ML11242A013
| ML11242A013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| 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) | |
Text
Offi cial 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 Isla nd Avenue, N.W.
Washingto n, D.C. 20005
(202) 234-4433 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5 RE 6 ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 7 + + + + +
8 TUESDAY 9 AUGUST 16, 2011 10 + + + + +
11 The conference call was held at 1:00 p.m., 12 Samson Lee, Chairpe rson of the Petiti on Review Board, 13 presiding.
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.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
1:06 p.m.
2 MR. ORF: Good afternoo
- 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.
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.
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.
24 I'd lik e to open this meeting 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 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.
3 I'll start it off.
My name is Tracy Orf 4 and I work in NRR.
5 MS. SIMON
- Marcia Simon, Office of the 6 General Counsel.
7 MS. BAN IC: Lee Banic, NRR, Petition 8 Coordinator.
9 MR. PUR CIARELLO: Gerry Purciarello, 10 Balance of Plant in NRR.
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.
20 MR. ORF:
Are there any representatives 21 from the Licensee on the phone?
22 And, Mr. Saporito, woul d you please 23 introduce yourself for the record?
24 MR. SAPOR ITO: Yes, my name is Thomas 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 4 Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 1 Associates in Jupit er, Florida and I' m the Petitioner 2 in these proceedings.
3 MR. ORF:
It is not required for members 4 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
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 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.
11 If you do have som ething that you would 12 like to say, please state your name for the record.
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.
18 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 19 Chairman Sam Lee.
20 CHAIRMAN LEE: Good afternoon. Welcome to 21 this teleconference rega rding the 2.206 petition 22 submitted by Mr. Saporito.
23 I wo uld like to fi rst share some 24 background on our process.
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 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.
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.
13 The purpose of today
'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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8 informed you of this d ecision on June 8th.
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
- n. Specifically , the Petitioner 11 references notice of violat ion EA-09-321 dated April 12 19th, 2010.
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
's initial 24 recommendation.
Subsequently, y ou requested to 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 9 address the PRB to provide additional information to 1 support your p etition.
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.
7 Thank you.
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
- t. Thank you, Mr.
12 Chairman.
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.
17 First of all, let me correct the record as 18 the NRC misstated the accurac y of the petit ion date.
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
- 11. I'm just going to go 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 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.
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.
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."
18 Now, that
'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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
So, I counted 2 them. There's suppose to be 38 pages here.
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.
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.
(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.
The Licensee's sa ying no, this is 5 a -- component c ooling water isn't a safety-related 6 system. The NRC
'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.
20 It says "Air leaked at a slow rate into 21 the component cooli ng water system an d took several 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> 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.
(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.
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."
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.
The compon ent cooling w ater system is 8 a safety-related system.
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 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.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 the event occurred.
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.
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.
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.
(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 --
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.
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.
(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.
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.
You can't just ignore it 19 because you don't want to de al with it.
It's part of 20 this petition becau se I put it on the record on July 21 7th, 2011.
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.
(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.
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.
4 All right. Let's see.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
(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
.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 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 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