Office of Nuclear 16 Reactor Regulations, Balance Plant Branch.                  Steven 17 Rose from the NRC Region II's Division of Reactor 18 Projects.
19                As described in our process, the NRC staff 20 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 21 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 22 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 23 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 24 process.
25                I would like to summarize the scope of 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


1323 Rhode Isla nd Avenue, N.W.  
7 1 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 2 date.
3                    On May 12, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted to 4 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the St. Lucie 5 Plant.        In this petition request, Mr. Saporito's area 6 of concern was with the design of the component 7 cooling water system at St. Lucie Plant Units I and 8 II.
9                    Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC suspend 10 or revoke the NRC licenses granted to the Licensee for 11 operation of the St. Lucie Plant Units I and II, issue 12 a notice of violation with the proposed civil penalty 13 against the Licensee and order the immediate shutdown 14 of St. Lucie Plant Units I and II.
15                    Please allow me to discuss the NRC 16 activities to date.            On May 25th, the Petition Manager 17 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 18 to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB by 19 phone or in person.            Because you requested the 20 immediate shutdown of the St. Lucie Plant, the PRB met 21 on June 2nd to discuss those actions to determine if 22 immediate actions were required.                    The PRB denied the 23 request for immediate action because there was no 24 immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health 25 and safety of the public.              The Petition Manager NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com


Washingto n, D.C. 20005  
8 1 informed you of this decision on June 8th.
2                  On July 7th, you addressed the PRB to 3 present additional information regarding your 4 petition.        On August 2nd, the PRB met and determined 5 that in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, 6 your petition meets the criteria for rejection because 7 the petition raises issues that have already been the 8 subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which 9 a resolution has been achieved.                  The issues have been 10 resolved and the resolution is applicable to the 11 facility in question.            Specifically, the Petitioner 12 references notice of violation EA-09-321 dated April 13 19th, 2010.
14                  The inspection related to the component 15 cooling water system was conducted on December 10th, 16 2009 and the inspection report was issued on January 17 19th, 2010 with the regulatory conference held on 18 February 19th, 2010.
19                  A supplemental inspection was conducted as 20 documented in an inspection report dated November 3, 21 2010.        The supplemental inspection resulted in no open 22 items.
23                  On August 3, 2011, the Petition Manager 24 contacted you and provided you with the PRB's initial 25 recommendation.        Subsequently, you requested 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


        (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
9 1 address the PRB to provide additional information to 2 support your petition.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1  NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3                 As a reminder for the phone participants, 4 please identify yourself if you make any remarks and 5 this will help us in the preparation of the 6 teleconference transcript that we make publicly 7 available.
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5 RE 6 ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 7  + + + + +
8                 Thank you.
8 TUESDAY 9 AUGUST 16, 2011 10 + + + + +
9                 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 10 allow you to provide any information you believe the 11 PRB should consideration as part of this petition.
11 The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m., 12 Samson Lee, Chairpe rson of the Petiti on Review Board, 13 presiding.
12                MR. SAPORITO:       All right.       Thank you, Mr.
14 PETITIONER: TH OMAS SAPORITO 15 16 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 17       SAMSON L EE, Chairperson, NRR 18       MERRILEE BANIC, Petition C oordinator, NRR 19       TRACY ORF, Peti tion Manager for 2.206 20       Petition, NRR 21       GERARD PURCIARELLO, NRR 22       MARCI A SIMON, OGC 23 NRC REGION STAFF 24      STEPHEN ROSE, Region II 25 26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
13 Chairman.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 1               
14                 For the record, my name is Thomas 15 Saporito.      I am the Petitioner in this proceeding.                    I 16 am the Senior Consultant with Saprodani Associates 17 based in Jupiter, Florida.
18                 First of all, let me correct the record as 19 the NRC misstated the accuracy of the petition date.
20 The date of the petition filed in this instant matter 21 is April 3rd, 2011.
22                 Now, first before I get into the heart of 23 this discussion, let me put on the record an email 24 that I received from Tracy Orf of the NRC dated 25 Wednesday, August the 3rd, 2011.                I'm just going to go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       www.nealrgross.com


1:06 p.m.
10 1 through the relevant portion of this which says this 2 is responding to my petition.             This is your petition 3 dated May 12th, 2011.
2 MR. ORF:  Good afternoo
4                I don't know where the NRC keeps getting 5 that date, but that date is not correct.             The date of 6 the petition is April 3rd, 2011.
: n. This is Tracy 3 Orf. It sounds lik e we've got everyb ody on the line 4 now. So, we'll go ahead an d get started. Okay.
7                Nonetheless, he goes on in this email and 8 states "In relevant part that I want to put on this 9 record that the NRC staff has concluded that your 10 submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 11 under 10 CFR 2.206 because per MD 8.11 the issue 12 raised has already been subject of NRC staff review 13 and evaluation for which a resolution has been 14 achieved.     The issues have been resolved and the 15 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.
5            I would like to thank everybody for 6 attending this meet ing and again, my name is Tracy Orf 7 and I am the St. Luci e Project Manager. 8 We are here today to allow the Pe titioner 9 Thomas Saporito to address the Petiti on Review Board 10 regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated May 12th, 11 2011. 12             I am th e Petition Manager for this 13 petition and the Petition Re view Board Chairman is Sam 14 Lee. 15            As part of the Review Board or PRB's 16 review of this petition, Th omas Saporito has requested 17 this opportunity to address the PRB.
16 You have not provided any significant new information 17 to justify the NRC varying from its enforcement 18 policy."
18            This meet ing is scheduled from 1:00 to 19 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the meeting is being 20 recorded by the NRC Operati ons Center and will be 21 transcribed by a co urt reporter. Th e transcript will 22 become a supplement to the petition and a transcript 23 will also be made publicly available.
19                 Now, that's the reason that the NRC gave 20 to me, a member of the public, for rejecting my 2.206 21 petition dated April 3rd, 2011 in connection with the 22 air intrusion event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
24            I'd lik e to open this meeting with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
23                Now, let's make this public record 24 perfectly clear.      Management Directive 8.11 requires 25 the Petition Review Board of the United States Nuclear 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 introductions and as we go around th e room, please be 1 sure to clearly sta te your name, your position and the 2 office that you wor k for with the NRC for the record.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701     www.nealrgross.com
3 I'll start it off.
 
My name is Tracy Orf 4 and I work in NRR.
11 1 Regulatory Commission to consider the petition in its 2 full context and what that means is, just like as the 3 opening remarks by the NRC on this record today 4 stated, that at this Petition Review Board meeting all 5 my comments and submittals verbally or in writing are 6 a supplement to the written petition.               Just like my 7 initial meeting with the Petition Review Board on July 8 7th, 2011, all those comments and the record, the 9 transcribed record created on that date, is a 10 supplement to the original petition.              Just the same as 11 if I had written those words and submitted it as part 12 of the original petition.
5            MS. SIMON
13                Nonetheless, this Petition Review Board 14 refused to entertain those comments and accept those 15 comments on the record and refused to consider those 16 comments, evaluate those comments and analyze those 17 comments.
:  Marcia Simon, Office of the 6 General Counsel.
18               So, the NRC Petition Review Board failed 19 to follow its own regulations under Management 20 Directive 8.11 and to that extent, I request a copy of 21 this record be forwarded to the NRC Office of the 22 Inspector General.
7             MS. BAN IC:  Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 8 Coordinator.
23                Now, before I get into the specifics of 24 what the NRC failed to address, let me just state that 25 the original petition as documented in the NRC record NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
9             MR. PUR CIARELLO:  Gerry Purciarello, 10 Balance of Plant in NRR.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       www.nealrgross.com
11 CHAIRMAN LEE:  Sa mson Lee, Deputy 12 Director, Division of Risk Assessme nt, NRR. 13 MR. ORF:  Okay. At this time, are there 14 any NRC participants from he adquarters on the phone?
 
15 Are there any NRC partic ipants from the regional 16 offices on th e phone? 17 MR. ROSE:  This is S teven Rose. I was the 18 Component Design Ba sis Inspection Te am Lead for the 19 St. Lucie Inspection, Region II.
12 1 transcripts of July 7th, 2011.                My copy, for some 2 reason, the pages were not enumerated.                 So, I counted 3 them.        There's suppose to be 38 pages here.
20            MR. ORF:
4                  So, I'm going to reference page 17.               Where 5 I contended to the NRC Petition Review Board on that 6 date of July 7th, 2011, I stated "With respect to the 7 instant enforcement petition, the Licensee apparently 8 admitted to the NRC that when the St. Lucie Nuclear 9 Plant Unit I was licensed the facility was not 10 required to incorporate a single-failure design 11 capacity for nonsafety-related system and FPL 12 concluded that a violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 13 B Criterion 3 did not occur as found by the NRC 14 inspector."
Are there any representatives 21 from the Licensee on the phone?
15                  Petitioners contend here that the 16 Licensee's admission supports a finding that the 17 Licensee is operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant well 18 outside the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 19 CFR Part 50 and that the component cooling water 20 system employed at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 21 and II is a nuclear safety-related system to the 22 extent that it serves to remove heat from the reactor 23 core in various manners and modes of operation.
22             And, Mr. Saporito, woul d you please 23 introduce yourself for the record?
24 That's on page 17 and 18 of the record transcript 25 dated July 7th, 2011.
24             MR. SAPOR ITO:  Yes, my name is Thomas 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
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 Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 1 Associates in Jupit er, Florida and I' m the Petitioner 2 in these proceedings.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701     www.nealrgross.com
3             MR. ORF:
 
It is not required for members 4 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
13 1                   So, clearly, that's an issue that the 2 Petition Review Board for whatever reason didn't want 3 to address.        We have a Licensee saying that our plant 4 is designed a certain way.               The NRC's saying no, it's 5 designed this way.         The Licensee's saying no, this is 6 a -- component cooling water isn't a safety-related 7 system.       The NRC's saying it is.
5 However, if there are any me mbers of the public on the 6 phone who wish to do so at this time, please state 7 your name for the record.
8                   Well, subsequent to that meeting on July 9 18th, 2011, the United States Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission issued NRC Information Notice 2011-14 11 entitled Component Cooling Water System Gas 12 Accumulation and Other Performance Issue and at the 13 bottom of page 1 of that document, it states "The 14 component cooling water system is a safety-related 15 system.        That provides cooling and seal make-up to the 16 non-safety related containment 1A compressors.                  Air 17 intrusion into the component cooling water system 18 began after a routine shift to the other standby 19 containment 1A compressor" and the NRC's talking about 20 the St. Lucie Plant here.
8 I'd like to emphasize th at we each need to 9 speak clearly and loudly to insure that the court 10 reporter can accura tely transcribe th is meeting.
21                   It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 22 the component cooling water system and took several 23 hours to initiate alarm.             Operators initially believed 24 that the component cooling water surge tank high level 25 alarm condition resulted from reactor coolant system NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
11 If you do have som ething that you would 12 like to say, please state your name for the record.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701   www.nealrgross.com
13 For those dialing in to the meeting, please 14 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 15 background noise or distraction. If you do not have a 16 mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.
 
17 To un-mute, press the *6 keys again. Thank you.
14 1 leaking into the component cooling water system rather 2 than air intrusion.       Subsequent alarms and indication 3 of fluctuating pump motor current and component 4 cooling water header flow lead operators to conclude 5 that air intrusion was occurring."
18            At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 19 Chairman Sam Lee.
6               Okay. So, what this is saying here is the 7 Licensee's wrong and I was correct.                This is a safety-8 related system. The component cooling water system is 9 a safety-related system.
20 CHAIRMAN LEE:  Good afternoon. Welcome to 21 this teleconference rega rding the 2.206 petition 22 submitted by Mr. Saporito.
10               The contention by the Licensee that it's 11 not should be a red flag to the NRC and that's part of 12 this petition the Petition Review Board didn't 13 address.
23            I wo uld like to fi rst share some 24 background on our process.
14               As I've just read into this record, the 15 NRC's information notice, it shows here the severity 16 of this incident and that the operators initially 17 believed one aspect of plant operations which was 18 incorrect and then later determined that it was an air 19 intrusion event.      So, this is a very significant 20 safety-related issue which could have caused an 21 adverse problem operating that nuclear reactor because 22 the operators are contending one thing because of 23 whatever training they had and it was really an air 24 intrusion event and so, it was a significant delay in 25 actions and the determination happened sometime after NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
Section 2.206 of Title 10 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       www.nealrgross.com
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 of the Code of F ederal Regulatio ns describes the 1 petition process, a primary mechanism for the public 2 to request enforcem ent action by the NRC in a public 3 process. This proc ess permits anyone to petition NRC 4 to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 5 licensees or lic ensed activities.
 
6             Dependi ng on the res ult of this 7 evaluation, NRC cou ld modify such pl ant or revoke an 8 NRC issued license or ta ke any other appropriate 9 enforcement ac tion to resolve the problem.
15 1 the event occurred.
10 The NRC staff guidan ce for the disposition 11 of 2.206 petition request is the Management Directive 12 8.11 which is publi cly available.
2                 On page 2 of the NRC's July 18th, 2011 3 notice at paragraph 2, it states "The Licensee's root 4 cause evaluation determined that these repetitive 5 events resulted from a latent design issue that did 6 not consider the potential for gas intrusion into the 7 component cooling water system and from the Licensee's 8 failure to recognize or understand the potential 9 impact of the component cooling water and other 10 safety-related systems that component cooling water 11 supports during the initial condition report screening 12 process.       The original component cooling water design 13 was vulnerable to gas intrusion that could result in 14 a common mode system failure.
13 The purpose of today
15                 "Gas intrusion was not typically 16 considered in the component cooling water system 17 design when the St. Lucie's plants were designed as is 18 evident from Licensee basis documents.                 Consequently, 19 St. Lucie operating procedure did not address 20 detection and mitigation of gas intrusion occurrences.
's meeting to give the 14 Petitioner an oppor tunity to provid e any additional 15 explanation or supp ort for the petiti on following the 16 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation.
21 The component cooling water system's vulnerability to 22 gas intrusion from the containment 1A compressor was 23 not recognized because the leakage path required a 24 failure of the 1A compressor unloading valve and air 25 leakage through multiple components.                 Licensee NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
17            This meeti ng is not a hear ing nor is it an 18 opportunity for the Petitioner to re quest or examine 19 the PRB on the meri ts or the issues presented in the 20 petition request.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701       www.nealrgross.com
21 No decisions regardi ng the merits of this 22 petition will be made at this telecon ference.
 
23 Following this teleconfe rence, the Petition Review 24 Board will condu ct internal deli berations. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
16 1 corrective actions included a design change to isolate 2 the air intrusion path into the component cooling 3 water system from the containment 1A compressors, 4 procedure revisions to identify and mitigate air 5 intrusion into the component cooling water system and 6 revisions to licensed operator and non-licensed 7 operator lesson plans and engineering procedures to 8 reflect lessons learned."
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 outcome of this initial teleconf erence will be 1 discussed with t he Petitioner.
9                So, here you have -- and this is part of 10 the original petition because I'm going to go back to 11 the transcript record which was made on July 7th, 2011 12 at page 18 paragraph 2 which I stated at that time to 13 this Petition Review Board that "Petitioner further 14 contends that since the Licensee admitted to the NRC 15 that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I was licensed 16 by the NRC for operations not requiring incorporation 17 of a single failure design capability for the 18 component cooling water system, the Licensee's NRC 19 operational licenses for Unit I and Unit II are 20 invalid and that the NRC should order the Licensee to 21 immediately bring the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 22 and Unit II to a cold shutdown mode of operation to 23 protect public health and safety in these 24 circumstances."
2            The Pet ition Review Boa rd typically 3 consists of the Chairman, usually a member at the 4 Senior Executive Se rvice level at NRC. It has a 5 Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.
25                So, what I contended to the NRC back in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
6 Other members of the Board a re determined 7 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 8 information in the petition request.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 At this time, I would like to introduce 10 the Board. I'm Sam son Lee, the Petit ion Review Board 11 Chairman. Tracy Orf is the Petition Manager for the 12 petition under discus sion today. Lee Banic is filling 13 in as the Office PRB Coordina tor. Our technical staff 14 includes Gerry Purc iarello from the Office of Nuclear 15 Reactor Regulations , Balance Plant Branch. Steven 16 Rose from the NRC Region II
 
's Division of Reactor 17 Projects.
17 1 July 7th, 2011 is exactly the same issues which the 2 Licensee admits to through this NRC July 18th, 2011 3 notice that since this plant was licensed and we're 4 talking about -- I'm referring to a NRC document here 5 on the NRC's website for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6 Unit I.       Now, the operating license was issued on the 7 March 1st, 1976.         So, since March 1st, 1976, the 8 Licensee, the Florida Power and Light Company has been 9 operating Unit I and subsequently later Unit II in 10 violation of the NRC safety parameters standards and 11 regulations set out under 10 CFR Part 50.
18 As described in our process, the NRC staff 19 may ask clarifying quest ions in order to better 20 understand the Peti tioner's presentat ion and to reach 21 a reasoned decision whether to acce pt or reject the 22 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 23 process. 24 I would like to summ arize the scope of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
12                  Because the plant wasn't properly 13 designed, you had a design flaw in the component 14 cooling water system which allowed air intrusion which 15 caused operators to take the wrong course of action in 16 operating the plant.           That is an issue that this 17 Petition Review Board is required to address and to 18 accept as a valid issue under Management Directive 19 8.11 as a matter of law.             You can't just ignore it 20 because you don't want to deal with it.               It's part of 21 this petition because I put it on the record on July 22 7th, 2011.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 petition under cons ideration and the NRC activities to 1 date. 2 On May 12, 2011, Mr.
23                  In addition, the second issue which this 24 Petition Review Board has failed to acknowledge, 25 address and consider again going back to the official NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
Saporito submitted to 3 the NRC a petition under 2.20 6 regarding the St. Lucie 4 Plant. In this pet ition request, Mr. Saporito's area 5 of concern was with the design of the component 6 cooling water syste m at St. Lucie Pl ant Units I and 7 II. 8 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC suspend 9 or revoke the NRC licenses gr anted to the Licensee for 10 operation of the St. Lucie Plant Units I and II, issue 11 a notice of violation with th e proposed civ il penalty 12 against the License e and order the im mediate shutdown 13 of St. Lucie Plant Units I and II.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701   www.nealrgross.com
14            Please allow me to d iscuss the NRC 15 activities to date. On May 25th, the Petition Manager 16 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 17 to offer you an opp ortunity to addr ess the PRB by 18 phone or in person. B ecause you requested the 19 immediate shutdown of the St. Lucie Plant, the PRB met 20 on June 2nd to d iscuss those action s to determine if 21 immediate actions were requ ired. The PRB denied the 22 request for immedia te action becaus e there was no 23 immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health 24 and safety of the public.
 
The Petiti on Manager 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
18 1 NRC transcript record July 7th, 2011 at page 18 2 paragraph 3 "Petitioner further contends that the 3 metal in the nuclear reactor vessel at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit II has become 5 dangerously brittle from bombardment of high level 6 neutron radiation during normal operation over years 7 and years of operation and that neither the Licensee 8 nor the NRC has any accurate and meaningful data 9 measurement of just how brittle the nuclear reactor 10 vessels have become at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8 informed you of this d ecision on June 8th.
11                   "Petitioners are concerned that should one 12 or both of the nuclear vessels at the St. Lucie 13 Nuclear Plant crack or shatter, that a full-core 14 meltdown would immediately occur similar to the 15 ongoing meltdown with the three nuclear reactors in 16 Japan.         Such an event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 17 would rapidly release an abundant amount of hydrogen 18 which would inundate any action mitigation systems 19 designed to dissipate such gaseous build up and that 20 a dangerous explosion at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 21 containment building would occur and spew high level 22 nuclear particles directly into the environment and 23 adversely affect public health and safety just like 24 what happened in Japan."
1             On July 7th, you addres sed the PRB to 2 present additional infor mation regard ing your 3 petition. On August 2nd, the PRB met and determined 4 that in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, 5 your petition meets the criteria for rejection because 6 the petition raises issues that have already been the 7 subject of NRC staf f review and evalu ation for which 8 a resolution has been achieved. The issues have been 9 resolved and the resolution is applicable to the 10 facility in questio
25                    The NRC Petition Review Board was required NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
: n. Specifically , the Petitioner 11 references notice of violat ion EA-09-321 dated April 12 19th, 2010.
(202) 234-4433           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13            The inspe ction related to the component 14 cooling water syste m was conducted on December 10th, 15 2009 and the inspec tion report was is sued on January 16 19th, 2010 with the regulatory confer ence held on 17 February 19th, 2010.
 
18 A supplemental inspe ction was conducted as 19 documented in an in spection report da ted November 3, 20 2010. The suppleme ntal inspection res ulted in no open 21 items. 22 On August 3, 2011, the Petition Manager 23 contacted you and provided yo u with the PRB
19 1 to consider this issue just as if it was written into 2 the original petition on April 3rd, 2011, but the NRC 3 Petition Review Board failed to do so as they were 4 required under Management Directive 8.11.
's initial 24 recommendation.
5                All right.      Let's see.          So, I also on page 6 20 paragraph 2 stated that "Petitioner supplements the 7 original petition filed in the instant action to 8 request that the NRC order FP&L and the St. Lucie 9 Nuclear Plant to immediately or within a reasonable 10 short period of time bring the Unit I and Unit II 11 nuclear reactors to a cold shutdown mode of operation.
Subsequently, y ou requested to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
12 Until such time as the Licensee can have the Unit I 13 and Unit II nuclear reactor vessel metal tested to 14 determine exactly how brittle the metal has become and 15 to determine how many years, if any, the nuclear 16 reactors can be safely operated."
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9 address the PRB to provide additional information to 1 support your p etition.
17               The Petition Review Board has to address 18 that issue. They didn't address that issue.                They 19 rejected the entire petition out of hand without 20 properly evaluating the petition as they were required 21 to do under Management Directive 8.11.
2            As a remi nder for the phon e participants, 3 please identify you rself if you make any remarks and 4 this will help us in the preparation of the 5 teleconference tran script that we make publicly 6 available.
22               And on the bottom of page 20, very 23 significantly halfway through that paragraph, I stated 24 on the record on July 7th, 2011 that all the comments 25 made today on this public record are to be considered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
7             Thank you.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701         www.nealrgross.com
8 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 9 allow you to provide any in formation you believe the 10 PRB should consider ation as part of this petition.
 
11 MR. SAPORITO:  All righ
20 1 and to be construed and to be implemented as a 2 supplement to the original petition dated April 3rd, 3 2011 just the same as if they were placed in writing 4 and submitted to the NRC along with the initial 5 petition.
: t. Thank you, Mr.
6               It couldn't have been made more clear to 7 the NRC Petition Review Board what the issues were 8 that I was asking for the NRC's review and the NRC 9 Petition Review Board just decided not to review it 10 even though the record was made in writing for them to 11 read and read and read and review and they didn't do 12 so.
12 Chairman.
13                You know, that's a violation of the public 14 and my due process right for fair and balanced 15 adjudication of the NRC's process under 2.206.              I mean 16 why would the public engage the NRC and ask for the 17 NRC to take enforcement actions against the Licensee 18 if the NRC's not even going to follow their own 19 regulations to do that.        I mean it just don't make any 20 sense and I think the NRC is way out of line.
13             For the record, my name is Thomas 14 Saporito. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding. I 15 am the Senior Consultant with Sa prodani Associates 16 based in Jupiter, Florida.
21                The Petition Review Board -- when I say 22 the NRC, I'm talking about the NRC Petition Review 23 Board and that's why I'm asking the transcript record 24 to be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector 25 General to make an intelligent and informed decision NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
17 First of all, let me correct the record as 18 the NRC misstated the accurac y of the petit ion date.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 The date of the petition file d in this i nstant matter 20 is April 3rd, 2011.
 
21 Now, first before I get into the heart of 22 this discussion, le t me put on the record an email 23 that I received from Tra cy Orf of the NRC dated 24 Wednesday, August the 3rd, 20
21 1 as to whether the NRC's Petition Review Board's action 2 or is in violation of the NRC's own protocol and 3 regulations under Management Directive 8.11 because 4 they failed to address these issues that I put on the 5 record.
: 11. I'm just going to go 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
6                So, again, here today, I'm asking this 7 Petition Review Board to go back and look at those 8 record transcripts and to consider the record 9 transcripts to be made on this record here today and 10 to apply the NRC Management Directive 8.11, make a 11 determination that this petition is a valid petition 12 and the enforcement action requested is reasonable in 13 these circumstances where you have a nuclear power 14 plant, two of them, St. Lucie Unit I and II, which 15 have been licensed for two or more decades now and 16 have been operating for that lengthy period of time 17 where at least one of the units has a design basis 18 flaw in it that went undetected by the Licensee and it 19 went undetected by the United States Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission since the day the plants were 21 licensed decades ago.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 through the relevan t portion of this which says this 1 is responding to my petition. This is your petition 2 dated May 12th, 2011.
22                That's a major issue because it's a 23 safety-related system that was designed and it was a 24 flawed design which caused operators to improperly 25 address the events that occurred in connection with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
3             I don't know where the NR C keeps getting 4 that date, but that date is not correct. The date of 5 the petition is April 3rd, 2011.
(202) 234-4433       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 Nonetheless, he goes on in this email and 7 states "In relevant part that I want to put on this 8 record that the NRC staff has concluded that your 9 submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 10 under 10 CFR 2.206 because per MD 8.11 the issue 11 raised has already been subject of NR C staff review 12 and evaluation for which a resolution has been 13 achieved. The i ssues have been resolved and the 14 resolution is applicable to the facil ity in question.
 
15 You have not provided any si gnificant new information 16 to justify the NRC varyi ng from its enforcement 17 policy."
22 1 that air intrusion event.
18            Now, that
2                 So, what other -- you know, what other 3 systems safety related out there at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant on either Unit I or II are not designed 5 properly?      How many other systems are just accidents 6 waiting to happen?
's the reason th at the NRC gave 19 to me, a member of the public, for re jecting my 2.206 20 petition dated April 3rd, 2011 in co nnection with the 21 air intrusion event at the St. Luci e Nuclear Plant.
7                The NRC didn't look at that.         The NRC 8 didn't require the Licensee to go back and review the 9 entire final safety analysis review of the plant to 10 determine if any other systems have problems.                They 11 weren't properly designed.             Were there any other 12 procedures that need to be upgraded so that the 13 operators can properly address events that happened in 14 the operation of those two nuclear reactors?
22             Now, le t's make this public record 23 perfectly clear. Managemen t Directive 8.11 requires 24 the Petition Review Board of the United States Nuclear 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
15                So, that's another request we're going to 16 make on the NRC Petition Review Board.             We want you to 17 make enforcement to a confirmatory order.             Require the 18 Licensee to review this entire final safety analysis 19 report for both units and to review all safety-related 20 systems within those documents and their technical 21 specifications relevant to both plants to make an 22 assessment whether there are other safety related 23 systems which have a design flaw in them, which 24 weren't properly designed, which could fail or cause 25 some aspect of the operation of either of 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 11 Regulatory Commissi on to consider the petition in its 1 full context and what that means is, j ust like as the 2 opening remarks by the NRC on th is record today 3 stated, that at thi s Petition Review Board meeting all 4 my comments and submi ttals verbally or in writing are 5 a supplement to the written petition.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701    www.nealrgross.com
Just like my 6 initial meeting wit h the Petition Re view Board on July 7 7th, 2011, all thos e comments and the record, the 8 transcribed record creat ed on that date, is a 9 supplement to the original petition.
 
Just the same as 10 if I had written th ose words and subm itted it as part 11 of the original petition.
23 1 nuclear reactors to fail.
12 Nonetheless, this Pe tition Revi ew Board 13 refused to entertai n those comments and accept those 14 comments on the rec ord and refused to consider those 15 comments, evaluate those co mments and analyze those 16 comments.
2                  I mean that's a reasonable request because 3 decades and decades these plants have been operating 4 improperly with a design that was a failed design, 5 improper design and that nuclear safety-related system 6 involved and you got to look at these things.
17             So, the NRC Petition Revi ew Board failed 18 to follow its own regula tions under Management 19 Directive 8.11 and to that extent, I req uest a copy of 20 this record be forwarded to the NRC Office of the 21 Inspector General.
7                  Events that happened in Japan, everybody 8 thought those plants were fine.                  The regulator out 9 there said oh, they're safe.              Told the public don't 10 worry about it and now, you have three nuclear 11 reactors melting down.           They're out of control.
22             Now, befo re I get into th e specifics of 23 what the NRC failed to address, let me just state that 24 the original petition as documented in the NRC record 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
12 They'll never be brought under control.                 I don't care 13 what the government of Japan says and people are going 14 to have to be evacuated more and more and more until 15 finally there will be nobody living in the whole 16 country.      That will become the world's nuclear 17 depository eventually because you're not going to gain 18 control of those three reactors and you got 104 of 19 them here in the United States.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 transcripts of July 7th, 2011. My copy, for some 1 reason, the pages were not enumerated.
20                  The public cannot have a regulator like 21 the NRC who refuses to make a thorough inspection 22 under these circumstances where you have a nuclear 23 power plant with a design flaw in it which has existed 24 for decades and the NRC knew about this design flaw 25 back in 2008 and they just now as of July 18th, 2011 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
So, I counted 2 them. There's suppose to be 38 pages here.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
3 So, I'm going to refere nce page 17. Where 4 I contended to t he NRC Petition Rev iew Board on that 5 date of July 7th, 2011, I st ated "With respect to the 6 instant enforcement petition, the Li censee apparently 7 admitted to the NRC that wh en the St. Lucie Nuclear 8 Plant Unit I was licensed the facility was not 9 required to incorporate a single-failure design 10 capacity for nonsafety-r elated system and FPL 11 concluded that a violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 12 B Criterion 3 did not occur as found by the NRC 13 inspector."
 
14            Petitio ners contend here that the 15 Licensee's admission sup ports a finding that the 16 Licensee is operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant well 17 outside the NRC's nuclear sa fety regulations under 10 18 CFR Part 50 and that the component cooling water 19 system employed at the St. Lucie Nucl ear Plant Unit I 20 and II is a nuclear safe ty-related system to the 21 extent that it serv es to remove heat from the reactor 22 core in various man ners and modes of operation.
24 1 put out an information bulletin for other nuclear 2 power plants that have similar designs to see if they 3 have problems.       I mean that just goes to show you the 4 complacency of the NRC and it's role as a regulator 5 and that's exactly -- although there was an earthquake 6 and a tsunami, a contributing factor to those 7 meltdowns in Japan was the failed regulator to oversee 8 nuclear operations in Japan.
23 That's on page 17 and 18 of the record transcript 24 dated July 7t h, 2011. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
9                  The United States does not need a failed 10 regulator here in this country.                 We have enough 11 political rhetoric in Washington which is harming this 12 economy.       All we need now is a nuclear plant to 13 meltdown and you're going to have decades of problems 14 with the economy because the radiation it can take 15 this economy down a lot further than a little debate 16 in Washington can.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13            So, clear ly, that's an issue that the 1 Petition Review Board for wh atever reason didn't want 2 to address. We hav e a Licensee sayin g that our plant 3 is designed a certa in way. The NRC's saying no, it's 4 designed this way.
17                  So, I implore this Petition Review Board 18 to review the July 7th, 2011 record transcript, review 19 today's record transcripts, go back and review that 20 July 18th, 2011 information notice sent out by the NRC 21 and issue a confirmatory order to have St. Lucie 22 Nuclear Plant review its documents.                 Its final safety 23 analysis review reports for both units, the technical 24 specifications for both plants and the procedure for 25 its training of its operators because there may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
The Licensee's sa ying no, this is 5 a -- component c ooling water isn't a safety-related 6 system. The NRC
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
's saying it is.
 
7 Well, subsequent to that meeting on July 8 18th, 2011, the United States Nu clear Regulatory 9 Commission issued NRC In formation Notice 2011-14 10 entitled Component Coo ling Water System Gas 11 Accumulation and Ot her Performance Is sue and at the 12 bottom of page 1 of that document, it states "The 13 component cooling water sys tem is a safety-related 14 system. That provides cool ing and seal make-up to the 15 non-safety related containment 1A co mpressors. Air 16 intrusion into the compo nent cooling water system 17 began after a routi ne shift to t he other standby 18 containment 1A comp ressor" and the NR C's talking about 19 the St. Lucie Plant here.
25 1 other safety-related systems that are in jeopardy 2 right now.
20 It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 21 the component cooli ng water system an d took several 22 hours to initiate alarm. Op erators initially believed 23 that the component cooling water surg e tank high level 24 alarm condition res ulted from reactor coolant system 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
3                And at that, I'll answer any questions 4 anybody might have.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 leaking into the co mponent cooling wa ter system rather 1 than air intrusion.
5                CHAIRMAN LEE:        Okay.       Thank you very much.
Subsequent alarm s and indication 2 of fluctuating pump motor current and component 3 cooling water heade r flow lead oper ators to conclude 4 that air intrusion wa s occurring."
6 At this time, let's just stop here.                 Headquarters, 7 have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
5 Okay. So, what this is saying here is the 6 Licensee's wrong and I was correct. T his is a safety-7 related system.
8                MR. ORF:    I do.      This is Tracy Orf.
The compon ent cooling w ater system is 8 a safety-related system.
9                Mr. Saporito, did you have any other 10 sources of information on this component cooling water 11 event other than those that were already presented on 12 the docket?
9            The conte ntion by the Licensee that it's 10 not should be a red flag to the NRC and that's part of 11 this petition the Petiti on Review Board didn't 12 address.
13                MR. SAPORITO:        Just those documents I've 14 mentioned today.
13 As I've just read into this record, the 14 NRC's information notice, it shows here the severity 15 of this incident and that the operators initially 16 believed one aspect of p lant operations which was 17 incorrect and then later dete rmined that it was an air 18 intrusion event. So, th is is a very significant 19 safety-related i ssue which could have caused an 20 adverse problem operating that nucl ear reactor because 21 the operators are contendin g one thing because of 22 whatever training they had and it was really an air 23 intrusion event and so, it wa s a significan t delay in 24 actions and the det ermination happene d sometime after 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
15                MR. ORF:    All right.         Thanks. One other 16 question.     Do you have any metallurgical analysis on 17 the reactor vessel on embrittlement due to neutron 18 fluence or the phenomenon of pressurized thermal 19 shock?
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  15 the event occurred.
20                MR. SAPORITO:        Well, that's the issue I'm 21 presenting to the NRC.          My contention is that the NRC 22 doesn't have accurate and sufficient data nor does the 23 Licensee have that information to date and that's 24 important to have to make a determination just how 25 brittle those reactor vessels are.                 Because it's my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
1            On page 2 of the NRC's July 18th, 2011 2 notice at paragraph 2, it states "The Licensee's root 3 cause evaluation de termined that th ese repetitive 4 events resulted fro m a latent design issue that did 5 not consider the po tential for gas in trusion into the 6 component cooling water syste m and from the Licensee's 7 failure to recog nize or understa nd the potential 8 impact of the component cooling water and other 9 safety-related syst ems that component cooling water 10 supports during the initial condition report screening 11 process. The origi nal component cool ing water design 12 was vulnerable to gas intru sion that could result in 13 a common mode syste m failure.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
14            "Gas intrusion was not typically 15 considered in the compon ent cooling water system 16 design when the St.
 
Lucie's plants we re designed as is 17 evident from Licens ee basis documents. Consequently, 18 St. Lucie operating proc edure did not address 19 detection and mitigation of gas intrusion occurrences.
26 1 assertion here that neither the Licensee or the NRC 2 has sufficient, accurate information through this 3 destructive testing of representation metal in those 4 vessels to make that determination to date.
20 The component cooli ng water system's vulnerability to 21 gas intrusion from the containment 1A compressor was 22 not recognized beca use the leakage path required a 23 failure of the 1A compresso r unloading valve and air 24 leakage through multiple components. Licensee 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
5                MR. ORF:    Okay.     But, you, yourself, do 6 not have any evidence to that effect.               Is that 7 correct?
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  16 corrective actions in cluded a design c hange to isolate 1 the air intrusion path i nto the component cooling 2 water system from the conta inment 1A compressors, 3 procedure revisions to i dentify and mitigate air 4 intrusion into the componen t cooling water system and 5 revisions to licensed op erator and no n-licensed 6 operator lesson pla ns and engineering procedures to 7 reflect lessons learned." 8 So, here you have --
8                MR. SAPORITO:        Well, I don't have 9 permission to go on site and make measurements.
and this is part of 9 the original petiti on because I'm go ing to go back to 10 the transcript reco rd which was made on July 7th, 2011 11 at page 18 paragrap h 2 which I stated at that time to 12 this Petition Revie w Board that "Peti tioner further 13 contends that since the Licensee admi tted to the NRC 14 that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I was licensed 15 by the NRC for oper ations not requiri ng incorporation 16 of a single failure desi gn capability for the 17 component cooling water sys tem, the Licensee's NRC 18 operational licenses for Unit I and Unit II are 19 invalid and that th e NRC should order the Licensee to 20 immediately bring the St.
10                MR. ORF:    Okay.     Thank you.
Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 21 and Unit II to a cold shutd own mode of operation to 22 protect public health and safety in these 23 circumstances." 24            So, what I contended to the NRC back in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
11                CHAIRMAN LEE:        Does the NRC staff at the 12 region have any questions?
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  17 July 7th, 2011 is exactly the same issues which the 1 Licensee admits to through this NRC July 18th, 2011 2 notice that since this plan t was licensed and we're 3 talking about -- I' m referring to a NRC document here 4 on the NRC's websit e for the St. Luci e Nuclear Plant 5 Unit I. Now, the operating license was issued on the 6 March 1st, 1976. So, since March 1st, 1976, the 7 Licensee, the Florida Power and Light Company has been 8 operating Unit I and subseq uently later Unit II in 9 violation of the NRC safety parameters standards and 10 regulations set out under 10 CFR Part 50.
13                MR. ROSE:      No questions.
11            Because the plant wa sn't properly 12 designed, you had a desi gn flaw in the component 13 cooling water syste m which allowed ai r intrusion which 14 caused operators to take the wrong cou rse of action in 15 operating the plant. Th at is an issue that this 16 Petition Review Boa rd is required to address and to 17 accept as a valid issue und er Management Directive 18 8.11 as a matter of law.
14                MR. ORF:    Excuse me.         The NRC Headquarters 15 is going to go on mute for just a moment.
You can't just ignore it 19 because you don't want to de al with it.
16                CHAIRMAN LEE:        At this time, does the 17 Licensee have any questions?
It's part of 20 this petition becau se I put it on the record on July 21 7th, 2011.
18                Before I conclude the teleconference, 19 members of the public might provide comments regarding 20 the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 21 petition process.
22 In addition, the s econd issue which this 23 Petition Review Board has failed to acknowledge, 24 address and conside r again going back to the official 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
22                However, as stated at the opening, the 23 purpose of this teleconference is not to provide an 24 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 25 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits 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  18 NRC transcript r ecord July 7th, 2011 at page 18 1 paragraph 3 "Petitioner fur ther contends that the 2 metal in the nuclea r reactor vessel at the St. Lucie 3 Nuclear Plant Un it I and Unit II has become 4 dangerously brittle from bo mbardment of high level 5 neutron radiation during norm al operation over years 6 and years of operation and that neither the Licensee 7 nor the NRC has any accu rate and meaningful data 8 measurement of j ust how brittle the nuclear reactor 9 vessels have become at the St. Luci e Nuclear Plant.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
10            "Petitioners are con cerned that should one 11 or both of the nuclear v essels at the St. Lucie 12 Nuclear Plant crack or shatter, that a full-core 13 meltdown would immediate ly occur similar to the 14 ongoing meltdown wi th the three nucle ar reactors in 15 Japan. Such an eve nt at the St. Luci e Nuclear Plant 16 would rapidly relea se an abundant amount of hydrogen 17 which would inundat e any action mit igation systems 18 designed to dissipate such gaseous build up and that 19 a dangerous explosion at th e St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 20 containment buildin g would occur and spew high level 21 nuclear particles directly into the envi ronment and 22 adversely affect public healt h and safety just like 23 what happened in Japan." 24 The NRC Petition Rev iew Board was required 25 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 to consider this issu e just as if it was written into 1 the original petiti on on April 3rd, 2011, but the NRC 2 Petition Review Boa rd failed to do so as they were 3 required under Management Directive 8.11.
27 1 the petition request.
4 All right. Let's see.
2                  So, does the public have any comments?
So, I also on page 5 20 paragraph 2 stat ed that "Petitione r supplements the 6 original petition filed in the instan t action to 7 request that the NR C order FP&L and the St. Lucie 8 Nuclear Plant to im mediately or withi n a reasonable 9 short period of tim e bring the Unit I and Unit II 10 nuclear reactors to a cold shutdown mode of operation.
3                  Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time to 4 provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on 5 the petition you have submitted.
11 Until such time as the Licensee can have the Unit I 12 and Unit II nuclear reactor vessel metal tested to 13 determine exactly how brittle the metal has become and 14 to determine how many ye ars, if any, the nuclear 15 reactors can be saf ely operated." 16 The Petition Review Board has to address 17 that issue. They didn't address that issue. They 18 rejected the entire peti tion out of hand without 19 properly evaluating the petition as they were required 20 to do under Managemen t Directive 8.11.
6                  Before we close, does the court reporter 7 need any additional information for the teleconference 8 transcript?
21            And on the bottom of page 20, very 22 significantly halfw ay through that pa ragraph, I stated 23 on the record on Ju ly 7th, 2011 that all the comments 24 made today on this public record are to be considered 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  
9                  COURT REPORTER:        Yes, I caught all the 10 names of the Petition Review Board except for one.                       It 11 sounded like Gerry first name.                I didn't catch the 12 last name.       If you could spell that for me.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  20 and to be construed and to be implemented as a 1 supplement to the original petition dated April 3rd, 2 2011 just the same as if they were placed in writing 3 and submitted to the NRC along with the initial 4 petition.
13                  MR. PURCIARELLO:          Purciarello. I'll spell 14 it.      P as in papa U-R-C-I-A-R-E-L-L-O.
5 It couldn't have been made more clear to 6 the NRC Petition Re view Board what the issues were 7 that I was asking for the NRC's review and the NRC 8 Petition Review Boa rd just decided no t to review it 9 even though the rec ord was made in wr iting for them to 10 read and read and read and review and they didn't do 11 so. 12 You know, that's a v iolation of the public 13 and my due process rig ht for fair and balanced 14 adjudication of the NRC's process un der 2.206. I mean 15 why would the public engage the NRC and ask for the 16 NRC to take enfo rcement actions aga inst the Licensee 17 if the NRC's not ev en going to f ollow their own 18 regulations to do that. I mean it just don't make any 19 sense and I think the NRC is way out of line.
15                  COURT REPORTER:        All right. Thanks a lot.
20            The Petit ion Review Board -- when I say 21 the NRC, I'm talking about the NRC Petition Review 22 Board and that's why I'm aski ng the transcr ipt record 23 to be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector 24 General to make an intelligent and in formed decision 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
16                  CHAIRMAN LEE:        With that, this meeting is 17 concluded and we will be terminating the telephone 18 connection.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  21 as to whether the NRC's Petition Revi ew Board's action 1 or is in violation of the NRC's own protocol and 2 regulations under Managemen t Directive 8
19                  (Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the meeting was 20 adjourned.)
.11 because 3 they failed to addr ess these issues that I put on the 4 record. 5            So, again , here today, I' m asking this 6 Petition Review Boa rd to go back and look at those 7 record transcrip ts and to consid er the record 8 transcripts to be made on this record here today and 9 to apply the NRC Management Directive 8.11, make a 10 determination that this petition is a valid petition 11 and the enforcement action requested is reasonable in 12 these circumstances where you have a nuclear power 13 plant, two of them, St. Lucie Un it I and II, which 14 have been licensed for two or more decades now and 15 have been operating for that lengthy period of time 16 where at least one of the units has a design basis 17 flaw in it that wen t undetected by th e Licensee and it 18 went undetected by the United States Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commissi on since the day the plants were 20 licensed decades ago.
21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
21            That's a major issue be cause it's a 22 safety-related syst em that was design ed and it was a 23 flawed design which caused opera tors to improperly 24 address the events that occurred in connection with 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701      www.nealrgross.com}}
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com  22 that air intrusion event.
1            So, what other -- you know, what other 2 systems safety rela ted out there at the St. Lucie 3 Nuclear Plant on eith er Unit I or II are not designed 4 properly?  How many other systems are ju st accidents 5 waiting to happen?
6            The NRC didn't look at that. The NRC 7 didn't require t he Licensee to go ba ck and review the 8 entire final safety analysis review of the plant to 9 determine if any other syst ems have prob lems. They 10 weren't properly designe
: d. Were there any other 11 procedures that nee d to be upgraded so that the 12 operators can prope rly address events that happened in 13 the operation of those two nuclear reactors?
14 So, that's another r equest we're going to 15 make on the NRC Pet ition Review Board. We want you to 16 make enforcement to a confirmatory ord er. Require the 17 Licensee to review this entire final safety analysis 18 report for both units and to review all safety-related 19 systems within thos e documents and their technical 20 specifications rele vant to both plant s to make an 21 assessment whether there are other safety related 22 systems which ha ve a design flaw in them, which 23 weren't properly de signed, which coul d fail or cause 24 some aspect of the opera tion of either of those 25 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 nuclear reactors to fail.
1 I mean that's a reas onable request because 2 decades and decades these plants have been operating 3 improperly with a design th at was a failed design, 4 improper design and that nuclear safe ty-related system 5 involved and you got to loo k at these things.
6            Events th at happened in Japan, everybody 7 thought those plant s were fine. The regulator out 8 there said oh, they're safe.
Told the p ublic don't 9 worry about it and now, you ha ve three nuclear 10 reactors melting do wn. They're out of control.
11 They'll never be brou ght under control.
I don't care 12 what the government of Japan says an d people are going 13 to have to be evacu ated more and more and more until 14 finally there will be nobody living in the whole 15 country. That will be come the world's nuclear 16 depository eventual ly because you're not going to gain 17 control of those th ree reactors and you got 104 of 18 them here in the United States.
19            The publi c cannot have a regulator like 20 the NRC who refuses to m ake a thorough inspection 21 under these circumstances where you have a nuclear 22 power plant with a design flaw in it which has existed 23 for decades and the NRC kne w about this design flaw 24 back in 2008 and th ey just now as of July 18th, 2011 25 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 put out an informat ion bulletin for other nuclear 1 power plants that have simi lar designs to see if they 2 have problems. I mean that just goes to show you the 3 complacency of t he NRC and it's rol e as a regulator 4 and that's exactly
-- although there was an earthquake 5 and a tsunami, a contrib uting factor to those 6 meltdowns in Japan was the failed regu lator to oversee 7 nuclear operat ions in Japan.
8            The Unite d States does no t need a failed 9 regulator here in this country.
We have enough 10 political rhetoric in Washington which is harming this 11 economy. All we need now is a nuclear plant to 12 meltdown and you're going to have decades of problems 13 with the economy because th e radiation it can take 14 this economy down a lot fur ther than a l ittle debate 15 in Washington can.
16 So, I implore this Petition Review Board 17 to review the July 7th, 2011 record transcript, review 18 today's record tran scripts, go back and review that 19 July 18th, 2011 infor mation notice sent out by the NRC 20 and issue a confirmatory or der to have St. Lucie 21 Nuclear Plant review its documents.
Its final safety 22 analysis review rep orts for both unit s, the technical 23 specifications for both plants and th e procedure for 24 its training of its operators because there may be 25 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 other safety-relate d systems that are in jeopardy 1 right now.
2            And at th at, I'll answer any questions 3 anybody mig ht have. 4            CHAIRMAN LEE:  Okay. Thank you very much.
5 At this time, let's just stop here. Headquarters, 6 have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
7            MR. ORF:
I do. This is Tracy Orf.
8            Mr. Sapor ito, did you ha ve any other 9 sources of informatio n on this compon ent cooling water 10 event other than th ose that were alre ady presented on 11 the docket?
12 MR. SAPORITO:  Just those documents I've 13 mentioned today.
14 MR. ORF:  All right.
Thanks. One other 15 question. Do you have a ny metallurgical analysis on 16 the reactor vessel on embrittlement due to neutron 17 fluence or the phen omenon of pre ssurized thermal 18 shock? 19 MR. SAPORITO:  Well, that's the issue I'm 20 presenting to the NRC. My contention is that the NRC 21 doesn't have accura te and sufficient data nor does the 22 Licensee have that information to da te and that's 23 important to have to make a determi nation just how 24 brittle those react or vessels are.
Because it's my 25 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 assertion here that neither the Licensee or the NRC 1 has sufficient, acc urate informatio n through this 2 destructive testing of representation metal in those 3 vessels to make that d etermination to date. 4 MR. ORF:  Okay. But, you, yourself, do 5 not have any evidence to that effect. Is that 6 correct? 7            MR. SAP ORITO:  Well, I don't have 8 permission to go on site and make measurements.
9            MR.
ORF:  Okay.
Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LEE:  Does the NRC staff at the 11 region have any questions?
12            MR. ROSE:  No questions.
13 MR. ORF:  Excuse me.
The NRC Headquarters 14 is going to go on mute for just a moment.
15 CHAIRMAN LEE:  At this time, does the 16 Licensee have any questions?
17            Before I conclude the teleconference, 18 members of the publ ic might provide comments regarding 19 the petition and ask que stions about the 2.206 20 petition process.
21 However, as stated at the opening, the 22 purpose of this tel econference is not to provide an 23 opportunity for the Peti tioner or the public to 24 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits of 25 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 the petition request.
1            So, does the public have any comments?
2 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time to 3 provide the NRC sta ff with clarifying information on 4 the petition you have submitted.
5            Before we close, does the court reporter 6 need any additional information for the teleconference 7 transcript?
8 COURT REPORTER:  Y es, I caught all the 9 names of the Petiti on Review Board ex cept for one. It 10 sounded like Gerry first name. I didn't catch the 11 last name. If you cou ld spell that for me.
12 MR. PURCIARELLO:  Pu rciarello. I'll spell 13 it. P as in papa U-R-C-I-A-R-E-L-L-O.
14 COURT REPORTER:  All ri ght. Thanks a lot.
15 CHAIRMAN LEE:  With that, this me eting is 16 concluded and we will be te rminating the telephone 17 connection.
18            (Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the meeting was 19 adjourned.)
20  21  22  23  24  25}}

Latest revision as of 01:57, 6 December 2019

G20110365/EDATS: OEDO-2011-0357 - Transcript of 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Re St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, August 16, 2011, Pages 1-27
ML11242A013
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/16/2011
From:
NRC/OCM
To:
Orf T
Shared Package
ML11242A004 List:
References
2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2011-0357, G20110365, OEDO-2011-0357, NRC-1082
Download: ML11242A013 (28)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Number: (n/a)

Location: (telephone conference)

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1082 Pages 1-27 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 ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 8 + + + + +

9 TUESDAY 10 AUGUST 16, 2011 11 + + + + +

12 The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m.,

13 Samson Lee, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 14 presiding.

15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 18 SAMSON LEE, Chairperson, NRR 19 MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator, NRR 20 TRACY ORF, Petition Manager for 2.206 21 Petition, NRR 22 GERARD PURCIARELLO, NRR 23 MARCIA SIMON, OGC 24 NRC REGION STAFF 25 STEPHEN ROSE, Region II 26 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 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:06 p.m.

3 MR. ORF: Good afternoon. This is Tracy 4 Orf. It sounds like we've got everybody on the line 5 now. So, we'll go ahead and get started. Okay.

6 I would like to thank everybody for 7 attending this meeting and again, my name is Tracy Orf 8 and I am the St. Lucie Project Manager.

9 We are here today to allow the Petitioner 10 Thomas Saporito to address the Petition Review Board 11 regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated May 12th, 12 2011.

13 I am the Petition Manager for this 14 petition and the Petition Review Board Chairman is Sam 15 Lee.

16 As part of the Review Board or PRB's 17 review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has requested 18 this opportunity to address the PRB.

19 This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 to 20 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the meeting is being 21 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 22 transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 23 become a supplement to the petition and a transcript 24 will also be made publicly available.

25 I'd like to open this meeting with 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 introductions and as we go around the room, please be 2 sure to clearly state your name, your position and the 3 office that you work for with the NRC for the record.

4 I'll start it off. My name is Tracy Orf 5 and I work in NRR.

6 MS. SIMON: Marcia Simon, Office of the 7 General Counsel.

8 MS. BANIC: Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 9 Coordinator.

10 MR. PURCIARELLO: Gerry Purciarello, 11 Balance of Plant in NRR.

12 CHAIRMAN LEE: Samson Lee, Deputy 13 Director, Division of Risk Assessment, NRR.

14 MR. ORF: Okay. At this time, are there 15 any NRC participants from headquarters on the phone?

16 Are there any NRC participants from the regional 17 offices on the phone?

18 MR. ROSE: This is Steven Rose. I was the 19 Component Design Basis Inspection Team Lead for the 20 St. Lucie Inspection, Region II.

21 MR. ORF: Are there any representatives 22 from the Licensee on the phone?

23 And, Mr. Saporito, would you please 24 introduce yourself for the record?

25 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, 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

4 1 Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 2 Associates in Jupiter, Florida and I'm the Petitioner 3 in these proceedings.

4 MR. ORF: It is not required for members 5 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.

6 However, if there are any members of the public on the 7 phone who wish to do so at this time, please state 8 your name for the record.

9 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 10 speak clearly and loudly to insure that the court 11 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.

12 If you do have something that you would 13 like to say, please state your name for the record.

14 For those dialing into the meeting, please 15 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 16 background noise or distraction. If you do not have a 17 mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6.

18 To un-mute, press the *6 keys again. Thank you.

19 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 20 Chairman Sam Lee.

21 CHAIRMAN LEE: Good afternoon. Welcome to 22 this teleconference regarding the 2.206 petition 23 submitted by Mr. Saporito.

24 I would like to first share some 25 background on our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 2 petition process, a primary mechanism for the public 3 to request enforcement action by the NRC in a public 4 process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC 5 to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 6 licensees or licensed activities.

7 Depending on the result of this 8 evaluation, NRC could modify such plant or revoke an 9 NRC issued license or take any other appropriate 10 enforcement action to resolve the problem.

11 The NRC staff guidance for the disposition 12 of 2.206 petition request is the Management Directive 13 8.11 which is publicly available.

14 The purpose of today's meeting to give the 15 Petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional 16 explanation or support for the petition following the 17 Petition Review Board's initial recommendation.

18 This meeting is not a hearing nor is it an 19 opportunity for the Petitioner to request or examine 20 the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the 21 petition request.

22 No decisions regarding the merits of this 23 petition will be made at this teleconference.

24 Following this teleconference, the Petition Review 25 Board will conduct internal deliberations. 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

6 1 outcome of this initial teleconference will be 2 discussed with the Petitioner.

3 The Petition Review Board typically 4 consists of the Chairman, usually a member at the 5 Senior Executive Service level at NRC. It has a 6 Petition Manager and a PRB Coordinator.

7 Other members of the Board are determined 8 by the NRC staff based on the content of the 9 information in the petition request.

10 At this time, I would like to introduce 11 the Board. I'm Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board 12 Chairman. Tracy Orf is the Petition Manager for the 13 petition under discussion today. Lee Banic is filling 14 in as the Office PRB Coordinator. Our technical staff 15 includes Gerry Purciarello from the Office of Nuclear 16 Reactor Regulations, Balance Plant Branch. Steven 17 Rose from the NRC Region II's Division of Reactor 18 Projects.

19 As described in our process, the NRC staff 20 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 21 understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 22 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 23 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 24 process.

25 I would like to summarize the scope of 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

7 1 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 2 date.

3 On May 12, 2011, Mr. Saporito submitted to 4 the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding the St. Lucie 5 Plant. In this petition request, Mr. Saporito's area 6 of concern was with the design of the component 7 cooling water system at St. Lucie Plant Units I and 8 II.

9 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC suspend 10 or revoke the NRC licenses granted to the Licensee for 11 operation of the St. Lucie Plant Units I and II, issue 12 a notice of violation with the proposed civil penalty 13 against the Licensee and order the immediate shutdown 14 of St. Lucie Plant Units I and II.

15 Please allow me to discuss the NRC 16 activities to date. On May 25th, the Petition Manager 17 contacted you to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and 18 to offer you an opportunity to address the PRB by 19 phone or in person. Because you requested the 20 immediate shutdown of the St. Lucie Plant, the PRB met 21 on June 2nd to discuss those actions to determine if 22 immediate actions were required. The PRB denied the 23 request for immediate action because there was no 24 immediate safety concern to the plant or to the health 25 and safety of the public. The Petition Manager 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 informed you of this decision on June 8th.

2 On July 7th, you addressed the PRB to 3 present additional information regarding your 4 petition. On August 2nd, the PRB met and determined 5 that in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, 6 your petition meets the criteria for rejection because 7 the petition raises issues that have already been the 8 subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which 9 a resolution has been achieved. The issues have been 10 resolved and the resolution is applicable to the 11 facility in question. Specifically, the Petitioner 12 references notice of violation EA-09-321 dated April 13 19th, 2010.

14 The inspection related to the component 15 cooling water system was conducted on December 10th, 16 2009 and the inspection report was issued on January 17 19th, 2010 with the regulatory conference held on 18 February 19th, 2010.

19 A supplemental inspection was conducted as 20 documented in an inspection report dated November 3, 21 2010. The supplemental inspection resulted in no open 22 items.

23 On August 3, 2011, the Petition Manager 24 contacted you and provided you with the PRB's initial 25 recommendation. Subsequently, you requested 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

9 1 address the PRB to provide additional information to 2 support your petition.

3 As a reminder for the phone participants, 4 please identify yourself if you make any remarks and 5 this will help us in the preparation of the 6 teleconference transcript that we make publicly 7 available.

8 Thank you.

9 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 10 allow you to provide any information you believe the 11 PRB should consideration as part of this petition.

12 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.

13 Chairman.

14 For the record, my name is Thomas 15 Saporito. I am the Petitioner in this proceeding. I 16 am the Senior Consultant with Saprodani Associates 17 based in Jupiter, Florida.

18 First of all, let me correct the record as 19 the NRC misstated the accuracy of the petition date.

20 The date of the petition filed in this instant matter 21 is April 3rd, 2011.

22 Now, first before I get into the heart of 23 this discussion, let me put on the record an email 24 that I received from Tracy Orf of the NRC dated 25 Wednesday, August the 3rd, 2011. I'm just going to go 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 through the relevant portion of this which says this 2 is responding to my petition. This is your petition 3 dated May 12th, 2011.

4 I don't know where the NRC keeps getting 5 that date, but that date is not correct. The date of 6 the petition is April 3rd, 2011.

7 Nonetheless, he goes on in this email and 8 states "In relevant part that I want to put on this 9 record that the NRC staff has concluded that your 10 submittal does not meet the criteria for consideration 11 under 10 CFR 2.206 because per MD 8.11 the issue 12 raised has already been subject of NRC staff review 13 and evaluation for which a resolution has been 14 achieved. The issues have been resolved and the 15 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.

16 You have not provided any significant new information 17 to justify the NRC varying from its enforcement 18 policy."

19 Now, that's the reason that the NRC gave 20 to me, a member of the public, for rejecting my 2.206 21 petition dated April 3rd, 2011 in connection with the 22 air intrusion event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

23 Now, let's make this public record 24 perfectly clear. Management Directive 8.11 requires 25 the Petition Review Board of the United States Nuclear 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 Regulatory Commission to consider the petition in its 2 full context and what that means is, just like as the 3 opening remarks by the NRC on this record today 4 stated, that at this Petition Review Board meeting all 5 my comments and submittals verbally or in writing are 6 a supplement to the written petition. Just like my 7 initial meeting with the Petition Review Board on July 8 7th, 2011, all those comments and the record, the 9 transcribed record created on that date, is a 10 supplement to the original petition. Just the same as 11 if I had written those words and submitted it as part 12 of the original petition.

13 Nonetheless, this Petition Review Board 14 refused to entertain those comments and accept those 15 comments on the record and refused to consider those 16 comments, evaluate those comments and analyze those 17 comments.

18 So, the NRC Petition Review Board failed 19 to follow its own regulations under Management 20 Directive 8.11 and to that extent, I request a copy of 21 this record be forwarded to the NRC Office of the 22 Inspector General.

23 Now, before I get into the specifics of 24 what the NRC failed to address, let me just state that 25 the original petition as documented in the NRC record 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 transcripts of July 7th, 2011. My copy, for some 2 reason, the pages were not enumerated. So, I counted 3 them. There's suppose to be 38 pages here.

4 So, I'm going to reference page 17. Where 5 I contended to the NRC Petition Review Board on that 6 date of July 7th, 2011, I stated "With respect to the 7 instant enforcement petition, the Licensee apparently 8 admitted to the NRC that when the St. Lucie Nuclear 9 Plant Unit I was licensed the facility was not 10 required to incorporate a single-failure design 11 capacity for nonsafety-related system and FPL 12 concluded that a violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 13 B Criterion 3 did not occur as found by the NRC 14 inspector."

15 Petitioners contend here that the 16 Licensee's admission supports a finding that the 17 Licensee is operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant well 18 outside the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 19 CFR Part 50 and that the component cooling water 20 system employed at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 21 and II is a nuclear safety-related system to the 22 extent that it serves to remove heat from the reactor 23 core in various manners and modes of operation.

24 That's on page 17 and 18 of the record transcript 25 dated July 7th, 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

13 1 So, clearly, that's an issue that the 2 Petition Review Board for whatever reason didn't want 3 to address. We have a Licensee saying that our plant 4 is designed a certain way. The NRC's saying no, it's 5 designed this way. The Licensee's saying no, this is 6 a -- component cooling water isn't a safety-related 7 system. The NRC's saying it is.

8 Well, subsequent to that meeting on July 9 18th, 2011, the United States Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission issued NRC Information Notice 2011-14 11 entitled Component Cooling Water System Gas 12 Accumulation and Other Performance Issue and at the 13 bottom of page 1 of that document, it states "The 14 component cooling water system is a safety-related 15 system. That provides cooling and seal make-up to the 16 non-safety related containment 1A compressors. Air 17 intrusion into the component cooling water system 18 began after a routine shift to the other standby 19 containment 1A compressor" and the NRC's talking about 20 the St. Lucie Plant here.

21 It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 22 the component cooling water system and took several 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> to initiate alarm. Operators initially believed 24 that the component cooling water surge tank high level 25 alarm condition resulted from reactor coolant system 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 leaking into the component cooling water system rather 2 than air intrusion. Subsequent alarms and indication 3 of fluctuating pump motor current and component 4 cooling water header flow lead operators to conclude 5 that air intrusion was occurring."

6 Okay. So, what this is saying here is the 7 Licensee's wrong and I was correct. This is a safety-8 related system. The component cooling water system is 9 a safety-related system.

10 The contention by the Licensee that it's 11 not should be a red flag to the NRC and that's part of 12 this petition the Petition Review Board didn't 13 address.

14 As I've just read into this record, the 15 NRC's information notice, it shows here the severity 16 of this incident and that the operators initially 17 believed one aspect of plant operations which was 18 incorrect and then later determined that it was an air 19 intrusion event. So, this is a very significant 20 safety-related issue which could have caused an 21 adverse problem operating that nuclear reactor because 22 the operators are contending one thing because of 23 whatever training they had and it was really an air 24 intrusion event and so, it was a significant delay in 25 actions and the determination happened sometime after 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 the event occurred.

2 On page 2 of the NRC's July 18th, 2011 3 notice at paragraph 2, it states "The Licensee's root 4 cause evaluation determined that these repetitive 5 events resulted from a latent design issue that did 6 not consider the potential for gas intrusion into the 7 component cooling water system and from the Licensee's 8 failure to recognize or understand the potential 9 impact of the component cooling water and other 10 safety-related systems that component cooling water 11 supports during the initial condition report screening 12 process. The original component cooling water design 13 was vulnerable to gas intrusion that could result in 14 a common mode system failure.

15 "Gas intrusion was not typically 16 considered in the component cooling water system 17 design when the St. Lucie's plants were designed as is 18 evident from Licensee basis documents. Consequently, 19 St. Lucie operating procedure did not address 20 detection and mitigation of gas intrusion occurrences.

21 The component cooling water system's vulnerability to 22 gas intrusion from the containment 1A compressor was 23 not recognized because the leakage path required a 24 failure of the 1A compressor unloading valve and air 25 leakage through multiple components. Licensee 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 corrective actions included a design change to isolate 2 the air intrusion path into the component cooling 3 water system from the containment 1A compressors, 4 procedure revisions to identify and mitigate air 5 intrusion into the component cooling water system and 6 revisions to licensed operator and non-licensed 7 operator lesson plans and engineering procedures to 8 reflect lessons learned."

9 So, here you have -- and this is part of 10 the original petition because I'm going to go back to 11 the transcript record which was made on July 7th, 2011 12 at page 18 paragraph 2 which I stated at that time to 13 this Petition Review Board that "Petitioner further 14 contends that since the Licensee admitted to the NRC 15 that the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I was licensed 16 by the NRC for operations not requiring incorporation 17 of a single failure design capability for the 18 component cooling water system, the Licensee's NRC 19 operational licenses for Unit I and Unit II are 20 invalid and that the NRC should order the Licensee to 21 immediately bring the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I 22 and Unit II to a cold shutdown mode of operation to 23 protect public health and safety in these 24 circumstances."

25 So, what I contended to the NRC back in 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 July 7th, 2011 is exactly the same issues which the 2 Licensee admits to through this NRC July 18th, 2011 3 notice that since this plant was licensed and we're 4 talking about -- I'm referring to a NRC document here 5 on the NRC's website for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6 Unit I. Now, the operating license was issued on the 7 March 1st, 1976. So, since March 1st, 1976, the 8 Licensee, the Florida Power and Light Company has been 9 operating Unit I and subsequently later Unit II in 10 violation of the NRC safety parameters standards and 11 regulations set out under 10 CFR Part 50.

12 Because the plant wasn't properly 13 designed, you had a design flaw in the component 14 cooling water system which allowed air intrusion which 15 caused operators to take the wrong course of action in 16 operating the plant. That is an issue that this 17 Petition Review Board is required to address and to 18 accept as a valid issue under Management Directive 19 8.11 as a matter of law. You can't just ignore it 20 because you don't want to deal with it. It's part of 21 this petition because I put it on the record on July 22 7th, 2011.

23 In addition, the second issue which this 24 Petition Review Board has failed to acknowledge, 25 address and consider again going back to the official 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 NRC transcript record July 7th, 2011 at page 18 2 paragraph 3 "Petitioner further contends that the 3 metal in the nuclear reactor vessel at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit II has become 5 dangerously brittle from bombardment of high level 6 neutron radiation during normal operation over years 7 and years of operation and that neither the Licensee 8 nor the NRC has any accurate and meaningful data 9 measurement of just how brittle the nuclear reactor 10 vessels have become at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

11 "Petitioners are concerned that should one 12 or both of the nuclear vessels at the St. Lucie 13 Nuclear Plant crack or shatter, that a full-core 14 meltdown would immediately occur similar to the 15 ongoing meltdown with the three nuclear reactors in 16 Japan. Such an event at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 17 would rapidly release an abundant amount of hydrogen 18 which would inundate any action mitigation systems 19 designed to dissipate such gaseous build up and that 20 a dangerous explosion at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 21 containment building would occur and spew high level 22 nuclear particles directly into the environment and 23 adversely affect public health and safety just like 24 what happened in Japan."

25 The NRC Petition Review Board was required 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 to consider this issue just as if it was written into 2 the original petition on April 3rd, 2011, but the NRC 3 Petition Review Board failed to do so as they were 4 required under Management Directive 8.11.

5 All right. Let's see. So, I also on page 6 20 paragraph 2 stated that "Petitioner supplements the 7 original petition filed in the instant action to 8 request that the NRC order FP&L and the St. Lucie 9 Nuclear Plant to immediately or within a reasonable 10 short period of time bring the Unit I and Unit II 11 nuclear reactors to a cold shutdown mode of operation.

12 Until such time as the Licensee can have the Unit I 13 and Unit II nuclear reactor vessel metal tested to 14 determine exactly how brittle the metal has become and 15 to determine how many years, if any, the nuclear 16 reactors can be safely operated."

17 The Petition Review Board has to address 18 that issue. They didn't address that issue. They 19 rejected the entire petition out of hand without 20 properly evaluating the petition as they were required 21 to do under Management Directive 8.11.

22 And on the bottom of page 20, very 23 significantly halfway through that paragraph, I stated 24 on the record on July 7th, 2011 that all the comments 25 made today on this public record are to be considered 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 and to be construed and to be implemented as a 2 supplement to the original petition dated April 3rd, 3 2011 just the same as if they were placed in writing 4 and submitted to the NRC along with the initial 5 petition.

6 It couldn't have been made more clear to 7 the NRC Petition Review Board what the issues were 8 that I was asking for the NRC's review and the NRC 9 Petition Review Board just decided not to review it 10 even though the record was made in writing for them to 11 read and read and read and review and they didn't do 12 so.

13 You know, that's a violation of the public 14 and my due process right for fair and balanced 15 adjudication of the NRC's process under 2.206. I mean 16 why would the public engage the NRC and ask for the 17 NRC to take enforcement actions against the Licensee 18 if the NRC's not even going to follow their own 19 regulations to do that. I mean it just don't make any 20 sense and I think the NRC is way out of line.

21 The Petition Review Board -- when I say 22 the NRC, I'm talking about the NRC Petition Review 23 Board and that's why I'm asking the transcript record 24 to be forwarded to the NRC Office of the Inspector 25 General to make an intelligent and informed decision 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 as to whether the NRC's Petition Review Board's action 2 or is in violation of the NRC's own protocol and 3 regulations under Management Directive 8.11 because 4 they failed to address these issues that I put on the 5 record.

6 So, again, here today, I'm asking this 7 Petition Review Board to go back and look at those 8 record transcripts and to consider the record 9 transcripts to be made on this record here today and 10 to apply the NRC Management Directive 8.11, make a 11 determination that this petition is a valid petition 12 and the enforcement action requested is reasonable in 13 these circumstances where you have a nuclear power 14 plant, two of them, St. Lucie Unit I and II, which 15 have been licensed for two or more decades now and 16 have been operating for that lengthy period of time 17 where at least one of the units has a design basis 18 flaw in it that went undetected by the Licensee and it 19 went undetected by the United States Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission since the day the plants were 21 licensed decades ago.

22 That's a major issue because it's a 23 safety-related system that was designed and it was a 24 flawed design which caused operators to improperly 25 address the events that occurred in connection with 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 that air intrusion event.

2 So, what other -- you know, what other 3 systems safety related out there at the St. Lucie 4 Nuclear Plant on either Unit I or II are not designed 5 properly? How many other systems are just accidents 6 waiting to happen?

7 The NRC didn't look at that. The NRC 8 didn't require the Licensee to go back and review the 9 entire final safety analysis review of the plant to 10 determine if any other systems have problems. They 11 weren't properly designed. Were there any other 12 procedures that need to be upgraded so that the 13 operators can properly address events that happened in 14 the operation of those two nuclear reactors?

15 So, that's another request we're going to 16 make on the NRC Petition Review Board. We want you to 17 make enforcement to a confirmatory order. Require the 18 Licensee to review this entire final safety analysis 19 report for both units and to review all safety-related 20 systems within those documents and their technical 21 specifications relevant to both plants to make an 22 assessment whether there are other safety related 23 systems which have a design flaw in them, which 24 weren't properly designed, which could fail or cause 25 some aspect of the operation of either of 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

23 1 nuclear reactors to fail.

2 I mean that's a reasonable request because 3 decades and decades these plants have been operating 4 improperly with a design that was a failed design, 5 improper design and that nuclear safety-related system 6 involved and you got to look at these things.

7 Events that happened in Japan, everybody 8 thought those plants were fine. The regulator out 9 there said oh, they're safe. Told the public don't 10 worry about it and now, you have three nuclear 11 reactors melting down. They're out of control.

12 They'll never be brought under control. I don't care 13 what the government of Japan says and people are going 14 to have to be evacuated more and more and more until 15 finally there will be nobody living in the whole 16 country. That will become the world's nuclear 17 depository eventually because you're not going to gain 18 control of those three reactors and you got 104 of 19 them here in the United States.

20 The public cannot have a regulator like 21 the NRC who refuses to make a thorough inspection 22 under these circumstances where you have a nuclear 23 power plant with a design flaw in it which has existed 24 for decades and the NRC knew about this design flaw 25 back in 2008 and they just now as of July 18th, 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

24 1 put out an information bulletin for other nuclear 2 power plants that have similar designs to see if they 3 have problems. I mean that just goes to show you the 4 complacency of the NRC and it's role as a regulator 5 and that's exactly -- although there was an earthquake 6 and a tsunami, a contributing factor to those 7 meltdowns in Japan was the failed regulator to oversee 8 nuclear operations in Japan.

9 The United States does not need a failed 10 regulator here in this country. We have enough 11 political rhetoric in Washington which is harming this 12 economy. All we need now is a nuclear plant to 13 meltdown and you're going to have decades of problems 14 with the economy because the radiation it can take 15 this economy down a lot further than a little debate 16 in Washington can.

17 So, I implore this Petition Review Board 18 to review the July 7th, 2011 record transcript, review 19 today's record transcripts, go back and review that 20 July 18th, 2011 information notice sent out by the NRC 21 and issue a confirmatory order to have St. Lucie 22 Nuclear Plant review its documents. Its final safety 23 analysis review reports for both units, the technical 24 specifications for both plants and the procedure for 25 its training of its operators because there may 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

25 1 other safety-related systems that are in jeopardy 2 right now.

3 And at that, I'll answer any questions 4 anybody might have.

5 CHAIRMAN LEE: Okay. Thank you very much.

6 At this time, let's just stop here. Headquarters, 7 have any questions for Mr. Saporito?

8 MR. ORF: I do. This is Tracy Orf.

9 Mr. Saporito, did you have any other 10 sources of information on this component cooling water 11 event other than those that were already presented on 12 the docket?

13 MR. SAPORITO: Just those documents I've 14 mentioned today.

15 MR. ORF: All right. Thanks. One other 16 question. Do you have any metallurgical analysis on 17 the reactor vessel on embrittlement due to neutron 18 fluence or the phenomenon of pressurized thermal 19 shock?

20 MR. SAPORITO: Well, that's the issue I'm 21 presenting to the NRC. My contention is that the NRC 22 doesn't have accurate and sufficient data nor does the 23 Licensee have that information to date and that's 24 important to have to make a determination just how 25 brittle those reactor vessels are. Because it's my 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 assertion here that neither the Licensee or the NRC 2 has sufficient, accurate information through this 3 destructive testing of representation metal in those 4 vessels to make that determination to date.

5 MR. ORF: Okay. But, you, yourself, do 6 not have any evidence to that effect. Is that 7 correct?

8 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I don't have 9 permission to go on site and make measurements.

10 MR. ORF: Okay. Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN LEE: Does the NRC staff at the 12 region have any questions?

13 MR. ROSE: No questions.

14 MR. ORF: Excuse me. The NRC Headquarters 15 is going to go on mute for just a moment.

16 CHAIRMAN LEE: At this time, does the 17 Licensee have any questions?

18 Before I conclude the teleconference, 19 members of the public might provide comments regarding 20 the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 21 petition process.

22 However, as stated at the opening, the 23 purpose of this teleconference is not to provide an 24 opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 25 question or examine the PRB regarding the merits 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

27 1 the petition request.

2 So, does the public have any comments?

3 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time to 4 provide the NRC staff with clarifying information on 5 the petition you have submitted.

6 Before we close, does the court reporter 7 need any additional information for the teleconference 8 transcript?

9 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I caught all the 10 names of the Petition Review Board except for one. It 11 sounded like Gerry first name. I didn't catch the 12 last name. If you could spell that for me.

13 MR. PURCIARELLO: Purciarello. I'll spell 14 it. P as in papa U-R-C-I-A-R-E-L-L-O.

15 COURT REPORTER: All right. Thanks a lot.

16 CHAIRMAN LEE: With that, this meeting is 17 concluded and we will be terminating the telephone 18 connection.

19 (Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the meeting was 20 adjourned.)

21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11242A013&oldid=2240518"