ML11243A024
| ML11243A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Orf T | |
| 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
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 RE 7 H.B. ROBINSON PLANT 8 + + + + +
9 TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011 10 + + + + +
11 The conference call was held, John 12 Lubinski, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13 presiding.
14 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 15 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 16 JOHN LUBINSKI, Chairman, Petition Review Board 17 TRACY ORF, Petition Manager 18 TANYA MENSAH, PRB Coordinator 19 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 20 SEAN CURRIE, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 21 JAMES DODSON, Region 2 Division of Reactor Projects 22 DOUG BROADDUS, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 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 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3:02 p.m.
3 MR. ORF: This is the Petition Review 4 Board meeting with Mr. Saporito on his petition for 5 the H.B. Robinson plant. I would like to thank 6 everybody for attending this meeting.
7 My name is Tracy Orf and I'm the St. Lucie 8 project manager. We are here today to allow the 9 petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito to address the 10 Petition Review Board regarding his 10 CFR 2.206 11 petition dated May 12th, 2011.
12 I am the petition manager for the 13 petition. The Petition Review Board chairman is Mr.
14 John Lubinski. As part of the Petition Review Board 15 or PRB's review of this petition, Thomas Saporito has 16 requested this opportunity to address the PRB.
17 This meeting has been scheduled from 3:00 18 to -- to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting is being 19 recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be 20 transcribed by a court reporter.
21 The transcript will become a supplement to 22 the petition. The transcript will also be made 23 publicly available. I'd like to open this meeting 24 with introductions. As we go around the room, please 25 be sure to clearly state your name, your position and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 the office that you work for within the NRC, for the 2 record.
3 I'll start off. My name is Tracy Orf.
4 I'm project manager for -- for St. Lucie Plant, and I 5 work in the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
6 MR. CURRIE: Sean Currie. I work for the 7 Office of NRR. I'm an operator licensing examiner.
8 MR. LUBINSKI: John Lubinski. I'm 9 currently the acting director of the Division of 10 Component Integrity in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 11 Regulation.
12 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah. I'm the 2.206 13 coordinator. I work in NRR Division of Policy and 14 Rulemaking.
15 MR. BROADDUS: Doug Broaddus. I'm the 16 branch chief and I also work in NRR.
17 MR. ORF: We've completed the 18 introductions at NRC Headquarters. At this time, are 19 there any NRC participants from headquarters on the 20 phone? Are there any NRC participants from the Region 21 on the phone?
22 MR. DODSON: From the Region, Jim Dodson, 23 senior project engineer, reactor projects branch 4 24 Region 2.
25 MR. ORF: Okay. Are there any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 representatives from the licensee on the phone? Okay, 2 hearing none, Mr. Saporito, would you please introduce 3 yourself for the record?
4 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Yes. This is Thomas 5 Saporito. I'm the senior consulting associate, 6 Saprodani Associates based in Jupiter, Florida.
7 MR. ORF: Okay. It is not required for 8 members of the public to introduce themselves for this 9 call. However, if there are any members of the public 10 on the phone who wish to do so at this time, please 11 state your name for the record.
12 I'd like to emphasize that we each need to 13 speak clearly and loudly to ensure that the court 14 reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. If 15 you do have something that you would like to say, 16 please first state your name for the record.
17 For those dialing into the meeting please 18 remember to mute your phones to minimize any 19 background noise or distractions. If you do not have 20 a mute button, this can be done by pressing the keys 21 star 6. To un-mute, press star 6 keys again. Thank 22 you.
23 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 24 chairman.
25 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. Good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 afternoon, this is John Lubinski, the chairman of this 2 review board. I'd like to welcome you to this meeting 3 regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Mr.
4 Saporito.
5 I'd like to first share some background on 6 our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 7 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 8 the primary mechanism for the public to request 9 enforcement action by the NRC in a public process.
10 This process permits anyone to petition 11 the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 12 licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the 13 results of this -- of this evaluation, NRC could 14 modify, suspend or revoke an NRC issued license or 15 take any other appropriate enforcement action to 16 resolve a problem.
17 The NRC's staff guidance on the 18 disposition of 2.206 petition request is in Management 19 Directive 8.11, which is publicly available. The 20 purpose of today's meeting is to give the petitioner 21 an opportunity to provide any additional explanation 22 or support for the petition before the Petition Review 23 Board's initial consideration or recommendation.
24 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it 25 an opportunity for the petitioner to question or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 examine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented 2 in the petition request. No decisions regarding the 3 merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.
4 Following this meeting, the 5 Petition Review Board will conduct its internal 6 deliberations. The outcomes of this internal meeting 7 will be discussed with petitioner. The Petition 8 Review Board typically consists of a chairman, usually 9 a manager at the senior executive service level at the 10 NRC.
11 It has a petition manager and a Petition 12 Review Board coordinator. Other members of the board 13 are determined the NRC staff based on the content of 14 the information in the petition request.
15 At this time I would like to introduce the 16 Board. I am John Lubinski a senior executive service 17 level manager at the NRC, and I will be the Petition 18 Review Board chairman. Tracy Orf is the petition 19 manager for the petition under discussion today.
20 Tanya Mensah is the office's Petition 21 Review Board coordinator. Our technical staff 22 includes Sean Currie from the Office of Nuclear 23 Reactor Regulations Operator Licensee and Training 24 branch, and James Dodson is a senior project engineer 25 with NRC's Region 2 office, Division of Reactor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 projects.
2 As described in our process, the NRC staff 3 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 4 understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach 5 a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject a 6 petitioner's request for review under 2.206 process.
7 I would like to summarize the scope of the 8 petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 9 date. On May 12th Mr. Saporito submitted to the NRC a 10 petition under 2.206 regarding the H.B. Robinson 11 Plant.
12 In this petition request Mr. Saporito's 13 areas of concern was the risk of reactor core damage 14 during the event was high. Mr. Saporito's request 15 that the NRC suspend or revoke the operating license 16 for the H.B. Robinson Plant and issue a Notice of 17 Violation with a proposed civil penalty against the 18 licensee for the H.B. Robinson Plant.
19 Allow me to discuss the activities to 20 date. On May 25 , the petition manager contacted th 21 you, Mr. Saporito, to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 22 petition process and to offer you an opportunity to 23 address Petition Review Board by phone or in person.
24 You requested to address the Petition 25 Review Board by phone prior to its initial meeting to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 make the initial recommendation to accept or reject 2 the petition for review. As a reminder for the phone 3 participants, please identify yourself if you make any 4 remarks, as this will help us in preparation for the 5 meeting transcript that will be made publicly 6 available.
7 Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it over to you to 8 allow you to provide any additional information you 9 believe the Petition Review Board should consider as 10 part of this petition. Again, I remind those on the 11 phone that when not speaking, please keep your phone 12 on mute. Mr. Saporito?
13 PETITIONER SAPORITO: Good afternoon, 14 everyone. My name is Thomas Saporito, and I am the 15 senior consulting associate, saprodaniassociates.com, 16 based in Jupiter, Florida.
17 Following significant events at Progress 18 Energy H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, a licensee earlier 19 this year, Saprodani Associates, represented by, 20 through and with me, collectively the petitioner, 21 filed an enforcement petition with the NRC on April 22 17th, 2011 seeking escalated enforcement action to be 23 taken against the licensee and its chief executive 24 officer, William D. Johnson, and that the NRC, 1, 25 suspend or revoke the NRC license granted to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 licensee for operation of the H.B. Robinson Nuclear 2 Plant.
3 And 2, that the NRC issue a Notice of 4 Violation with a proposed civil penalty against the 5 licensee. Now, before I continue with the specifics 6 here, I have to say for this record, my absolute shock 7 that the licensee is not represented at this public 8 meeting today.
9 It is a showing, in my opinion, of the 10 rank disregard for the -- for public health and safety 11 in these circumstances where such significant 12 violation of NRC safety federal regulation and safety 13 standard at the H.D. Robinson Plant has unfolded, and 14 -- and they're not -- they're not here attending this 15 meeting in any manner, shape or form to any 16 representative to learn what additional information 17 from this important meeting could be obtained from 18 myself and from other participants at this meeting.
19 That information could be invaluable to 20 the licensee to further enhance and correct the 21 deficiencies which will be discussed today. The NRC 22 should consider the licensee's failure to attend this 23 meeting to be consistent with the poor performance 24 that has been demonstrated at the H.B. Robinson Plant 25 over the years, which has prompted the NRC to take and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 place the Robinson Nuclear Plant on a list of those 2 which are highly monitored by the NRC, and those that 3 are a hand full of worse operated nuclear plants in 4 the United States.
5 For these reasons, it would stand the 6 reason that the licensee would make a best effort to 7 be represented at this meeting, and they are not 8 represented here today. I sincerely feel sorry for 9 those public citizens living near and around the H.B.
10 Nuclear Plant where the licensee has demonstrated 11 today, by its absence from this public meeting a rank 12 disregard for the public health and safety.
13 Continuing on, specifically, on March 14 28th, 2010, a chain of significant events unfolded at 15 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant which endangered 16 public health and safety as followed: an electrical 17 cable shorted and started a fire at the nuclear plant.
18 A circuit breaker designed to 19 automatically open and the energized power to the 20 shorted electrical cable failed allowing electric 21 current to flow through the short circuited electric 22 cable to ground resulting in reduced voltage in the 23 circuit.
24 The subject electrical circuit, which 25 normally supplies electrical power to a circulating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 water pump to cool the reactor core, experienced a 2 drop in power causing the pump's output to decrease 3 which caused the nuclear reactor to trip or scram.
4 The electrical problems damaged the main 5 power transformer between the nuclear plant and the 6 associated electrical grid resulting in the loss of 7 electrical power to about one half of the nuclear 8 plant's equipment.
9 The loss of electrical power caused valves 10 on drain lines to remain open, allowing heat to escape 11 from the nuclear reactor more rapidly than normal.
12 However, the plant licensed operators failed to notice 13 the open drain valves or abnormally fast cool down of 14 the nuclear reactor.
15 For nearly an hour licensed plant 16 operators failed to notice that pumps transferring 17 water from a tank to the nuclear reactor vessel failed 18 to automatically realign. Four hours into the event, 19 license plant operators improperly and in violation of 20 station procedures attempted to restore power to the 21 de-energized electric circuit without first ensuring 22 that the original fault had been repaired, which it 23 had not.
24 Consequently, when licensed plant 25 operators improperly closed the electrical breaker to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 re-power the circuit, electrical power was once again 2 applied to the original short circuited electrical 3 cable which started another fire at the nuclear plant.
4 The electric -- electrical disturbance 5 triggered alarms on both sets of station batteries, 6 prompting a licensee to declare an emergency alert.
7 On January 31st, 2011, the NRC issued a Notice of 8 Violation to the licensee for two violations 9 associated with two such significant determination 10 process findings, specifically, on March 28th, 2010, 11 following a reactor trip, the licensee, 1, failed to 12 take required procedural action to stop an 13 uncontrolled cool down that resulted in a safety 14 injection.
15 2, failed to identify a loss of component 16 cooling water flow to the thermal barrier heat 17 exchangers, coincident with failure to identify a loss 18 of charging pump suction that resulted in inadequate 19 seal injection flow.
20 3, re-energized electrically faulted 21 equipment, that damaged surrounding equipment and 22 resulted in electrical ground alarm, which required an 23 alert emergency declaration. In addition, the NRC 24 found that prior to March 28th, 2010, the licensee's 25 training lesson material failed to identify the basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 of the procedural actions involving reactor coolant 2 pump, seal cooling as required by systems approach to 3 training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4.
4 Petitioner asserts here that the 5 licensee's actions at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant 6 endangered public health and safety from the 7 consequences of a serious nuclear accident similar to 8 the ongoing nuclear disaster unfolding in the country 9 of Japan, and that the NRC must take meaningful 10 escalated enforcement action against the licensee 11 beyond the agency's January 21st, 2011 escalated 12 enforcement action to protect public health and safety 13 in these circumstances.
14 Petitioners request, 1, that the NRC 15 suspend or revoke the NRC licenses issued to the 16 licensee authorizing operation of the H.B. Robinson 17 Nuclear Plant for a one year period of time to provide 18 the licensee with sufficient opportunity to address 19 and to correct needed areas of improvement at the 20 nuclear plant, and 2, that the NRC issue a Notice of 21 Violation with a civil penalty in the amount of 22 $500,000 against the licensee to make certain that the 23 licensee realizes the very serious nature of the 24 violation and the endangerment to public health and 25 safety, and to ensure that a recurrence of these types NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 of violations is prevented.
2 Background, the petitioner contends that 3 the NRC has failed in its congressional mandate to 4 protect public health and safety in these 5 circumstances where the agency was apparently 6 complacent in its duty and allowed the licensees 7 operations at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant to 8 seriously degrade over years of operation to such an 9 extent that could cause a serious sequence of events, 10 stated earlier, and which formed the basis of the 11 agency's Notice of Violation issued to the licensee.
12 Notably, on May 16th, 1996, the NRC issued 13 a Notice of Violation, severity level 3, to the 14 licensee for failure to secure Safeguards Information 15 at H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
16 On December 12th, 1997, the NRC issued a 17 Notice of Violation, severity level 3, with a $55,000 18 civil penalty to the licensee for the inoperability of 19 the Emergency Diesel Generator at the H.B. Robinson 20 Nuclear Plant.
21 On March 4th, 1998, the NRC issued a 22 Notice of Violation, severity level 3, to the licensee 23 for safety injection pumps outside design basis due to 24 NPSH at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
25 On April 7th, 2004, the NRC issued a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 Notice of Violation, severity level 2, with an $88,000 2 civil penalty for discriminating against the former 3 corporate superintendent of Site Access Authorization 4 for raising safety concern at the H.B. Robinson 5 Nuclear Plant.
6 On December 7th, 2010, the NRC issued a 7 Notice of Violation for failure to identify and 8 correct on a problem associated with the B Emergency 9 Diesel Generator output breaker in 2008. And again, 10 in 2009 a similar malfunction caused the Emergency 11 Diesel Generator to be declared inoperable for a 12 period greater than technical specification.
13 In addition, the NRC issued a Notice of 14 Violation, severity level 3, for submitting materially 15 inaccurate information which stated that the breaker 16 was tested in accordance with a maintenance procedure.
17 And the licensee had not conducted full testing in 18 accord with the procedure.
19 Discussion; as stated immediately earlier 20 here, there's a gap in the NRC enforcement action, 21 from April 7th, 20, excuse me, from April 7th, 2004 to 22 December 7th, 2010, approximately six year gap.
23 In addition to this here, that is 24 significant. What happened to the NRC's oversight of 25 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant during that six NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 year period of time, from April 7th, 2004 to December 2 7th, 2010?
3 It is -- it is not reasonable to believe 4 by reasonably minded individual or any American 5 citizen that the United States government regulator 6 and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7 in a period of six years, did not cite the licensee, 8 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant for a single 9 violation in that entire period of time.
10 It's -- it's incredible. And -- and I 11 contend that it -- that it's impossible. It's only 12 possible -- it's impossible if the regulator was doing 13 its job. It's impossible if the NRC was complacent 14 and negligent and if congressional mandate could 15 protect public health and safety in the oversight at 16 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
17 For this reason alone petitioners demand 18 that the NRC Petition Review Board provide a copy of 19 these record transcripts made this date to the NRC, 20 Office of the Inspector General to enable that agency 21 the ability to make a determination whether the NRC 22 should be investigated for its lack of proper 23 oversight during the six year gap from April 7th, 2004 24 to December 7th, 2010 in connection with operation at 25 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 I bring to the attention of the Petition 2 Review Board an article dated June 4th, 2011 3 apparently posted on the state of South Carolina's 4 homepage on the internet. Just a highlight to this 5 article, talks about a statement made by the NRC 6 chairman, Gregory Jaczko, J-A-C-Z-K-O.
7 He is quoted as saying, "There have 8 already been changes as a result of the things that we 9 found. What the inspection is really doing is trying 10 to determine whether those changes are appropriate and 11 whether they satisfy and address what really are the 12 ultimate underlying problems or underlying issues" 13 The chairman's talking about the H.B.
14 Robinson plant and the significant events which I have 15 just outlined to the Petition Review Board today.
16 Article also says states here that Progress Energy 17 officials don't dispute the problem in Hartsville, but 18 say they are revisiting hundreds of written procedures 19 and redoubling efforts to train staff members.
20 I mean, that statement alone from the 21 licensee should raise red flags with the Petition 22 Review Board. When the licensee is -- has to go back 23 and revisit hundreds, hundreds of written station 24 procedures, which the licensed nuclear operators rely 25 upon in the operation of that nuclear power plant, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 when -- when that nuclear power plant has been 2 operating for years.
3 It was issued a license by the NRC, July 4 31st, 1970. 1970. And -- and now, what, 40 years 5 later -- 40 years later the licensee is now going to 6 revisit all these procedures which they have been 7 relying on to allegedly be operating this nuclear 8 plant within NRC requirements under 10 CFR Part 50.
9 There's something very, very, very 10 troubling going on at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, 11 which the NRC Petition Review Board should 12 investigate. The, excuse me for one second while I 13 grab another paper here. All right. There is a 14 correlation here to be drawn upon which I would like 15 to bring to the Petition Review Board's attention.
16 And that is this, everyone is fully aware 17 of the ongoing nuclear crisis resulting from an 18 earthquake and tsunami which damaged several nuclear 19 reactors at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 20 Facility.
21 Currently the licensee finally has 22 admitted that at least three reactors, suspect there 23 were four, nuclear reactors in a full meltdown 24 scenario this time. High levels of radiation were 25 spewed into the environment through the air and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 through the ground water and over the land.
2 Now there are -- there are then monitoring 3 and detection efforts which have shown cesium, 4 plutonium, radioactive iodine and other radioactive 5 materials that there spewed well outside the protected 6 area of the plant, well outside the evacuation zone of 7 the plant.
8 Have displaced tens of thousands of 9 people.
10 (Telephonic interference) 11 MR. SAPORITO: Am I still on the line here?
12 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Mr. Saporito, you're 13 still on the line. We're not sure what that was. But 14 I will ask, has anyone else joined the phone call?
15 OPERATOR: This is headquarters operation, 16 sir. I was just putting a recorder in the bridge.
17 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: A recorder for 18 recording the call?
19 OPERATOR: That is correct.
20 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay, thank you. I 21 appreciate that clarification. Sorry for that 22 interruption, Mr. Saporito.
23 MR. SAPORITO: Okay, thank you. Now, the 24 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the investigation is still 25 going on and to analyze all the consequences why that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 event occurred. And only history will bear the fruit 2 of those investigations.
3 However, it can be said for certain that 4 the GE Mark I nuclear reactors that failed over there 5 failed because -- in part because they were poorly 6 designed. They should have never been licensed by the 7 Atomic Energy Commission in the United States and or 8 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 9 first place, because they were known to be defective 10 designs.
11 However, they were installed, and they 12 were operated. We had an earthquake. Tsunami came 13 in, took out the emergency diesel generators because 14 they were located below the reactor vessels out in a 15 basement, and without decay heat removal from a 16 nuclear reactor, we all know that the nuclear fuel 17 melts and results in a reactor fuel meltdown of a 18 nuclear reactor core where the fuel melts through the 19 bottom of the reactor vessel and through the 20 containment and into the environment.
21 And that's what's happening right now with 22 at least three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Power 23 Plant. The same type of reactors are over here.
24 There's 23 here in the United States. But the point 25 to be made here is whatever the root cause or causes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 ultimately are identified with resolve to the Japanese 2 ongoing nuclear disaster.
3 The initiating event was an earthquake and 4 followed by a tsunami. But history tells us very 5 clearly that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, 6 which happened in the United States and prior to that 7 the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which happened in --
8 in Russia.
9 Those two nuclear reactions were 10 significant. They were severe, and they released 11 radiation into the environment, and adversely affects 12 the public health and safety in very significant ways.
13 However, those two nuclear reactors at Chernobyl and 14 the Three Mile Island Nuclear accident were a result 15 of human error.
16 Human error caused those -- those 17 accidents, not an act of God. And that goes hand in 18 hand with the events I've described today and the 19 events that are described in -- in the petition and 20 the calamity of human error and -- and resulting 21 events, serious events, at H.B. Robinson Nuclear 22 Plant, which could very well likely resulted in a 23 complete meltdown, the nuclear reactor core at the 24 H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant.
25 There would have been an uncontrolled NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 nuclear meltdown, and there would have been, most 2 likely, a hydrogen explosion, a breach of containment 3 and release of high level radioactive particulate, 4 which would endanger public health and safety to a 5 very, very great degree.
6 Now, the other -- other area of concern I 7 want to bring to the light of the Petition Review 8 Board's attention today the scram of that -- that was 9 initiating event at the H.B. Robinson Plant, which is 10 the subject matter of the -- of the instant petition.
11 The scram event or the event where the 12 reactor trips off-line either automatically or 13 manually intended reactor trip, that causes a 14 tremendous amount of stress to the entire nuclear 15 reactor system and equipment.
16 The reactor vessel itself is -- is made in 17 part of stainless steel and other metals. And that 18 metal becomes embrittled over years and years of being 19 bombarded by high level nuclear radiation. Radiation 20 is produced during a fission process.
21 Alpha particles, beta particles, gamma 22 particles, et cetera. Over time -- now, I -- I talked 23 earlier, this plant was licensed in 1970. And here we 24 are in 2011. So that reactor's operating at the end 25 of its safety design basis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 And it most likely should be 2 decommissioned and not operating, in our opinion.
3 Nonetheless, it's operating, and it is reasonable to 4 believe that the reactor vessel is embrittled, and to 5 some degree. To what degree, that would have to be 6 ascertained by destructive testing.
7 Because the reactor vessel's embrittled, 8 every time the reactor is scrammed that reactor vessel 9 is stressed, and all the nuclear support systems are 10 stressed. If that reactor vessel cracks, you're going 11 to have a reactor full meltdown of the nuclear reactor 12 core.
13 There is nothing on this planet that will 14 stop it, because the water inventory inside that 15 nuclear reactor vessel will spew out of that crack and 16 it causes the -- the metals embrittle. They could 17 actually have a huge crack or even shatter to a large 18 extent.
19 The reactors over there in Fukushima, the 20 licensee recently admitted that those three reactors 21 began into a full meltdown within an hour of the 22 earthquake and tsunami. Within hours. We talked 23 earlier about events that happened at H.B. Robinson 24 plant where the operators failed to take action in --
25 in over an hour, in which case, four hours into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 event, we talked about.
2 There appears to be a lack of adequate 3 training on system functionality and repair activities 4 at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant. There 5 appears to be a lack of proper supervisory oversight 6 during repair activities at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear 7 Plant.
8 There's obviously a failure to follow 9 plant procedures at the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power 10 Plant. There appears to be a lack of adequate 11 functional and reliable plant operating procedures at 12 the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
13 I talked earlier about the news article 14 which talks about the licensee revisiting hundreds of 15 written procedures. There also appear to be a lack of 16 management leadership to enhance quality at the H.B.
17 Robinson Nuclear Power Plant.
18 For all these reasons and more the NRC 19 should suspend the operating license for the H.B.
20 Robinson Nuclear Plant to provide the licensee with 21 sufficient opportunity to, 1, correct the numerous 22 deficiencies at the plant.
23 2, review and correct plant procedures.
24 3, to retrain plant operators, 4, to retrain plant 25 workers, and 5, to retrain plant supervisory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 personnel. It is incumbent upon the NRC, and in fact, 2 it is mandated by the United States Congress that the 3 NRC act in a meaningful and timely manner to protect 4 public health and safety in connection with operation, 5 the nuclear reactor operating at the H.B. Robinson 6 Nuclear Power Plant.
7 In our opinion, the only way the NRC can 8 adequately and sufficiently and affirmatively and 9 definitively protect public health and safety in these 10 circumstances, and in light of the history of numerous 11 severity level 3 violations at the H.B. Robinson 12 Nuclear Power Plant, and in one instance where the 13 licensee discriminated against a manager for raising 14 nuclear safety concern.
15 It is reasonable that the NRC must take 16 escalated enforcement action and suspension of the 17 licensee license to operate the H.B. Robinson Nuclear 18 Power Plant for the period of time that we mentioned 19 earlier to allow the licensee the opportunity to step 20 -- take a step back and assess the entire operations 21 at the plant.
22 I'm talking about the operator's 23 qualification, retesting the license operators, 24 retesting the maintenance technicians, maintenance 25 personnel, the supervisory personnel, managers. Have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 an independent evaluation of a -- of the working 2 culture and the work environment at that nuclear power 3 plant.
4 It's obviously underlying issues the 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Chairman, Jaczko, 6 mentioned him as I described earlier in that news 7 article. These underlying issues have to be surfaced 8 by the NRC. And -- and it can't be done while the 9 licensee is operating the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power 10 Plant.
11 While that nuclear reactor is under power, 12 the licensee's focus will be primarily to maintain its 13 economic interests in keeping that nuclear plant on 14 line. And the second nature will be to try to appease 15 the NRC by doing this and doing that.
16 The public demands more than that from the 17 NRC, you know. We've seen the explosion offshore of 18 the coast of New Orleans, an oil rig, because the 19 government regulator who was in charge of overseeing 20 safety at that oil rig was negligent on his job.
21 They were rubber-stamping drilling 22 applications left and right, and, you know, numerous 23 people died because of them. Environment was 24 polluted. It's going to be polluted for years to 25 come. It still has not been determined the extent of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 damage from that.
2 Here we're talking about a nuclear power 3 plant. Now, you know, I live in the state of Florida, 4 and I have children here and -- and family and friends 5 and a home.
6 And I don't want to be having to evacuate 7 here because something happened at the H.B. Robinson 8 Nuclear Plant where that plant explodes and spews high 9 level radioactive contamination to the environment, 10 which the prevailing winds could carry across the 11 entire state of Florida, just like what happened over 12 there in Fukushima, what happened over there in 13 Chernobyl, and what almost happened at Three Mile 14 Island, nonetheless, there was a venting of nuclear 15 reactor particulate by the licensed operator at Three 16 Mile Island.
17 So it's the NRC that must act now. This -
18 - these slap on the wrists that the NRC has been 19 issuing over the years to this H.B. Robinson Nuclear 20 Plant is not enough. It's not nearly enough. There -
21 - you need to have licensing action.
22 I -- I went through records and records 23 and records of the NRC document. I can't find a 24 single instance, not one instance where the NRC has 25 suspended or revoked a commercial nuclear plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 operating license for any reason.
2 I mean, recently there was a red finding 3 by the NRC related to -- in connection with another 4 nuclear power plant. But the NRC didn't suspend the 5 license, even with a red finding. What -- what is it 6 going to take? Is it going to take deaths? Do people 7 have to die?
8 Hundreds, millions of people have to be 9 evacuated? Does the National Security and Common 10 Defense of the United States of America have to be 11 threatened from a nuclear explosion or event before 12 the NRC suspends a nuclear operating license for a 13 licensee under its jurisdiction?
14 That concludes my comments today, and I --
15 I will stay on the line to respond to any questions 16 form anybody that's participating at this meeting 17 today. Thank you very much.
18 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you, Mr.
19 Saporito. I appreciate the additional information you 20 provided. And at this time I also appreciate you 21 staying on the line to answer any questions we may 22 have clarifying your request.
23 We're going to start with the NRC staff 24 here at headquarters. Does anyone here at 25 headquarters have any clarifying questions for Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 Saporito? Tanya Mensah?
2 MS. MENSAH: Yes, Mr. Saporito, this is 3 Tanya Mensah. Just had a clarification. On page 4 of 4 your petition, item 9, you mentioned the UCS report.
5 Do you have a title for that or a date? I just wanted 6 to make sure we had a reference?
7 MR. SAPORITO: On -- I'm on page 4. What 8 is the question?
9 MS. MENSAH: You say the above scenario of 10 events were gleaned by a petitioner from a report 11 issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. But you 12 didn't reference --
13 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
14 MS. MENSAH: I just wanted to know if you 15 have the report titled or the date.
16 MR. SAPORITO: Oh. I got that from their 17 website. I'm sure it's still posted there. They 18 leave that stuff up there forever.
19 MS. MENSAH: Okay.
20 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay. I appreciate 21 that. Anything else, Tanya?
22 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: I have one question 23 and -- and one comment for you, Mr. Saporito. A 24 question early in your discussion when you were going 25 through your request for enforcement action, you had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 stated, I believe, and I'm trying to clarify here, 2 that you thought we should take action against the 3 CEO.
4 And when you went continued to go forward 5 and explain the specific enforcement action you 6 described your request for suspension of the license 7 for one year and the issuance of a civil penalty in 8 the amount of $500,000 to the licensee.
9 Can you clarify whether or not you're also 10 requesting that we take specific action against the 11 CEO, and if so, the basis for that?
12 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Yes. The CEO -- the 13 request for enforcement action -- escalating 14 enforcement action against the CEO, Mr. Johnson, is 15 included in my definition of licensee. I'm very 16 certain, and the record will -- will affirm what I'm 17 saying here, that when I identify the licensee I 18 included Mr. Johnson's name in that definition.
19 And just to clarify the record, the 20 licensee in these circumstances is -- as shown on the 21 petition itself is Progress Energy, William D. Johnson 22 and the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant. And when 23 I'm seeking escalated enforcement action I'm seeking 24 escalated enforcement action from the NRC against the 25 licensee in the context of those three entities, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1 Progress Energy, William D. Johnson, H.B. Robinson 2 Nuclear Plant.
3 With respect and specifically in 4 connection with an enforcement action requested 5 against William D. Johnson, he -- he should be issued 6 -- an individual notice of violation should be issued 7 to him as a person in his position of authority at the 8 nuclear power plant, overseeing operations of that 9 nuclear power plant under his authority.
10 And -- and the -- there should be a 11 monetary fine assessed against him as an individual in 12 that -- in that position. And -- and we should -- we 13 also request that he be suspended from participating 14 in NRC licensed activities for a period of no less 15 than five years as a result with his failures in 16 connection with the material violations described 17 today and in our petition.
18 The other basis for taking enforcement 19 action against William D. Johnson is delineated 20 specifically in an August 10th, 2010 speech given by 21 the NRC chairman, Gregory Jaczko in which the chairman 22 specifically speaks about the responsibility of the 23 chief executive officer and the Board of Directors for 24 the licensees of the NRC, which Progress Energy 25 certainly is a licensee of the NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 And since Mr. Johnson reports to the Board 2 of Directors to Progress Energy those -- those -- the 3 application of Chairman Jaczko's requirements and 4 expectations are captured in the August 10th, 2010 5 speech. The speech can be found on the NRC's website.
6 A copy of that.
7 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. I 8 appreciate that clarification. Also during your 9 additional information, you stated that the, I 10 believe, your words you used, you demanded that the 11 transcript of this Petition Review Board meeting be 12 forwarded to our Office of the Inspector General.
13 And I just wanted to comment back that we 14 will, based on what you have provided during this 15 call, provide that information to the Office of the 16 Inspector General.
17 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: No other questions 19 here at headquarters. We're going to go to the NRC 20 staff in the Regions. I believe we only have Mr.
21 Dodson on the phone. Mr. Dodson, do you have any 22 questions for Mr. Saporito?
23 MR. DODSON: No, sir. Not at this time.
24 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Okay. Now, at this 25 time, before I conclude the meeting members of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 public may provide comments regarding the petition and 2 ask questions about the 2.206 petition. However, as I 3 stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting is 4 not to provide an opportunity to petition or the 5 public to question or examine the Petition Review 6 Board regarding the merits of the petition request.
7 There was no one who identified themselves 8 at the beginning of the meeting, but that was not 9 required. So at this time I'd ask if there are any 10 members of the public who would like to provide any 11 comments or ask questions about the petition process.
12 Hearing none, I assume that there are 13 either no members of the public on the line or none 14 chose to have any questions. So at this time, Mr.
15 Saporito, I would like to thank you for taking the 16 time to provide the NRC staff, specifically, this 17 Petition Review Board, with clarifying information on 18 your petition.
19 Before we close, does the court reporter 20 need any additional information for the meeting 21 transcript?
22 COURT REPORTER: I believe I'm all right.
23 Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN LUBINSKI: Thank you. With that, 25 this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 the phone connection. Thank you all very much.
2 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3 3:49 p.m.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
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