ML11243A024
| ML11243A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Orf T J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11243A026 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20110367, NRC-957, OEDO-2011-0359 | |
| Download: ML11243A024 (34) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board H.B. Robinson Plant
Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Work Order No.:
NRC-957 Pages 1-34
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 H.B. ROBINSON PLANT 7 + + + + + 8 TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 9 + + + + + 10 The conference call was held, John 11 Lubinski, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 12 presiding.
13 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 14 PETITION RE VIEW BOARD MEMBERS 15 JOHN LUBINSKI, Chairman, Petition Review Board 16 TRACY ORF, Petition Manager 17 TANYA MENSAH, PRB Coordinator 18 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 19 SEAN CURRIE, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 20 JAMES DODSON, Region 2 Division of Reactor Projects 21 DOUG BROADDUS, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 22 23 24 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 3:02 p.m. 2 MR. ORF: This is the Petition Review 3 Board meeting with Mr. Saporito on his petition for 4 the H.B. Robinson plan
- t. I would like to thank 5 everybody for attending this mee ting. 6 My name is Tracy Orf and I'm the St. Lucie 7 project manager. We are here today to allow the 8 petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito to address the 9 Petition Review Board regarding his 10 CFR 2.206 10 petition dated May 12th, 2011.
11 I am the petition manager f or the 12 petition. The Petition Review Board chairman is Mr.
13 John Lubinski. As part of the Petition Review Board 14 or PRB's review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has 15 requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
16 This meeting has been scheduled from 3
- 00 17 to -- to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting is being 18 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 19 transcribed by a court reporter.
20 The transcript will become a supplement to 21 the petition. The transcript will also be made 22 publicly available.
I'd like to open this meeting 23 with introductions. As we go around the room, please 24 be sure to clearly state your name, your position and 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 the office that you work for within the NRC, for the 1 record. 2 I'll start off. My name is Tracy Orf.
3 I'm project m anager for
-- for St. Lucie Plant, and I 4 work in the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
5 MR. CURRIE: Sean Currie. I work for the 6 Office of NRR. I'm an operator licensing examiner.
7 MR. LUBINSKI: John Lubinski. I'm 8 currently the acting director of the Division of 9 Component Integrity in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 10 Regulation.
11 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah. I'm the 2
.206 12 coordinator. I work in NRR Division of Policy and 13 Rulemaking.
14 MR. BROADDUS: Doug Broaddus. I'm the 15 branch chief and I also work in NRR.
16 MR. ORF: We've completed the 17 introductions at NRC Headquarters. At this time, are 18 there any NRC participants from headquarters on the 19 phone? Are there any NRC participants from the Region 20 on the phone?
21 MR. DODSON: From the Region, Jim Dodson, 22 senior project engineer, reactor projects branch 4 23 Region 2. 24 MR. ORF: Okay. Are there any 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 representatives from the licensee on the phone? Okay, 1 hearing none, Mr. Saporito, would you please introduce 2 yourself for the record?
3 PETITIONER SAPORI TO: Yes. This is Thomas 4 Saporito. I'm the senior consulting associate, 5 Saprodani Associates based in Jupiter, Florida.
6 MR. ORF: Okay. It is not required for 7 members of the public to introduce themselves for this 8 call. However, if there are any memb ers of the public 9 on the phone who wish to do so at this time, please 10 state your name for the record.
11 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 12 speak clearly and loudly to ensure that the court 13 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 14 you do have something that you would like to say, 15 please first state your name for the record.
16 For those dialing into the meeting please 17 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 18 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 19 a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys 20 star 6. To un
-mute, press star 6 keys again. Thank 21 you. 22 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 23 chairman. 24 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. Good 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 afternoon, this is John Lubinski, the chairman of this 1 review board. I'd l ike to welcome you to this meeting 2 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Mr.
3 Saporito.
4 I'd like to first share some background on 5 our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 6 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 7 the primary mechanism for the public to request 8 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
9 This process permits anyone to petition 10 the NRC to take enforcement
-type action related to NRC 11 licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 12 results of this
-- of this evaluation, NRC could 13 modify, suspend or revoke an NRC issued license or 14 take any other appropriate enforcement action to 15 resolve a problem.
16 The NRC's staff guidance on the 17 disposition of 2.206 petition request is in Management 18 Directive 8.11, which is publicly available. The 19 purpose of today's meeting is to give the petitioner 20 an opportunity to provide any additional explanation 21 or support for the petition before the Petition Review 22 Board's initial consideration or recommendation.
23 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 24 an opportunity for the petitioner to question or 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 examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented 1 in the petition request. No decisions regarding the 2 merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
3 Following this meeting, the 4 Petition Review Board will conduct its internal 5 deliberations. The outcomes of this internal meeting 6 will be discussed with petitioner. The Petition 7 Review Board typically consists of a chairman, usually 8 a manager at the senior executive se rvice level at the 9 NRC. 10 It has a petition manager and a Petition 11 Review Board coordinator. Other members of the board 12 are determined the NRC staff based on the content of 13 the information in the petition request.
14 At this time I would like to introduce the 15 Board. I am John Lubinski a senior executive service 16 level manager at the NRC, and I will be the Petition 17 Review Board chairman. Tracy Orf is the petition 18 manager for the petition under discussion today.
19 Tanya Mensah is the office's Petition 20 Review Board coordinator. Our technical staff 21 includes Sean Currie from the Office of Nuclear 22 Reactor Regulations Operator Licensee and Tra ining 23 branch, and James Dodson i s a senior project engineer 24 with NRC's Region 2 office, Division of Reactor 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 projects. 1 A s described in our process, the NRC staff 2 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 3 understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach 4 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject a 5 petitioner's request for review under 2.206 process.
6 I would like to summarize the scope of the 7 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 8 date. On May 12th Mr. Saporito submitted to the NRC a 9 petition under 2.206 regarding the H.B. Robinson 10 Plant. 11 In this petition request Mr. Saporito's 12 areas of concern was the risk of reactor core damage 13 during the event was high. Mr. Saporito's request 14 that the NRC suspend or revoke the operating license 15 for the H.B. Robinson Plant and issue a Notice of 16 Violation with a proposed civil penalty against the 17 licensee for the H.B. Robinson Plant.
18 Allow me to discuss the activities to 19 date. On May 25 th, the petition manager contacted 20 you, Mr. Saporito, to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 21 petition process and to offer you an opportunity to 22 address Petition Review Board by pho ne or in person.
23 You requested to address the Petition 24 Review Board by phone prior to its initial meeting 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 8 make the initial recommendation to accept or reject 1 the petition for review. As a reminder for the phone 2 participants, please identify yourself if you make any 3 remarks, as this will help us in preparation for the 4 meeting transcript that will be made publicly 5 available.
6 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 7 allow you to provide any additional information you 8 believe the Petition Review Board should consider as 9 part of this petition. Again, I remind those on the 10 phone that when not speaking, please keep your phone 11 on mute. Mr. Saporito?
12 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Good afternoon, 13 everyone. My name is Thomas Saporito, and I am the 14 senior consulting associate, saprodaniassociates.com, 15 based in Jupiter, Florida.
16 Following significant events at Progress 17 Energy H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, a licensee earlier 18 this year, Saprodani Associates, represented by, 19 through and with me, collectively the pet itioner, 20 filed an enforcement petition with the NRC on April 21 17th, 2011 seeking escalated enforcement action to be 22 taken against the licensee and its chief executive 23 officer, William D. Johnson, and that the NRC, 1, 24 suspend or revoke the NRC license grante d to 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 9 licensee for operation of the H.B. Robinson Nuclear 1 Plant. 2 And 2, that the NRC issue a Notice of 3 Violation with a proposed civil penalty against the 4 licensee. Now, before I continue with the specifics 5 here, I have to say for this record, my abs olute shock 6 that the licensee is not represented at this public 7 meeting today.
8 It is a showing, in my opinion, of the 9 rank disregard for the
-- for public health and safety 10 in these circumstances w h ere such significant 11 violation of NRC safety federal reg ulation and safety 12 standard at the H.D. Robinson Plant has unfolded, and 13 -- and they're not
-- they're not here attending this 14 meeting in any manner, shape or form to any 15 representative to learn what additional information 16 from this important meeting could be obtained from 17 myself and from other participants at this meeting.
18 That information could be invaluable to 19 the licensee to further enhance and correct the 20 deficiencies which will be discussed today. The NRC 21 should consider the licensee's failure to a ttend this 22 meeting to be consistent with the poor performance 23 that has been demonstrated at the H.B. Robinson Plant 24 over the years, which has prompted the NRC to take and 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 place the Robinson Nuclear Plant on a list of those 1 which are highly monitored by the NRC, and those that 2 are a hand full of worse operated nuclear plants in 3 the United States.
4 For these reasons, it would stand the 5 reason that the licensee would make a best effort to 6 be represented at this meeting, and they are not 7 represented here today. I sincerely feel sorry for 8 those public citizens living near and around the H.B.
9 Nuclear Plant where the licensee has demonstrated 10 today, by its absence from this public meeting a rank 11 disregard for the public health and safety.
12 Continuing on, specifically, on March 13 28th, 2010, a chain of significant events unfolded at 14 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant which endangered 15 public health and safety as followed: an electrical 16 cable shorted and started a fire at the nuclear plant.
17 A circuit breaker designed to 18 automatically open and the energized power to the 19 shorted electrical cable failed allowing electric 20 current to flow through the short circuited electric 21 cable to ground resulting in reduced voltage in the 22 circuit. 23 The subject electrical circuit, which 24 normally supplies electrical power to a circulating 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 water pump to cool the reactor core, experienced a 1 drop in power causing the pump's output to decrease 2 which caused the nuclear reactor to trip or scram.
3 The electrical problems damaged the main 4 powe r transformer between the nuclear plant and the 5 associated electrical grid resulting in the loss of 6 electrical power to about one half of the nuclear 7 plant's equipment.
8 The loss of electrical power caused valves 9 on drain lines to remain open, allowing he at to escape 10 from the nuclear reactor more rapidly than normal.
11 However, the plant licensed operators failed to notice 12 the open drain valves or abnormally fast cool down of 13 the nuclear reactor.
14 For nearly an hour licensed plant 15 operators failed to not ice that pumps transferring 16 water from a tank to the nuclear reactor vessel failed 17 to automatically realign. Four hours into the event, 18 license plant operators improperly and in violation of 19 station procedures attempted to restore power to the 20 de-energize d electric circuit without first ensuring 21 that the original fault had been repaired, which it 22 had not. 23 Consequently, when licensed plant 24 operators improperly closed the electrical breaker 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 12 re-power the circuit, electrical power was once again 1 applied to the original short circuited electrical 2 cable which started another fire at the nuclear plant.
3 The electric
-- electrical disturbance 4 triggered alarms on both sets of station batteries, 5 prompting a licensee to declare an emergency alert.
6 On January 31 st, 2011, the NRC issued a Notice of 7 Violation to the licensee for two violations 8 associated with two such significant determination 9 process findings, specifically, on March 28th, 2010, 10 following a reactor trip, the licensee, 1, failed to 11 take required pr ocedural action to stop an 12 uncontrolled cool down that resulted in a safety 13 injection.
14 2, failed to identify a loss of component 15 cooling water flow to the thermal barrier hea t 16 exchangers, coincident with failure to identify a loss 17 of charging pump suction that resulted in inadequate 18 seal injection flow.
19 3, re-energized ele ctrically faulted 20 equipment, that damage d surrounding equipment and 21 resulted in electrical ground alarm, which required an 22 alert emergency declaration. In addition, the NRC 23 found that prior to March 28th, 2010, the licensee's 24 training lesson material failed to identify the basis 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 of the procedural actions involving reactor coolant 1 pump, seal cooling as required by systems approach to 2 training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4.
3 Petitioner asserts here that the 4 licensee's actions at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant 5 endangered public health and safety from the 6 consequences of a serious nuclear accident similar to 7 the ongoing nuclear disaster unfolding in the country 8 of Japan, and that the NRC must take meaningful 9 escalated enforcement action against the licensee 10 beyond the agency's January 21st, 2011 escalated 11 enforcement action to protect public health and safety 12 in these circumstances.
13 Petitioners request, 1, that the NRC 14 suspend or revoke the NRC licenses issued to the 15 licensee authorizing operation of the H.B. Robinson 16 Nuclear Plant for a one year period of time to provide 17 the licensee with sufficient opportunity to address 18 and to correct needed areas of improvement at the 19 nuclear plant, and 2 , that the NRC issue a Notice of 20 Violation with a civil penalty in the amount of 21 $500,000 against the licensee to make certain that the 22 licensee realizes the very serious nature of the 23 violation and the endangerment to public health and 24 safety, and to ensu re that a recurren ce of these types 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 of violations is prevented.
1 Background, the petitioner contends that 2 the NRC has failed in its congressional mandate to 3 protect public health and safety in these 4 circumstances where the agency was apparently 5 complacent in its duty and allowed the licensee
's 6 operations at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant to 7 seriously degrade over years of operation to such an 8 extent that could cause a serious sequence of events, 9 stated earlier, and which formed the basis of the 10 agency's N otice of Violation issued to the licensee.
11 Notably, on May 16th, 1996, the NRC issued 12 a Notice of Violation, severity level 3, to the 13 licensee for failure to secure Safeguards Information 14 at H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
15 On December 12th, 1997, the NRC issued a 16 Notice of Violation, severity level 3, with a $55,000 17 civil penalty to the licensee for the inoperability of 18 the Emergency Diesel Generator at the H.B. Robinson 19 Nuclear Plant.
20 On March 4th, 1998, the NRC issued a 21 Notice of Violation, severity level 3, to the licensee 22 for safety injection pumps outside design basis due to 23 NPSH at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
24 On April 7th, 2004, the NRC issued a 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 Notice of Violation, severity level 2, with an $88,000 1 civil penalty for discriminating agains t the former 2 corporate superintendent of Site Access Authorization 3 for raising safety concern at the H.B. Robinson 4 Nuclear Plant.
5 On December 7th, 2010, the NRC issued a 6 Notice of Violation for failure to identify and 7 correct on a problem associated with the B Emergency 8 Diesel Generator output breaker in 2008. And again, 9 in 2009 a similar malfunction caused the Emergency 10 Diesel Generator to be declared inoperable for a 11 period greater than technical specification.
12 In addition, the NRC issued a Notice of 13 Violation, severity level 3, for submitting materially 14 inaccurate information which stated that the breaker 15 was tested in accordance with a maintenance procedure.
16 And the licensee had not conducted full testing in 17 accord with the procedure.
18 Discussion; as stated immediately earlier 19 here, there's a gap in the NRC enforcement action, 20 from April 7th, 20, excuse me, from April 7th, 2004 to 21 December 7th, 2010, approximately six year gap.
22 In addition to this here, that is 23 significant. What happened to the NRC's oversight of 24 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant during that six 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 year period of time, from April 7th, 2004 to December 1 7th, 2010?
2 It is -- it is not reasonable to believe 3 by reasonably minded individual or any American 4 citizen that the United Sta tes government regulator 5 and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 in a period of six years, did not c ite the licensee, 7 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant for a single 8 violation in that entire period of time.
9 It's -- it's incredible. And
-- and I 10 contend that it
-- that it's impossible. It's only 11 possible -- it's impossible if the regulator was doing 12 its job. It's impossible if the NRC was complacent 13 and negligent and if congressional mandate could 14 protect public health and safety in the oversight at 15 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
16 For this reason alone petitioners demand 17 that the NRC Petition Review Board provide a copy of 18 these record transcripts made this date to the NRC, 19 Office of the Inspector General to enable that agency 20 the ability to make a determination whether the NRC 21 should be investigated for its lack of proper 22 oversight during the six year gap from April 7th, 2004 23 to December 7th, 2010 in connection with operation at 24 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
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 I bring to the attention of the Petition 1 Review Board a n article dated June 4th, 2011 2 apparently posted on the state of South Carolina's 3 homepage on the internet. Just a highlight to this 4 article, talks about a statement made by the NRC 5 chairman, Gregory Jaczko, J
-A-C-Z-K-O. 6 He is quoted as saying, "There have 7 already been changes as a result of the things that we 8 found. What the inspection is really doing is trying 9 to determine whether those changes are appropriate and 10 whether they satisfy and address what really a re the 11 ultimate underlying problems or underlying issues" 12 The chairman's talking about the H.B.
13 Robinson plant and the significant events which I have 14 just outlined to the Petition Review Board today.
15 Article also says states here that Progress Energy 16 officials don't dispute the problem in Har t sville, but 17 say they are revisiting hundreds of written procedures 18 and redoubling efforts to train staff members.
19 I mean, that statement alone from the 20 licensee should raise red flags with the Petition 21 Review Board. When the licensee is
-- has to go back 22 and revisit hundreds, hundreds of written station 23 procedures, which the licensed nuclear operators rely 24 upon in the operation of that nuclear power plant, 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 when -- when that nuclear power plant has been 1 operating for years.
2 It was issued a license by the NRC, July 3 31st, 1970. 1970. And
-- and now, what, 40 years 4 later -- 40 years later the licensee is now going to 5 revisit all these procedures which they have been 6 relying on to allegedly be operating this nuclea r 7 plant within NRC requirements under 10 CFR Part
- 50. 8 There's something very, very, very 9 troubling going on at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, 10 which the NRC Petition Review Board should 11 investigate. The, excuse me for one second while I 12 grab another pa per here. All right. There is a 13 correlation here to be drawn upon which I would like 14 to bring to the Petition Review Board's attention.
15 And that is this, everyone is fully aware 16 of the ongoing nuclear crisis resulting from an 17 earthquake and tsunami which damaged several nuclear 18 reactors at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 19 Facility. 20 Currently the licensee finally has 21 admitted that at least three reactors , suspect there 22 were four, nuclear reactors in a full meltdown 23 scenario this time. High level s of radiation were 24 spewed into the environment through the air and 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 through the ground water and over the land.
1 Now there are
-- there are then monitoring 2 and detection efforts which have shown cesium, 3 plutonium, radioactive iodine and other radioactive 4 materials that there spewed well outside the protected 5 area of the plant, well outside the evacuation zone of 6 the plant.
7 Have displaced tens of thousands of 8 people. 9 (Telephonic interference) 10 MR. SAPORITO: Am I still on the line here?
11 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Mr. Saporito, you're 12 still on the line. We're not sure what that was. But 13 I will ask, has anyone else joined the phone call?
14 OPERATOR: This is headquarters operation, 15 sir. I was just putting a recorder in the bridge.
16 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: A rec order for 17 recording the call?
18 OPERATOR: That is correct.
19 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay, thank you. I 20 appreciate that clarification. Sorry for that 21 interruption, Mr. Saporito.
22 MR. SAPORITO: Okay, thank you. Now, the 23 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the inv estigation is still 24 going on and to analyze all the consequences why that 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 event occurred. And only history will bear the fruit 1 of those investigations.
2 However, it can be said for certain that 3 the GE Mark I nuclear reactors that failed over there 4 failed because -- in part because they were poorly 5 designed. They should have never been licensed by the 6 Atomic Energy Commission in the United States and or 7 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 8 first place, because they were known to be defec tive 9 designs. 10 However, they were installed, and they 11 were operated. We had an earthquake. Tsunami came 12 in, took out the emergency diesel generators because 13 they were located below the reactor vessels out in a 14 basement, and without decay heat removal fr om a 15 nuclear reactor, we all know that the nuclear fuel 16 melt s and results in a reactor fue l melt down of a 17 nuclear reactor core where the fuel melt s through the 18 bottom of the reactor vessel and through the 19 containment and into the environment.
20 And that's what's happening right now with 21 at least three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Power 22 Plant. The same type of reactors are over here.
23 There's 23 here in the United States. But the point 24 to be made here is whatever the root cause or causes 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 ultimately are identified with resolve to the Japanese 1 ongoing nuclear disaster.
2 The initiating event was an earthquake and 3 followed by a tsunami. But history tells us very 4 clearly that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, 5 which happened in the United States and prior to that 6 the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which happened in
-- 7 in Russia.
8 Those two nuclear reactions were 9 significant. They were severe, and they released 10 radiation into the environment, an d advers ely a ffect s 11 th e public health and safety in very si gnificant ways.
12 However, those two nuclear reactors at Chernobyl and 13 the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident were a result 14 of human error.
15 Human error caused those
-- those 16 accidents, not an act of God. And that goes hand in 17 hand with the events I've de scribed today and the 18 events that are described in
-- in the petition and 19 the calamity of human error and
-- and resulting 20 events, serious events, at H.B. Robinson Nuclear 21 Plant, which could very well likely resulted in a 22 complete meltdown, the nuclear rea ctor core at the 23 H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
24 There would have been an uncontrolled 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 nuclear meltdown, and there would have been, most 1 likely, a hydrogen explosion, a breach of containment 2 and release of high level radioactive particulate, 3 which would e ndanger public health and safety to a 4 very, very great degree.
5 Now, the other
-- other area of concern I 6 want to bring to the light of the Petition Review 7 Board's attention today the scram of that
-- that was 8 initiating event at the H.B. Robinson Plant, which is 9 the subject matter of the
-- of the instant petition.
10 The scram event or the event where the 11 reactor trips off
-line either automatically or 12 manually intended reactor trip, that causes a 13 tremendous amount of stress to the entire nuclear 14 reactor s ystem and equipment.
15 The reactor vessel itself is
-- is made in 16 part of stainless steel and other metals. And that 17 metal becomes embrittled over years and years of being 18 bombarded by high level nuclear radiation. Radiation 19 is produced during a fissio n process.
20 A lpha particles, b eta particles, gamma 21 particles, et cetera. Over time
-- now, I -- I talked 22 earlier, this plant was licensed in 1970. And here we 23 are in 2011. So that reactor's operating at the end 24 of its safety design basis.
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 And it mo st likely should be 1 decommissioned and not operating, in our opinion.
2 Nonetheless, it's operating, and it is reasonable to 3 believe that the reactor vessel is embrittled, and to 4 some degree. To what degree, that would have to be 5 ascertained by destructive testing. 6 Because the reactor vessel's embrittled, 7 every time the reactor is scrammed that reactor vessel 8 is stressed, and all the nuclear support systems are 9 stressed. If that reactor vessel cracks, you're going 10 to have a reactor full meltdown of the n uclear reactor 11 core. 12 There is nothing on this planet that will 13 stop it, because the water inventory inside that 14 nuclear reactor vessel will spew out of that crack and 15 it causes the
-- the metals embrittle. They could 16 actually have a huge crack or even s hatter to a large 17 extent. 18 The reactors over there in Fukushima, the 19 licensee recently admitted that those three reactors 20 began into a full meltdown within an hour of the 21 earthquake and tsunami. Within hours. We talked 22 earlier about events that happened at H.B. Robinson 23 plant where the operators failed to take action in
-- 24 in over an hour, in which case, four hours into 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 24 event, we talked about.
1 There appears to be a lack of adequate 2 training on system functionality and repair activities 3 at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant. There 4 appears to be a lack of proper supervisory oversight 5 during repair activities at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear 6 Plant. 7 There's obviously a failure to follow 8 plant procedures at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power 9 Plant. There appears to be a lack of adequate 10 functional and reliable plant operating procedures at 11 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
12 I talked earlier about the news article 13 which talks about the licensee revisiting hundreds of 14 written procedures. There also a ppear to be a lack of 15 management leadership to enhance quality at the H.B.
16 Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
17 For all these reasons and more the NRC 18 should suspend the operating license for the H.B.
19 Robinson Nuclear Plant to provide the licensee with 20 sufficient opportunity to, 1, correct the numerous 21 deficiencies at the plant.
22 2, review and correct plant procedures.
23 3, to retrain plant operators, 4, to retrain plant 24 workers, and 5, to retrain plant supervisory 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 personnel. It is incumbent upon the NRC, and in fact, 1 it is mandated by the United States Congress that the 2 NRC act in a meaningful and timely manner to protect 3 public health and safety in connection with operation, 4 the nuclear reactor operating at the H.B. Robinson 5 Nuclear Power Plant.
6 In our opinion, the only way the NRC can 7 adequately and sufficiently and affirmatively and 8 definitively protect public health and safety in these 9 circumstances, and in light of the history of numerous 10 severity level 3 violation s at the H.B. Robinson 11 Nuclear Power Pl ant, and in one instance where the 12 licensee discriminated against a manager for raising 13 nuclear safety concern.
14 It is reasonable that the NRC must take 15 escalated enforcement action and suspension of the 16 licensee license to operate the H.B. Robinson Nucle ar 17 Power Plant for the period of time that we mentioned 18 earlier to allow the licensee the opportunity to step 19 -- take a step back and assess the entire operations 20 at the plant.
21 I'm talking about the operator's 22 qualification, retesting the license operato rs, 23 retesting the maintenance technicians, maintenance 24 personnel, the supervisory personnel, managers. Have 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 an independent evaluation of a
-- of the working 1 culture and the work environment at that nuclear power 2 plant. 3 It's obviously underlying issues the 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Chairman, Jaczko, 5 mentioned him as I described earlier in that news 6 article. These underlying issues have to be surfaced 7 by the NRC. And
-- and it can't be done while the 8 licensee is operating the H.B. Robinson Nuclea r Power 9 Plant. 10 While that nuclear reactor is under power, 11 the licensee's focus will be primarily to maintain its 12 economic interests in keeping that nuclear plant on 13 line. And the second nature will be to try to appease 14 the NRC by doing this and doing th at. 15 The public demands more than that from the 16 NRC, you know. We've seen the explosion offshore of 17 the coast of New Orleans, an oil rig, because the 18 government regulator who was in charge of overseeing 19 safety at that oil rig was negligent on his job.
20 They were rubber
-stamping drilling 21 applications left and right, and, you know, numerous 22 people died because of them. Environment was 23 polluted. It's going to be polluted for years to 24 come. It still has not been determined the extent 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 damage from that
. 1 Here we're talking about a nuclear power 2 plant. Now, you know, I live in the state of Florida, 3 and I have children here and
-- and family and friends 4 and a home.
5 And I don't want to be having to evacuate 6 here because something happened at the H.B.
Robinson 7 Nuclear Plant where that plant explodes and spews high 8 level radioactive contamination to the environment, 9 which the prevailing winds could carry across the 10 entire state of Florida, just like what happened over 11 there in Fukushima, what happened o ver there in 12 Chernobyl, and what almost happened at Three Mile 13 Island, nonetheless, there was a venting of nuclear 14 reactor particulate by the licensed operator at Three 15 Mile Island.
16 So it's the NRC that must act now. This these slap on the wrists tha t the NRC has been 18 issuing over the years to this H.B. Robinson Nuclear 19 Plant is not enough. It's not nearly enough. There you need to have licensing action.
21 I -- I went through records and records 22 and records of the NRC document. I can't find a 23 single instance, not one instance where the NRC has 24 suspended or revoked a commercial nuclear plant 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 28 operating license for any reason.
1 I mean, recently there was a red finding 2 by the NRC related to
-- in connection with another 3 nuclear power plant. But the NRC didn't suspend the 4 license, even with a red finding. What
-- what is it 5 going to take? Is it going to take deaths? Do people 6 have to die?
7 Hundreds, millions of people have to be 8 evacuated? Does the National Security and Common 9 Defense of the United States of America have to be 10 threatened from a nuclear explosion or event before 11 the NRC suspends a nuclear operating license for a 12 licensee under its jurisdiction?
13 That concludes my comments today, and I
-- 14 I will stay on the line to respond to any questions 15 form anybody that's participating at this meeting 16 today. Thank you very much.
17 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you, Mr.
18 Saporito. I appreciate the additional information you 19 provided. And at this time I also appreciate you 20 staying on the line to answer any questions we may 21 have clarifying your request.
22 We're going to start with the NRC staff 23 here at headquarters. Does anyone here at 24 headquarters have any clarifying questions for Mr.
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 29 Saporito? Tanya Mensah?
1 MS. MENSAH: Yes, Mr. Saporito, t his is 2 Tanya Mensah. Just had a clarification. On page 4 of 3 your petition, item 9, you mentioned the UCS report.
4 Do you have a title for that or a date? I just wanted 5 to make sure we had a reference?
6 MR. SAPORITO: On
-- I'm on page 4. What 7 is the q uestion? 8 MS. MENSAH: You say the above scenario of 9 events were gleaned by a petitioner from a report 10 issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. But you 11 didn't reference
-- 12 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
13 MS. MENSAH: I just wanted to know if you 14 have the rep ort titled or the date.
15 MR. SAPORITO: Oh. I got that from their 16 website. I'm sure it's still posted there. They 17 leave that stuff up there forever.
18 MS. MENSAH: Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay. I appreciate 20 that. Anything else, Tanya?
21 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: I have one question 22 and -- and one comment for you, Mr. Saporito. A 23 question early in your discussion when you were going 24 through your request for enforcement action, you had 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 30 stated, I believe, and I'm trying to clarify here, 1 that you thought w e should take action against the 2 CEO. 3 And when you went continued to go forward 4 and explain the specific enforcement action you 5 described your request for suspension of the license 6 for one year and the issuance of a civil penalty in 7 the amount of $500,00 0 to the licensee.
8 Can you clarify whether or not you're also 9 requesting that we take specific action against the 10 CEO, and if so, the basis for that?
11 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Yes. The CEO
-- the 12 request for enforcement action
-- escalating 13 enforcement a ction against the CEO, Mr. Johnson, is 14 included in my definition of licensee. I'm very 15 certain, and the record will
-- will affirm what I'm 16 saying here, that when I identify the licensee I 17 included Mr. Johnson's name in that definition.
18 And just to clarify the record, the 19 licensee in these circumstances is
-- as shown on the 20 petition itself is Progress Energy, William D. Johnson 21 and the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant. And when 22 I'm seeking escalated enforcement action I'm seeking 23 escalated enforcement action from the NRC against the 24 licensee in the context of those three entities, 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 31 Progress Energy, William D. Johnson, H.B. Robinson 1 Nuclear Plant.
2 With respect and specifically in 3 connection with an enforcement action requested 4 against William D. John son, he -- he should be issued 5 -- an individual notice of violation should be issued 6 to him as a person in his position of authority at the 7 nuclear power plant, overseeing operations of that 8 nuclear power plant under his authority.
9 And -- and the -- ther e should be a 10 monetary fine assessed against him as an individual in 11 that -- in that position. And
-- and we should
-- we 12 also request that he be suspended from participating 13 in NRC licensed activities for a period of no less 14 than five years as a result w ith his failures in 15 connection with the material violations described 16 today and in our petition.
17 The other basis for taking enforcement 18 action against William D. Johnson is delineated 19 specifically in an August 10th, 2010 speech given by 20 the NRC chairman, Gregory Jaczko in which the chairman 21 specifically speaks about the responsibility of the 22 chief executive officer and the Board of Directors for 23 the licensees of the NRC, which Progress Energy 24 certainly is a licensee of the NRC.
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 32 And since Mr. Johnson rep orts to the Board 1 of Directors to Progress Energy those
-- those -- the 2 application of Chairman Jaczko's requirements and 3 expectations are captured in the August 10th, 2010 4 speech. The speech can be found on the NRC's website.
5 A copy of that.
6 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. I 7 appreciate that clarification. Also during your 8 additional information, you stated that the, I 9 believe, your words you used, you demanded that the 10 transcript of this Petition Review Board meeting be 11 forwarded to our Office of the Inspector General.
12 And I just wanted to comment back that we 13 will, based on what you have provided during this 14 call, provide that information to the Office of the 15 Inspector General.
16 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: No other questions 18 here at headquarters. We're going to go to the NRC 19 staff in the Regions. I believe we only have Mr.
20 Dodson on the phone. Mr. Dodson, do you have any 21 questions for Mr. Saporito?
22 MR. DODSON: No, sir. Not at this time.
23 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay. Now, at this 24 time, before I conclude the meeting members 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 33 public may provide comments regarding the petition and 1 ask questions about the 2.206 petition. However, as I 2 stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting is 3 not to provide an opportunity to petition or the 4 public to question or examine the Petition Review 5 Board regarding the merits of the petition request.
6 There was no one who identified themselves 7 at the beginning of the meeting, but that was not 8 required. So at this time I'd ask if ther e are any 9 members of the public who would like to provide any 10 comments or ask questions about the petition process.
11 Hearing none, I assume that there are 12 either no members of the public on the line or none 13 chose to have any questions. So at this time, M
- r. 14 Saporito, I would like to thank you for taking the 15 time to provide the NRC staff, specifically, this 16 Petition Review Board, with clarifying information on 17 your petition.
18 Before we close, does the court reporter 19 need any additional information for the meeting 20 transcript?
21 COURT REPORTER: I believe I'm all right.
22 Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. With that, 24 this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating 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 34 the phone connection. Thank you all very much.
1 (Whereupon, the meeting was ad journed at 2 3:49 p.m.)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24