ML11332A046
| ML11332A046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Thompson Jon, NRR/DORL/LPL 2-1, 415-1119 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1170, 2.206 | |
| Download: ML11332A046 (41) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings "Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: 2.206 Petition by Thomas Saporito
Docket Number: n/a
Location: by teleconference
Date: September 29, 2011
Work Order No.: NRC-1170 Pages 1-37
"Corrected Transcript: Corrections denoted within brackets [ ]"
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
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 REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5 RE: 6 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 7 + + + + +
8 THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 10 + + + + +
11 The conference call was held, Patrick 12 Hiland, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding.
14 15 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16 17 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS:
18 PATRICK HILAND, Petition Review Board Chairman 19 JON THOMPSON, Petition Manager 20 TANYA MENSAH, 2.206 Coordinator 21 GUJENDRA BEDI, NRR/DCI/CPTB 22 KAMAL MANOLY, NRR/DE 23 GERALD McCOY, R-II/DRP/RPB5 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 DAVID RAHN, NRR/DE/EICB 1 SHIH-LIANG WU, NRR/DSS/SNPB 2 3 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 4 MAURI LEMONCELLI, OGC 5 RICHARD STATTEL, NRR 6 7 LICENSEE STAFF PRESENT:
8 MARGARET EARLE 9 PATRICK [PAGE] KEMP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 1:03 p.m.
2 MR. THOMPSON: On the record.
3 This is John
[Jon] Thompson, the 4 Petition Manager. I'd like to call the meeting to 5 begin. First of all, I would like to thank 6 everybody for attending this meeting. As I said, my 7 name is John
[Jon] Thompson and I'm the Petition 8 Manager for this Petition.
9 We're here today to allow the 10 Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the 11 Petition Review Board regarding the 2.206 Petition 12 dated September 8, 2011. That is a public document 13 for those who would like to look it up. The 14 Petition Review Board Chairman is Patrick Hiland.
15 As part of the Petition Review Board's 16 review of this Petition, Thomas Saporito has 17 requested this opportunity to address the Petition 18 Review Board. This meeting is scheduled from 1:00 19 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
20 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 21 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 22 reporter. The transcript will become a supplement 23 to the Petition. The transcript will also be made 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 publicly available.
1 I'd like to open this meeting with 2 introductions. As we go around the room please be 3 sure to clearly state your name, your position and 4 the office that you work for within the NRC for the 5 record. And I'll start off.
6 My name is John
[Jon] Thompson. I'm the 7 Petition Manager. I work in the Division of 8 Operating Reactor Licensing.
9 MR. STATTEL: My name is Richard 10 Stattel. I'm a technical reviewer in the INC
[I&C] 11 Branch of NRR.
12 MS. MENSAH: My name is Tanya Mensah.
13 I'm the 2.206 coordinator in the Office of Nuclear 14 Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and 15 Rulemaking.
16 CHAIRMAN HILAND: My name is Pat Hiland.
17 I work in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 18 in the Division of Engineering.
19 MS. LEMONCELLI: Mauri Lemoncelli. I'm 20 with the Office of the General Counsel.
21 MR. WU: Shih-Liang Wu. Nuclear 22 Performance and Code Review Branch, NRR.
23 MR. MANOLY: Kamal Manoly, Division of 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 Engineering.
1 MR. BEDI: Gujendra Bedi, NRR, 2 Department of Component Performance and Testing 3 Branch. 4 MR. RAHN: My name is David Rahn. I'm 5 an INC [I&C] Technical Reviewer in the Office of NRR 6 in the Instrumental and Controls Branch.
7 MR. THOMPSON: We have completed 8 introductions at the NRC Headquarters. At this 9 time, are there any NRC participants from 10 Headquarters that are on the phone?
11 (No verbal response.)
12 Hearing none, are there any NRC 13 participants from Region II on the phone?
14 MR. McCOY: Yes, this is Gerald McCoy.
15 I'm in the Division of Reactor Projects, Region II.
16 And I'm the only one here at this phone.
17 MR. THOMPSON: All right. Are there any 18 representatives for the Licensee on the phone?
19 MR. KEMP: Yes. This is Page Kemp, 20 Project Manager, at North Anna Power Station.
21 MS. EARLE: And this is Margaret Earle, 22 Licensing Engineer at Innsbrook Technical Center for 23 Dominion.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Saporito, would you 1 like to please introduce yourself for the record?
2 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. My name is Thomas 3 Saporito. I'm the Senior Consultant with Saprodani 4 Associates based in Jupiter, Florida. And I'm the 5 Petitioner in this.
6 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. It is now 7 requested for members of the public to introduce 8 themselves for this call. I don't think there 9 should be any. However, if there are any members of 10 the public on the phone that wish to do so at this 11 time please state your name for the record.
12 (No verbal response.)
13 Hearing none, I'd like to emphasize that 14 we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make 15 sure that the court reporter can accurately 16 transcribe this meeting. If you do have something 17 that you would like to say, please first state your 18 name for the record and then make your remarks.
19 For those dialing into the meeting, 20 please remember to mute your phones to minimize any 21 background noise or distractions. If you do not 22 have a mute button on your telephone, this can be 23 done by pressing the keys
- and then 6. And to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7unmute you can press *6 again and you'll come back 1 on and be able to speak where people can hear you.
2 So thank you for observing that.
3 At this time, I'll turn it over to the 4 Petition Review Board Chairman Patrick Hiland.
5 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Good afternoon. My 6 name is Patrick Hiland. And welcome to this meeting 7 regarding the 2.206 Petition submitted by Mr.
8 Saporito.
9 First, I'd like to share some background 10 on our process. Section 2.206 of Title X
[10] of 11 the Code of Federal Regulations describes the 12 Petition process. The primary mechanism for the 13 public to request enforcement action by the NRC in a 14 public process. This process permits anyone to 15 Petition NRC to take enforcement
[-]type action 16 related to NRC licensees or licensed activities.
17 Depending on the results of its 18 evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke NRC 19 [-]issued license or take any other appropriate 20 enforcement action. The NRC staff's guidance, the 21 disposition of 2.206 Petition request, is in 22 Management Directive 8.11 which is publicly 23 available.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8 The purpose of today's meeting is to 1 give the Petition an opportunity to provide any 2 additional explanation or support for the Petition 3 before the Petition Review Board's initial 4 consideration and recommendation. This meeting is 5 not a hearing nor is it an opportunity for the 6 Petitioner to question or examine
[the] Petition 7 Review Board on the merits or the issues presented 8 in the Petition request. No decisions regarding the 9 merits of this Petition will be made at this 10 meeting.
11 Following this meeting, the Petition 12 Review Board will conduct its internal 13 deliberations. The outcome of this internal meeting 14 will be discussed with the Petitioner.
15 The Petition Review Board typically 16 consists of a chairman, usually a manager at the 17 senior executive service level at the NRC. As 18 explained, Patrick Hiland, that's me. I'm the 19 Chairman of this Petition Review Board. And [and] 20 I am at the senior executive level.
21 It has a Petition manager and a Petition 22 Review Board coordinator. Other members of the 23 Board are determined by the NRC staff based on the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9content of the information in the Petition request.
1 And very briefly, I'll go over the Petition Review 2 Board members.
3 John [Jon] Thompson is Petition manager 4 for the Petition under discussion. Tanya Mensah is 5 the Office's Petition Review Board Coordinator. Our 6 technical staff who are on the phone today include 7 Gerald McCoy from Region II, Gurjendra Bedi from the 8 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Component and 9 Performance and Testing Branch, Kamal Manoly from 10 the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of 11 Engineering, Shih-Liang Wu from the Office of 12 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Performance and 13 Code Review Branch, David Rahn from the Office of 14 Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instrumental and Controls 15 Branch. We also have advice from our Office of 16 General Counsel represented by Mauri Lemoncelli.
17 As described in our process, the NRC 18 staff may ask clarifying questions in order to 19 better understanding
[understand] the Petitioner's 20 presentation and to reach a reasoned decision 21 whether to accept or reject the Petitioner's request 22 for review under the 2.206 process. The Petition is 23 a public document available in the NRC's electronic 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 library. 1 I would like to briefly summarize the 2 scope of the Petition under consideration and the 3 NRC's activities to date. On September 8, 2011, Mr.
4 Saporito submitted to the NRC a Petition under 2.206 5 regarding the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 6 2. In this Petition request, Mr. Saporito 7 identified concerns with the safe operation of North 8 Anna Power Station after the earthquake of August 9 23, 2011.
10 Mr. Saporito requests that the NRC:
11 (1) take escalated enforcement action 12 against the North Anna Power Station to suspend or 13 revoke the licenses for that facility; 14 (2) issue a notice of violation with a 15 proposed fine of $1 million; 16 (3) issue an order to keep the North 17 Anna Power Station in cold shutdown until the 18 completion of four sets of activities described in 19 the Petition which are meant to ensure the safety of 20 the North Anna Power Station.
21 As the basis for this request, Mr.
22 Saporito states that the North Anna Power Station 23 experienced ground acceleration on August 23, 2011 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11in excess of the design basis earthquake and that 1 licensee inspection and testing activities at the 2 site are incomplete.
3 But the Petitioner states that the Licensee 4 cannot meet the requirements of the updated facility 5 safety analysis report as a result of this event 6 because the plant sustained damage outside the 7 Licensee's safety design. The Petitioner also 8 expressed concerns with the scope of testing and 9 inspection activities for the reactor core and fuel 10 assemblies.
11 Allow me now I want to discuss the NRC 12 activities to date. On September 14, 2011, the 13 Petition Manager contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss 14 the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer him an 15 opportunity to address the Petition Review Board by 16 phone or in person. Mr. Saporito requested to 17 address the Petition Review Board by phone prior to 18 its internal meeting to make the initial 19 recommendation to accept or reject the Petition for 20 review. 21 On September 20, 2011, the Petition 22 Review Board met internally to discuss the request 23 for immediate action. The Petition Review Board 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12denied Mr. Saporito's request for immediate action 1 on the basis that there was no immediate safety 2 concern to the plant or to the health and safety of 3 the public.
4 The Petition Review Board also 5 determined that the requirement to demonstrate that 6 no functional damage has occurred to those features 7 necessary for continued operation without undue risk 8 to the health and safety already exists in 10 CFR 9 2.100 [100,] Appendix A. Mr. Saporito was informed 10 on September 21, 2011 of the Petition Review Board's 11 decision to deny his request for immediate action.
12 As a reminder for the phone 13 participants, please identify yourself if you make 14 an [any] remarks as this will help us in the 15 preparation of the meeting transcript that will be 16 made publicly available.
17 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you 18 to allow you to provide any information you believe 19 the Petition Review Board should consider as part of 20 this Petition.
21 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, 22 Mr. Chairman.
23 For the record, my name is Thomas 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13Saporito. I'm a Senior Consultant with Saprodani 1 Associates. And we're located in Jupiter, Florida.
2 Before I get into the part of this 3 matter, I want to put a correction in the record.
4 The Petition which we filed on September 8, 2011 at 5 pages four and six speaks to the North Anna Nuclear 6 Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2. Those unit numbers 7 were inadvertently interchanged. So where it says 8 Unit 2, it should really be Unit 1. And where it 9 says Unit 1, it should really be Unit 2 at page four 10 and page five of the Petition. All right.
11 CHAIRMAN HILAND
[Jon Thompson]: Mr. 12 Saporito, I'm sorry. Just for clarification, that's 13 pages four and five or four and six where those 14 number units are inverted.
15 MR. SAPORITO: I'm sorry. Yes, you're 16 correct. It's four and five. I'm sorry, sir. It's 17 four and five where those two corrections are.
18 CHAIRMAN HILAND
[Jon Thompson]: Okay.
19 We'll address that.
20 MR. SAPORITO: And another housekeeping 21 issue is on September 8, 2011 I authored a letter on 22 behalf of Saprodani and Associates to Oscar 23 Demiranda, D-E-M-I-R-A-N-D-A. He works for the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He's a 1 Senior Allegations Coordinator out of Region II 2 Headquarters based in Atlanta, Georgia. And these 3 allegations set forth in this two-page letter are 4 relevant to this proceeding and they are 5 specifically addressing nuclear safety concerns with 6 respect to the August 23, 2011 earthquake event at 7 the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant. And through 8 this reference I'm going to incorporate that two-9 page document which is a September 8, 2011 letter 10 from Saprodani Associates to Oscar Demiranda of the 11 NRC into this public record.
12 And while I'm on the subject in 13 accordance with NRC Management Directive 8.11 all my 14 comments today that are made to the NRC's Petition 15 Review Board are to be accepted into the record and 16 are required to be considered by each member of the 17 Petition Review Board sitting here today just the 18 same as if I had placed these comments and 19 information and references into the record and when 20 I initially initiated the 2.206 Petition on 21 September 8, 2011.
22 All right. First, I want to identify 23 into the record a news article issued by Los Angeles 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 Times, LATimes.com on September 8, 2011. And it's 1 entitled "NRC: Earthquake Shook Nuclear Past Design 2 Limits." And I'm just going to read a couple of 3 relevant portions of this into the record.
4 It says, "A nuclear power plant in 5 Central Virginia may have experiences twice as much 6 shaking as it was designed to withstand during last 7 month's rare east coast earthquake according to 8 Federal Nuclear Regulators, although no major damage 9 has been found." So that document references an NRC 10 opinion that the earthquake event had a magnitude 11 which was twice the rate of design based license of 12 the North Anna Nuclear Units 1 and 2.
13 The next document I want to put into the 14 record is issued by the Washington Post on September 15 8th entitled "Virginia Nuclear Plant Experienced 16 Strong Shaking in August 23 Earthquake." And what I 17 want to put into the record is specifically it says 18 "The event that occurred at North Anna had high 19 acceleration spikes but did not have sufficient 20 duration of energy to cause any damage." And that 21 was made by a senior vice president for Dominion, a 22 fellow by the name of Grecheck, G-R-E-C-H-E-C-K.
23 And the next article is an article dated 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16September 9, 2011 by Reuters, R-E-U-T-E-R-S, 1 Robertson's (phonetic) Agency. And the part I'm 2 going to put in here is a quote. It says, "It looks 3 like the fuel rods were going into the core prior to 4 the transformer opening." And that comment was made 5 by Dominion executive. And that was also reflected 6 in a post[-]earthquake meeting held by the NRC and a 7 Dominion executive representing the North Anna Power 8 Station. 9 And finally I want to put into the 10 record a USA Today news article dated September 18, 11 2011 entitled "Weeks After Quake Town Near Nuclear 12 Plant Remains Rattled." And specifically I want to 13 reference -- It says here, "North Anna" which 14 they're talking about the North Anna Nuclear Plant 15 Units 1 and 2. It says, "North Anna 90 miles 16 southwest of the White House is emerging as a test 17 case for the nuclear industry as it faces increased 18 scrutiny." 19 Okay. Ninety miles from the White House 20 is what this articles says. And if you recall just 21 a few minutes ago I put in the record quoted 22 comments made by the senior executive vice president 23 for Dominion, the Licensee, that the earthquake that 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 wasn't of a significant duration.
1 Well, the day before yesterday and 2 yesterday I viewed news articles by national press, 3 various national press agencies, over the internet 4 which showed a video which was taken by security 5 cameras located inside the Washington Monument 6 during the earthquake event. And I would like the 7 Petition Review Board members to review that video.
8 It's available on the internet.
9 And the video specifically shows a 10 significant shaking the Washington Monument at the 11 particular level that security camera was located 12 at. And there's a clock, a timer, timing the 13 duration of the event. And it lasted almost three 14 minutes. So it was a significant earthquake.
15 This Washington Monument is 90 miles 16 from the North Anna Nuclear Facility. So Dominion's 17 opinion through that executive vice president is 18 wholly false. And it calls into question the 19 reliability of the seismic instrumentation which the 20 Licensee used to gather data as to the acceleration 21 of this earthquake event and as to the duration of 22 this earthquake. The NRC should look into that 23 issue. 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 Also in this September 18, 2011 news 1 article issued by USA Today it says and NRC is 2 quoted here, Eric Leeds, a
[the] Director of Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission [the Office of Nuclear Reactor 4 Regulation]. It says, "We don't have a lot of 5 experience in this area." He was quoted as saying 6 that. "We don't have a lot of experience in this 7 area." And I believe that was also captured on the 8 NRC's video tape in a subsequent meeting subsequent 9 to the earthquake with the Licensee.
10 It also says in this article that "The 11 earthquake moved 25 casks," that's nuclear fuel 12 storage casks that weigh 115 tons each and holds 13 spent nuclear fuel up to -- it moved the casks up to 14 4.5 inches.
15 And finally it says, "An NRC document 16 estimated a quake strong enough to exceed North 17 Anna's design would occur once in 5,000 years."
18 Okay. "Once in 5,000 years." And based on that 19 this fellow Donal, D-O-N-A-L, Day, D-A-Y, a nuclear 20 physicist who is employed at the University of 21 Virginia was quoted as saying, "It just shows 22 they're wrong." And he's talking about the NRC.
23 The NRC is dead wrong with respect to how frequent 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 19 an earthquake can occur.
1 Not only is the NRC wrong and all its 2 evaluations wrong and incorrect with respect to how 3 frequent an earthquake can occur, this particular 4 earthquake occurred where there was no known 5 earthquake fault line. And there wasn't supposed to 6 be an earthquake occurring here. No one expected an 7 earthquake to occur here.
8 And it certainly calls into question all 9 the NRC's seismic evaluation to date, all the NRC's 10 reliance on those seismic evaluations to date, all 11 the NRC's nuclear safety regulations under 10 CFR 12 Part 50 to date with respect to all licenses issued 13 to some 104 nuclear power plants in the United 14 States. 15 As I mentioned earlier, I personally 16 attended via an internet link a video conference 17 that was held with the Licensee shortly after the 18 August 23rd earthquake event. And during that 19 conference or during my monitoring of that meeting 20 between the NRC and the Licensee, the NRC stated 21 that a restart of North Anna 1 and 2 nuclear 22 reactors required NRC approval because of the 23 Appendix A regulation cited earlier by someone here 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 today in this meeting by the NRC.
1 The Licensee stated at that time of the 2 earthquake on August 23rd Units 1 and 2 were 100 3 percent power and that there was a -- Eleven seconds 4 into the event as I understand -- these are my 5 personal notes -- there was a negative flux signal 6 trip of the nuclear reactor. They tripped because 7 of a negative flux indication. And then 8 subsequently there was an alert declared. And on 9 the 24th Units 1 and 2 were brought into cold 10 shutdown mode of operation.
11 Then on August 26th, the Licensee 12 recovered scratch plates which are a piece of 13 equipment used to record the acceleration of the 14 earthquake and that the Licensee states that it was 15 outside of the design basis. It was in excess of 5 16 Hertz. 17 And they had no positive -- At that 18 time, they had no positive root cause for the 19 negative flux rate trip of the nuclear reactor to 20 provide to the NRC. And there was no control room 21 indication with this particular seismic event.
22 They talked about the 25 casks that 23 shifted as much as four and a half inches. And the 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21Licensee stated to the NRC that there are two seals 1 inside of these spent fuel casks. And they 2 validated that the seals were intact. They affirmed 3 to the NRC during that meeting that the casks seals 4 remained intact because there were no alarms.
5 Well, that's not validation because 6 there were no alarms in the control room to give the 7 operators a heads-up about the seismic event.
8 What's to say these alarms even were operable in 9 these spent fuel casks? The NRC needs to go in 10 there and look at the surveillance testing. When 11 was the last time those alarms were tested and 12 validated prior to this earthquake event before the 13 Licensee can be allowed to rely on an alarm 14 indication to validate a seal for nuclear fuel? You 15 know, that's a pretty incredible statement by the 16 Licensee.
17 And they talked a little bit about some 18 roof panels being moved on a roof. And then the 19 Licensee -- Oh yeah. There was an anchor bolt up on 20 the roof that was apparently displaced by the 21 earthquake event. And it was on page 24 of their 22 handout I believe if I recall correctly according to 23 my notes.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22 Anyway, this anchor bolt you could see 1 it in this slide handout. It was physically ripped 2 out of the concrete slab. And there were other --
3 There was at least one other picture provided by the 4 Licensee, one other slide, which shows another 5 anchor bolt on a tank I believe where the piece of 6 concrete had been dislodged from the movement of the 7 earthquake.
8 So this calls into question whether any 9 and how many other supports within the plant and 10 specifically this nuclear safety related equipment, 11 support brackets, snubbers, piping support and other 12 hardware where the bolts are actually sheared. The 13 Licensee doesn't know about it because they just did 14 a visual inspection.
15 I request that the NRC order the 16 Licensee to do torque testing of all those -- of any 17 retaining bolts throughout the plant on all 18 equipment which is safety related for both nuclear 19 reactors. You can't just look at a bolt and say 20 it's fine because it could be very well sheared 21 beneath the surface where you can't see it. So 22 that's another issue of importance for the NRC to 23 look at. 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 They talk about a tape that was made of 1 the seismic event. It's a tape that was sent 2 offsite because it had to be converted digitally.
3 It's an analog recording and they needed to have it 4 converted to a digital signal that could be 5 evaluated to ascertain the magnitude of the 6 earthquake or the acceleration, the movement.
7 My concern here is what was the sampling 8 rate by the contractor from -- You know, you have to 9 sample an analog signal. The more you sample that 10 analog signal, the higher the sampling rate, the 11 more accurate the conversion is going to be. So if 12 it was not a sufficient sampling rate, then the 13 result supplied from the contractor to the Licensee 14 to the NRC is erroneous.
15 So there has to be some standard applied 16 to these types of conversions. And I don't know 17 what that standard is. But I would hope that the 18 NRC would look into that.
19 And again there was discussion about the 20 failure of the control room panel to alert the 21 operators of the earthquake event. There were some 22 other technical discussion with respect to CoMetrics 23 [ ]who was the contractor apparently who read 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24this tape and converted it from an analog to 1 digital. 2 Then there was a discussion about this 3 negative flux that had affected both units. So 4 again you could have a common mode significant 5 problem to both reactors tripped offline for the 6 same reason. So this is something the NRC needs to 7 look at. Was it a common mode failure? If so, why?
8 What actually caused the negative flux rate trip?
9 I'll get into that a little bit more later on.
10 We talked about the design based 11 earthquake. And then the Licensee stated that Unit 12 2 was in a refueling outage. And that Unit 1, it 13 was their intent to bring it back online. In the 14 latter part of September, I think it was September 15 22nd, the executive vice president intended to bring 16 the Unit 1 back online.
17 And his opinion was, the Licensee's 18 opinion was, that Unit 1 reactor internal did not 19 have to be inspected because the inspection of Unit 20 2 during the refueling outage would bound any damage 21 that would have been suspected on Unit 1. And 22 that's an outrageous opinion and that doesn't hold 23 any water. And that's in violation of NRC's safety 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25regulations under 10 CFR Part 50. And I'll get into 1 that a little bit more here later on.
2 Now let me just grab this. With respect 3 to the enforcement petition, the specific request 4 set forth in this petition, page three, beginning of 5 page three, the escalated enforcement action is 6 asked to be taken against the Licensee. And one of 7 the reasons is the arrogance of the Licensee of 8 wanting to restart these nuclear reactors as early 9 as September 22nd. They wanted to restart Unit 1 as 10 early as September 22nd of this year even before the 11 NRC's augmented inspection team had concluded its 12 inspection activities and without investigating and 13 testing and inspecting the internals of the nuclear 14 reactor at Unit 1. So clearly the Licensee's 15 attitude and arrogance is based on their economic 16 needs and concerns to generate revenue through 17 operation of Unit 1 rather than to protect public 18 health and safety by ensuring that there is no 19 damage to the internals of Unit 1 and to other 20 systems and components of Unit 1.
21 And the NRC needs to take into 22 consideration what the Licensee's attitude and 23 behavior is with respect to protecting public health 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26and safety by their action and their comments when 1 they speak to the NRC and affirm to them their basis 2 for wanting to restart the nuclear reactor without 3 required safety inspections under their license 4 which requires them to make these safety 5 inspections. They're willing to forego NRC safety 6 regulations under 10 CFR Part 50. The NRC should 7 just go ahead and revoke that license until the NRC 8 has reasonable assurance that those executive 9 managers have been replaced with others who think 10 otherwise and would rather comply with the NRC 11 safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 rather than 12 jeopardize public health and safety in a rush to 13 restart a nuclear reactor.
14 The civil penalty of $1 million goes 15 towards again the Licensee's attitude and arrogance 16 as to jeopardizing public health and safety for the 17 reasons I just stated and the NRC request for 18 confirmatory order requiring the Licensee to keep 19 the units into a cold shutdown. Again, I defer to 20 the Chairman, not the NRC chairman, the NRC -- Well, 21 the Petition Review Board Chairman, that's the word 22 I was looking for.
23 In early comments today, we referred to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27Appendix A I believe under the 10 CFR 50 which 1 requires NRC authorization before the Licensee can 2 restart these reactors. That would suffice to cover 3 that requirement.
4 However, within the petition, it is 5 requested that the Licensee completes an independent 6 seismic and geological evaluation of the North Anna 7 Nuclear Plant Site to ascertain the degree and 8 magnitude inclusive of acceleration consideration of 9 future earthquake events which could result in 10 destructive forces outside the safety design basis 11 of the facility as experienced by the Licensee's 12 facility during the August 23, 2011 earthquake 13 event. And that independent evaluation should look 14 at a worst case based earthquake scenario.
15 Since this was a 5.8 magnitude with a 16 significant acceleration above 5 Hertz and twice of 17 what the plant was licensed for by the NRC, it 18 stands to reason that the NRC cannot allow either 19 one of these nuclear reactors to restart until a 20 proper seismic evaluation has been done so that the 21 NRC can evaluate whether these reactors can ever 22 restart and without a significant retrofit. I mean 23 they may be able to be retrofitted with more 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28supports and heavier brackets and other replacement 1 of safety related equipment. I don't know.
2 But they certainly cannot be restarted 3 in their present condition because neither nuclear 4 reactor is licensed to operate sitting in a nuclear 5 reactor site where an earthquake of 5.8 magnitude 6 occurred and where that earthquake is twice of what 7 the NRC license allow those nuclear plants to 8 operate. 9 Third in the petition, it says the NRC -
10 - one other requirement is that the NRC approves a 11 submittal by the Licensee which upgrades the 12 Licensee's current final safety analysis report 13 and/or updated final safety analysis report to 14 incorporate the plant retrofit for Units 1 and 2 15 described in the first two items that I addressed 16 here. So their current FSAR and updated FSAR are 17 inadequate and erroneous at this point. Because 18 what you have is you have two nuclear reactors which 19 are in an unanalyzed condition at this point.
20 So those documents, the FSAR and the 21 updated FSAR, are no longer relevant to the licenses 22 issued by the NRC. And the Licensee cannot rely on 23 them to provide reasonable assurance to the NRC that 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29those nuclear reactors can be operated in a safe and 1 reliable manner to protect public health and safety.
2 Fourth, the Licensee needs to complete 3 an investigation of both Units 1 and 2 to North Anna 4 facility to determine the extent of any damage to 5 the physical plant and safety related systems and 6 components including but not limited to:
7 (1) the nuclear reactor core fuel 8 assemblies, components, structures, supports, CRDMs 9 which is control rod drive mechanisms, etc.;
10 (2) installation of three field seismic 11 instrumentation because none exists at the 12 Licensee's facilities to date; 13 (3) torque test all safety related 14 equipment, support installation and retention bolts 15 to assure that the bolts have not sheared with the 16 recent earthquake event; 17 (4) inspect all snubbers throughout the 18 entire facility to ensure that the license remains 19 intact and enable to perform the design function; 20 (5) inspection and validate all nuclear 21 steam supply piping and related piping systems 22 including the nuclear reactor hot and cold leg 23 piping on both units to validate its integrity and 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30to evaluate the seismic capability of the piping to 1 withstand an earthquake event greater than the 2 plant's current design basis and to meet any 3 enhanced plant design basis described in Items 1, 2 4 and 3 above that I recently spoke of; 5 (6) determine that digital sample rate 6 used and relied upon by metrics [ ] and 7 converting the analog tape captured the earthquake 8 event to assure that a sufficient sample rate was 9 used during the conversion process; 10 (7) hire and/or train personnel to 11 ensure that any future acceleration determination 12 can be quickly completed in-house by the Licensee 13 rather than spend critical time to have such 14 determinations made offsite; and 15 (8) ensure through an independent 16 evaluation that the measured earthquake event 17 acceleration was not skewed by the location of the 18 scratch plate in the auxiliary building of Unit 1 19 due to a shift in the soil from the earthquake 20 event. 21 Now the Licensee is required under its 22 updated final safety analysis report and its final 23 safety analysis report at Section 3.7.4.6 and by NRC 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 to ensure 1 that all safety related equipment and systems are 2 fully operational and can function within the 3 plant's safety design basis. The Licensee cannot 4 meet this requirement to date because the Licensee 5 refuses to inspect the Unit 1 nuclear reactor 6 internals. That's significant.
7 There is no leeway or exception that can 8 be made by the NRC to allow the Licensee to restart 9 Unit 1 without opening that vessel and doing the 10 required inspection. If the NRC allows the Licensee 11 to restart Unit 1 without complying with current 12 regulations that I've just delineated, then perhaps 13 this matter needs to go to Federal Court to 14 challenge the NRC's oversight of this Licensee.
15 As I spoke earlier, both units, 16 inspection of both units in their entity
[entirety]
17 is required. The Licensee admitted there was a 18 negative flux rate trip which caused both reactors 19 to trip offline. And at the recent conference 20 meeting held with the NRC which I talked about 21 earlier that I attended through the internet video, 22 they had no root cause for it at that time. They 23 hinted that there were four possible reasons, but 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 they didn't know why.
1 So the reactor internals must be 2 physically inspected for damage. A negative flux 3 rate trip most likely was caused by the movement of 4 nuclear fuel during the earthquake event. As the 5 NRC Petition Review Board members fully well know 6 the nuclear fuel rod assembly
[assemblies] are 7 strategically positioned within the core could cause 8 a nuclear reaction, nuclear fission. And during an 9 earthquake event which apparently lasted for almost 10 three minutes or more, that nuclear fuel certainly 11 moved. The retaining brackets certainly moved. And 12 the fuel rod assemblies entirely
[entirety]
surely 13 moved. Instrumentation inside that nuclear reactor 14 vessel certainly moved.
15 All those internals on both units have 16 to be inspected. CRDMs have to be inspected. They 17 are very precise pieces of equipment that are 18 electronically engaged to support the poison rod, 19 control rod, within the nuclear reactor core to 20 control the power levels of the reactor and to 21 automatically open during the reactor trip, to scram 22 the reactor, to prevent a nuclear accident.
23 But you have fuel rods that need to be 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33inspected. You have fuel rod assemblies that need 1 to be inspected. You have nuclear fuel reactor 2 supports that need to be inspected. Control rod 3 drive mechanisms that need to be inspected.
4 Instrumentation like the loose parts monitors in 5 there that need to be inspected. The reactor 6 coolant system piping needs to be inspected in its 7 entirety including snubbers, brackets and supports.
8 Units 1 and 2 are currently in an 9 unanalyzed condition. The earthquake was outside of 10 the design basis of the licenses issued to the 11 Licensee by the NRC by a factor of two. They were 12 twice the magnitude outside, twice the acceleration 13 outside, of the design basis. And because the NRC 14 issued the Licensee a license for Unit 1 and Unit 2 15 under 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC did so with the 16 assurances proffered by the Licensee at the time of 17 issuance that those plants were physically located 18 and would be operated under 10 CFR Part 50 within a 19 certain expectation of seismic activity.
20 Well, we know now that on August 23, 21 2011 an earthquake event shook the North Anna 22 nuclear reactors at twice the design basis, twice 23 outside the design basis that the NRC issued those 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34licenses for. Therefore, the plants, Units 1 and 2, 1 are in an unanalyzed condition. So the NRC -- Even 2 if the Licensee would be willing at this point to 3 inspect the internals of Unit 1 as they did Unit 2 -
4 - and I'm hoping they did. I have no certification 5 they did to date, but they made that affirmation to 6 the NRC during the meeting -- but even if they 7 would, the Licensee would, inspect Unit 1's 8 internals, that would not be sufficient for the NRC 9 to authorize the Licensee to restart either of the 10 nuclear units, either of the nuclear reactors, under 11 their current licenses because they could not meet 12 the Appendix A, Appendix 100 or Appendix A, 13 requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 to provide 14 reasonable assurance to the NRC that those nuclear 15 safety equipment will operate as designed because 16 we're operating in an unanalyzed condition.
17 The Licensee actually has to go back and 18 redesign the plant to meet an earthquake greater 19 than a 5.8 magnitude or greater than the peak of the 20 acceleration detected by those scratch plates 21 because it occurred and put the plant outside of its 22 design basis, outside of its license requirements.
23 Finally, the Licensee during the context 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35of that meeting which I subsequently watched the 1 video at least two times, nowhere during that 2 meeting, did I learn from the Licensee's comments to 3 the NRC that they made any effort at all to inspect 4 the offsite power structures and facilities 5 providing power to North Anna nuclear reactors 1 and 6 2. And that's critical.
7 And the NRC must require that because 8 you could have a station blackout event caused by 9 damage which the Licensee is currently unaware of.
10 You could have damage to the physical transmission 11 lines, the installators which separate the 12 transmission lines from the support structures. You 13 could have damage at any number of substations 14 which could cause the nuclear reactors to trip 15 through an unbalancing of the power over those 16 transmission lines. And the list goes on and on.
17 So the Licensee has to inspect the 18 entirety of its high voltage distribution lines, its 19 offsite power, before any consideration can be made 20 to restart these nuclear reactors.
21 Now I'm going to sum up here and close 22 so that the NRC has an opportunity and anyone else 23 who may be attending this meeting, public or media, 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36to ask questions. But in summation what we have 1 here is two nuclear power plants, North Anna Units 1 2 and 2, who were subjected to a significant seismic 3 event on August 23, 2011 of a duration of almost 4 three minutes when you compare the video footage of 5 the security tape from the Washington National 6 Monument which is available to the NRC. It's a 7 public document, a public video. And where that 8 seismic event was twice outside the design basis of 9 the license issued by the NRC for the operation of 10 North Anna Units 1 and 2 under 10 CFR Part 50.
11 Therefore, Units 1 and 2 are now in an 12 unanalyzed condition. And they can never be 13 restarted under the current licenses because the 14 current licenses are null and void as a result of 15 this earthquake event. And at that, I have 16 concluded. I will stay on the line to answer any 17 questions.
18 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Thank you, Mr.
19 Saporito. At this time, does the staff here in 20 Headquarters have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
21 (No verbal response.)
22 There are no questions in Headquarters.
23 Region II, do you have any questions for Mr.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37 Saporito?
1 MR. McCOY: No questions here. Region 2 II. 3 CHAIRMAN HILAND: I understood that a 4 representative or more from the Licensee is on the 5 phone. Do you have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
6 MS. EARLE: No, I don't.
7 CHAIRMAN HILAND: I didn't hear any 8 members of the public announce themselves. But at 9 this time if there are any members of the public on 10 this phone conversation, do you have any questions 11 for Mr. Saporito?
12 (No verbal response.)
13 Hearing none --
14 MS. LEMONCELLI: Mr. Saporito, this is 15 Mauri Lemoncelli from the Office of the General 16 Counsel. As long as there is no other objection, 17 would you mind if I took just a minute or two to 18 confirm with some members of the NRC staff before we 19 adjourn? 20 MR. SAPORITO: Take all the time you 21 want. 22 MS. LEMONCELLI: Just a moment, sir.
23 Thank you.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 38 (Pause.)
1 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Ms.
[Mr.] Saporito, 2 are you still on the phone? This is Pat Hiland.
3 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, sir. I'm here.
4 CHAIRMAN HILAND: The question that 5 we're mulling over early in your presentation you 6 mentioned and some concerns you had distributed or 7 you had sent to the Region II Allegation Office.
8 And as you may be aware the petition and all its 9 contents are public documents.
10 And so what I will do is I will approach 11 our team coordinator for Allegations in the Office 12 of NRR and I will ask her to coordinate with Region 13 II and this is a formality. They will have to 14 contact you and get permission from you to make that 15 document you sent them a public document.
16 And I assume you are aware of how we 17 handle incoming correspondence at alleged 18 activities. We handle it in confidence and I just 19 want to make sure
[,] as well as the people in the 20 room[,]you understood that.
21 MR. SAPORITO: Let me suggest something.
22 Why don't you just go ahead and send me an email 23 and request that document. And I'll email it to 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39 you. 1 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Certainly you can 2 enter that into the public record via this way 3 separately. And what we'll do is we'll accept your 4 email and we will enter it into the record as you've 5 requested.
6 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. I will wait for 7 your email and I'll send it right out to you.
8 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Okay. As stated at 9 the opening, the purpose of this meeting is not to 10 provide an opportunity for the Petitioner or the 11 public to question or examine the Petition Review 12 Board regarding the merits of the petition request.
13 Mr. Saporito, thank you for taking time 14 to provide the NRC staff with clarifying information 15 on the petition you've submitted.
16 Before we close, does the court reporter 17 need any additional information for the meeting 18 transcript?
19 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I need the 20 Dominion representatives to spell their last names 21 and that's it.
22 MS. EARLE: Margaret Earle, E-A-R-L-E.
23 COURT REPORTER: All right.
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 40 MR. KEMP: Page Kemp, K-E-M-P.
1 COURT REPORTER: K-E-M-P. Thank you 2 very much.
3 MR. KEMP: Correct.
4 COURT REPORTER: That's all I need.
5 CHAIRMAN HILAND: Okay. With that, this 6 meeting is concluded and we'll be terminating the 7 phone conversation. Thank you all. Off the record.
8 (Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the above-9 entitled matter was concluded.)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22