ML13162A744

from Andrea Russell: Meeting Agenda, Script Attached

ML13162A744
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	04/17/2012
From:	Russell A P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
2.206, FOIA/PA-2013-0010, G20120172, TAC ME8189
Download: ML13162A744 (8)

Text

Doerflein, LawrenceSubject:Location:Script Attached: New Dial-in Provided: Change in Time: Confirmed Date: Public Meetingwith Petitioner (Gunter et. al.) (G20120172) Fitzpatrick 2.206 (TAC ME8189)Commissioner's Conference RoomStart:End:Show Time As:Recurrence:Meeting Status:Tue 4/17/2012 12:30 PMTue 4/17/2012 2:30 PMTentative(none)Not yet respondedOrganizer:Required Attendees:Optional Attendees:Russell, AndreaLee, Samson; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Bickett, Brice; Doerflein, Lawrence-J .nricL. Malthbw;Dennig, Robert; Ulses, Anthony; MorganButler, Kimyata; Fretz, Robert; (b)(7)(cl Eul,Ryan; Richards, Karen; Safford, Carrie; Monninger, John; McIntyre, Da,( r-- /Ruland, William; Collins, Timothy; Scott, Catherine; Albert, MichelleAll,Purpos : For Gunter et.al. to address the PRB in person before the PRB meets internally to make an initialrecommendation to accept or reject the petition for review.Scri t: Please bring a copy of the attached script to the meeting Tuesday April 17, 2012.Scrlpt.CallGunteret al 2206_...Dial-In: [We currently have approximately 220 co-petitioners and we keep getting more each day]2206 Participants (approximately 200 lines available):Telephone Number: .888-282-0374Access Code:MConference Details(APR 17, 20...Meetinq Contact: Bhalchandra Vaidya and/or Andrea RussellThank you,Andrea Russell, 2.206 Coordinator301-415-8553 April 17, 20121 t Petition Review Board Public Meeting With PetitionersJames A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power PlantPaul Gunter, et. al., 10 CFR 2.206 Petition G20120172Agenda[Note on Seating Arrangements: Samson Lee, the PRB Chairman, Bhalchandra Vaidya, thePetition Manager, and Catherine Scott, OGC should sit at the Commissioners' table on the sidefacing the window. The opposite side of the Commissioners' table is reserved for thepetitioners. The other Petition Review Board members should sit at the Commissioners' table,as seating allows, or in the first row of seats surrounding the table.]Purpose: For the petitioners, Paul Gunter, et. al., to address the Petition Review Board (PRB)for the petition on Emergency Enforcement Action for Suspension of James A. FitzPatrick(FitzPatrick) Operating License.A. Welcome and Introductions (Bhalchandra K. Vaidya, Petition Manager)B. PRB Chairman's Introduction (Samson Lee, PRB Chair)C. Petitioner's Presentation (Paul Gunter, et. al.)D. Clarifying Questions from the NRC staff and/or the licenseeE. Questions from members of the public on the 10 CFR 2.206 petition processF. PRB Chairman's Closing Remarks (Samson Lee)Talking PointsA. Welcome and Introductions (Bhalchandra Vaidya)" I'd like to thank everybody for attending this meeting. My name is Bhalchandra Vaidya and Iam an NRC Project Manager in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division ofOperating Reactor Licensing. We are here today to allow the petitioners, Paul Gunter, et. al,to address the NRC Petition Review Board, regarding the 10 CFR 2.206 petition datedMarch 9, 2012 and the supplements dated March 13, and March 20, 2012. I am also thePetition Manager for the petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Samson Lee.* As part of the Petition Review Board's (or PRB's) review of this petition, Paul Gunter, et. al,has requested this opportunity to address the PRB. In accordance with MD 8.11, thepetitioner may request that a reasonable number of associates be permitted to assist inaddressing the PRB concerning the petition. Through the point-of-contact for all thepetitioners and co-petitioners, Ms. Azulay, they were notified about this meeting.* This meeting is scheduled for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, from 12:30-2:30 PM (Eastern Time). The meeting isbeing recorded by the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court reporter.The transcript will become a supplement to the petition. The transcript will also be madepubricly available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and ManagementSystem (ADAMS). The meeting is also being webcast.

" For those at the NRC headquarters, we have public meeting feedback forms that you arewelcome to fill out. These forms are forwarded to our internal communications specialists,You may either leave them here following the meeting or mail them back. They are alreadypost-paid. If you are participating by phone and would like to leave e-mail feedback on thispublic meeting, please forward your comments to me by e-mail(Bhalchandra.vaidya@nrc.gov)* I'd like to open this meeting with introductions of the meeting participants. I ask that all ofthe participants clearly state for the record your name, your position or occupation, and yourorganization. For those here in the room, please speak up or approach the microphone sothe persons on the phone can hear clearly and so that the court reporter can accuratelyrecord your name. I have already introduced myself. Let us start with the other NRCparticipants here in the room. Other NRC-HQ participants introduce themselves." We've completed introductions at the NRC headquarters. At this time, pre there any NRCparticipants from Headquarters on the phone? [please introduce yourself]" Are there any NRC participants from the Regional Office on the phone? [please introduceyourself]" Are there any representatives for the licensee on the phone? [please introduce yourself]* At this time, I would like to have the petitioners, who are here at NRC headquarters,introduce themselves. I ask that all petitioners please clearly state for the record your name,your position, and your organization. Again, please speak up or use one of the microphonesat the table or at the podium located over here." At this time, I would like to have any petitioners on the phone introduce themselves. Again,please speak up so that the court reporter can accurately record your name." It is not required for members of the public to introduce themselves for this meeting, but wewould like a record of your participation. Please send this record of your participation to myemail at bhanchaldra.vaidva(.nrc.oov. For the public question period at the end of themeeting, we will ask you to introduce yourself and state your name if you are asking aquestion.* For those members of the public who are dialing into the meeting and are not petitioners, Iwould remind you that your lines will be on mute until the public question period at the endof the meeting.* At this time, the phone line for general public will be changed to "Listening Mode" tominimize any background noise or distractions during the petitioners' presentations, and willbe re-opened for the comment period for the Public.* I'd like to reemphasize that we each need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that thecourt reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. Also, if you do have something thatyou would like to say, please state your name for the record first and then make yourstatement.

0 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB Chairman, Samson Lee.B. Openinq Remarks For Samson Lee" Good afternoon. Welcome to this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by PaulGunter, et. al." I'd like to first share some background on our process:Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the petition process-the primary mechanism for the public to request enforcement action by the NRC in apublic process. This process permits anyone to petition NRC to take enforcement-typeaction related to NRC licensees or licensed activities. Depending on the results of itsevaluation, NRC could modify, suspend or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any otherappropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. The NRC staff's guidance for thedisposition of 2.206 petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, which is publiclyavailable." The purpose of today's meeting is to give the petitioner an opportunity to provide anyadditional explanation or support for the petition before the Petition Review Board's initialconsideration and recommendation.a. This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the petitioner to question orexamine the PRB on the merits or the issues presented in the petition request.b. No decisions regarding the merits of this petition will be made at this meeting.c. Following this meeting, the Petition Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations.The outcome of this internal meeting will be discussed with the petitioner.d. The Petition Review Board typically consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at thesenior executive service level at the NRC. It has a Petition Manager and a PRBCoordinator. Other members of the Board are determined by the NRC staff based onthe content of the information in the petition request.e. At this time, I would like to introduce the Board.I am Samson Lee, the Petition Review Board Chairman. Bhalchandra Vaidya is thePetition Manager for the petition under discussion today. Andrea Russell is the office'sPRB Coordinator. Our technical staff includes:Anthony Ulses from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Reactor Systems BranchJohn Monninger from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Japan Lessons LearnedProject DirectorateBrice Bickett, Mathew Jennerich, and Lawrence Doerflein from Region 1.We also obtain advice from our Office of the General Counsel, represented by Catherine Scott.

f. As described in our process, the NRC staff and the Licensee may ask clarifyingquestions in order to better understand the petitioner's presentation and to reach areasoned decision whether to accept or reject the petitioner's requests for review underthe 2.206 process.I would like to briefly summarize the scope of the petition under consideration and the NRCactivities to date.a. On March 9, 2012, as supplemented March 13 and March 20, 2012, Mr. Paul Gunter, et. al.,submitted a joint petition to the NRC, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part2.206, regarding James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.b. In this petition request, the joint petitioners are requesting the following actions:The joint petitioners request that the FitzPatrick operating license be immediately suspended asthe result of the undue risk to the public health and safety presented by the operator's relianceon non-conservative and wrong assumptions that went into the analysis of the capability ofFitzPatrick's pre-existing ductwork containment vent system. The joint petitioners state that therisks and uncertainty presented by FitzPatrick's assumptions and decisions, in regard to NRCGeneric Letter 89-16, as associated with the day-to-day operations of this nuclear power plantnow constitute an undue risk to public health and safety. The joint petitioners request that thesuspension of the operating license be in effect pending final resolution of a public challenge tothe adequacy of the pre-existing vent line in light of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.The joint petitioners do not seek or request that FitzPatrick operators now install the DirectTorus Vent System (DTVS) as it is demonstrated to have experienced multiple failures tomitigate the severe nuclear accidents at Fukushima Daiichi.The joint petitioners request that the NRC take action to suspend the FitzPatrick operatinglicense immediately until the following emergency enforcement actions are enacted, completed,reviewed, and approved by the NRC and informed by independent scientific analysis:1) Entergy Nuclear Operations' FitzPatrick nuclear power plant shall be subject to publichearings with full hearing rights on the continued operation of the Mark I BWR and theadequacy and capability of a pre-existing containment vent which is not a fully hardenedvent line as recommended by NRC Generic Letter 89-16. As such, the FitzPatrick operatoruniquely did not make containment modifications and did not install the DTVS, otherwiseknown as "the hardened vent," as requested by NRC Generic Letter 89-16 and as installedon every other GE Mark I in the US;2) Entergy Nuclear Operations shall publicly document for independent review its post-Fukushima re-analyses for the reliability and capability of the FitzPatrick pre-existingcontainment vent system as previously identified as "an acceptable deviation" from NRCGeneric Letter 89-16 which recommended the installation of the Direct Torus Vent Systemand as outlined in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated September 28, 1992. Thepublicly documented post-Fukushima analysis shall include the reassessment of allassumptions regarding the capability and reliability of the pre-existing containment ventingand specifically address non-conservative assumptions regarding:a) the FitzPatrick cost-benefit analysis used to justify not installing a fully hardened ventsystem and; b) "unlikely ignition points" as claimed in the FitzPatrick pre-existing vent line system thatwould otherwise present increased risks and consequences associated with thedetonation of hydrogen gas generated during a severe accident.As a basis for the request, the joint petitioners state that in light of the multiple failures of the GEMark I containment and hardened vent systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power stationin the days following the March 11, 2011, station black out event, the joint petitions seek theprompt and immediate suspension of the FitzPatrick operations because:" The GE Mark I BWR pressure suppression containment system is identified asinherently unreliable and likely to fail during a severe accident." The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent as approved for severeaccident mitigation is not a fully "hardened vent" system.* The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent as approved relies uponnon-conservative and faulty assumptions." The capability of FitzPatrick's pre-existing containment vent system uniquely allows for asevere nuclear accident to be released at ground level." The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe dramatically and exponentially changes theFitzPatrick cost-benefit analyses.* The continued day-to-day reliance upon the significantly flawed pre-existing containmentvent system as would be relied upon to mitigate a severe accident at the FitzPatrickMark I reactor presents an undue risk to the public health and safety." The identified containment vulnerability, the non-conservative if not false assumption of"no likely ignition sources" in the pre-existing vent line and the unacceptableconsequences of failure of the FitzPatrick pre-existing containment vent place bothgreater uncertainty and undue risk on public health and safety and are not reasonablyjustified by arbitrarily assigning a low probability of the occurrence of a severe accident.In the March 20, 2012, supplement to the petition, the joint petitioners state that the TemporaryInstruction 2515/183 provides the NRC inspection results in the "Followup to the FukushimaDaiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Event." The joint petitioners draw attention to what isdescribed at page 8 of the enclosure as an "apparent beyond design and licensing basisvulnerability" involving the FitzPatrick operator's refusal to install the DTVS as recommended byNRC in Generic Letter 89-16.To summarize the supplement, the joint petitioners state that:" The Commission's March 12, 2012, Order states that "Current regulatory requirementand existing plant capabilities allow the NRC to conclude that a sequence of events suchas the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in unlikely to occur in the US. Therefore, continuedoperation and continued licensed activities do not pose an imminent threat to publichealth and safety." The Order further states, "While not required, hardened vents havebeen in place in U.S. plants with BWR Mark I containments for many years but a widevariance exist with regard to the reliability of the vents."* The NRC inspection report identifies that FitzPatrick's "existing plant capabilities" and"current procedures do not address hydrogen considerations during primary containmentventing" which is further identified as a "current licensing basis vulnerability." The jointpetitioners further reiterate that the NRC inspection finding that FitzPatrick's "existingplant capabilities" as assumed by the Order are in fact negated by the finding that"FitzPatrick's current licensing basis did not require the plant to have a primarycontainment torus air space hardened vent system as part of their Mark I containmentimprovement program."

• The Commission Order timeline setting December 31, 2016 for installing the hardenedvent Order does not address in a timely way the unique condition of the FitzPatricknuclear power plant.* The FitzPatrick nuclear power plant uniquely does not have a fully hardened vent systemon the vulnerable Mark I containment. As a result, FitzPatrick's current capability isidentified with "a beyond design and licensing bases vulnerability, in that FitzPatrick'scurrent licensing basis did not require the plant to have a primary containment torus airspace hardened vent system as part of their Mark I containment improvement program."Given that the FitzPatrick unit willfully refused to install the DTVS, the documenteddiscovery of the "licensing basis vulnerability" of its chosen pre-existing vent nowuniquely warrants the suspension of operations pending closer scrutiny, public hearings,and full disclosure for its adequacy and capability in the event of a severe accident." The additional identified "vulnerability" and the relatively remote and uncertain mitigationstrategy places the public health and safety unduly and unacceptably at risk by thecontinued day-to-day operations where "current procedures do not address hydrogenconsiderations during primary containment venting" and will not for nearly five (5) moreyears.c. Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to date.On March 13, 2012, the petition manager contacted Mr. Gunter via e-mail to discuss the 10CFR 2.206 petition process and offered him an opportunity to address the PRB by phone or inperson.On March 13, 2012, Mr. Gunter provided the petition manager an acknowledgement via e-mailand indicated that Ms. Jessica Azulay is the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners andsubmitted a supplement to the March 9, 2012, petition.On March 14, 2012, the petition manager contacted the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners,via e-mail, to describe the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process and offered her an opportunity toaddress the PRB by phone or in person.On March 16, 2012, the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners provided the petition manageran acknowledgement, via e-mail, and also requested the public meeting and teleconferencedetails to enable the petitioners to address the PRB.On March 20, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the request for immediate action. ThePRB denied the request for immediate action on the basis that there was no immediate safetyconcern to the plant, or to the health and safety of the public.From March 22 through April 2, 2012, additional petitioners contacted the petition manager, viae-mail, to indicate that each of them wish to co-sign the petition, they agree to the 10 CFR 2.206process, and that Ms. Jessica Azulay is their point-of-contact. The petition managersubsequently contacted each co-petitioner via e-mail to acknowledge the respective e-mails.On March 27, 2012, the petition manager contacted the point-of-contact for the joint petitionersvia e-mail to inform her about the PRB decision for the immediate action.On March 27, 2012, the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners confirmed the date of the publicmeeting to address the PRB.

As a reminder for the phone participants, please identify yourself if you want to make anyremarks, as this will help us in the preparation of the meeting transcript that will be madepublicly available. Thank you.C. Petitioner's Presentation (Bhalchandra Vaidya Remarks Below)* Ms. Jessica Azulay, as the point-of-contact for the joint petitioners, I'll turn it over to you toaddress the PRB and to provide any additional information you and other petitioners believethe PRB should consider as part of this petition. We have allotted 90 minutes for all ofyou to address the PRB, If any petitioner feels that they do not have an adequateopportunity to address the PRB during this meeting because of time constraints, then wewelcome any supplemental information that they can provide in writing for the PRB'sconsideration. This supplemental information for the PRB's consideration should be mailedto the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) by April 24, 2012.D. Clarifying Questions from the NRC staff and/or the licensee (Bhalchandra Vaidva)* At this time, does the NRC staff here at headquarters have any questions for Ms. Azulayand others?* What about the Region?" As I previously stated, the licensees are not part of the PRB's decision-making process.However, does the licensee have any clarifying questions for the NRC's PRB or for thepetitioners?E. Questions from Members of the Public on the 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Process(Bhalchandra Vaidya)Before I conclude the meeting, members of the public may ask questions about the 2.206petition process. However, as stated at the opening, the purpose of this meeting does notinclude the opportunity for the petitioner or the public to question or examine the PRBregarding the merits of the petition request. As a reminder, if members of the public do nothave the opportunity to ask their questions about the 2.206 process because of timelimitations, then they can submit their questions in writing to the Petition Manager,Bhalchandra Vaidya, at bhalchandra.vaidyatnrc.gov. Operator can you unmute the tollfree lines for members of the public? Are there any questions from members of the public?F. PRB Chair Closing Remarks (Samson Lee)* Ms. Azulay, and participating petitioners, thank you for taking time to provide the NRC staffwith clarifying information on the petition you've submitted." Before we close, does the court reporter need any additional information for the meetingtranscript?" With that, this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating the phone connection.Adjourn