ML063210488
| ML063210488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/2006 |
| From: | NRC/EDO |
| To: | |
| REGNER, Lisa, DORL/LPL2-2, 415-1906 | |
| References | |
| 2.206 Petition, G20060932, NRC-1334, TAC MD3039 | |
| Download: ML063210488 (73) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Monday, November 13, 2006 Work Order No.:
NRC-1334 Pages 1-56 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PETITION REVIEW BOARD 4
+ + + + +
5
- MONDAY, 6
NOVEMBER 13, 2006 7
The proceeding was conducted at NRC 8
headquarters, Room 05B4, 11545 Rockville Pike, 9
Rockville, MD, at 1:15 p.m., Ho Nieh, Chairman, 10 presiding.
11 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
12 DANIEL FRUMKIN AFPB/NRR, Fire Protection 13 Engineer 14 GIOVANNA LONGO OGC, Senior Attorney 15 ALEXANDER KLEIN NRR, Senior Fire Protection 16 Engineer 17 SCOTT BURNELL Office of Public Affairs, 18 Public Affairs Officer 19 STACEY ROSENBERG NRR/DPR, Branch Chief, Special 20 Projects Branch 21 TANYA MENSAH NRR/DPR, 2.206 Coordinate 22 SUNIL WEERAKKODY NRR/DRA, Branch Chief 23 MARIA SCHWARTZ OE, Senior Enforcement 24 Specialist 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
1 HO K. NIEH, JR.
Division of Policy and 2
Rulemaking, Deputy Director 3
DAVID L. DECKER Office of Congressional 4
Affairs, Senior Congressional 5
Affairs Officer 6
LISA M. REGNER Office of Nuclear Reactor 7
Regulation, Project Manager 8
JASON PAIGE DORL, Training Project Manager 9
CHANDU PATEL DORL, Harris Project Manager 10 11 NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE:
12 PAUL GUNTER Reactor Watchdog Project 13 14 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS:
15 DAVID LOCHBAUM Director, Nuclear Safety, 16 Global Security Program 17 18 NC WASTE AWARENESS & REDUCTION NETWORK:
19 JIM WARREN Executive Director 20 21 On Behalf of the Petitioners:
22 JOHN D. RUNKLE, ESQ.
23 Post Office Box 3793 24 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (919) 942-0600 1
2 3
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 4
AGENDA ITEM PAGE 5
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 4 6
CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION 6 7
PETITIONERS' PRESENTATION 11 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1
2 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 3
(12:14 p.m.)
4 MS. REGNER: Once again, we do have the 5
court stenographer - thank you.
6 I'd like to welcome everyone again to the 7
NRC concerning the Sharon Harris Fire protection 8
issues, 2.206 Petition.
9 My name is Lisa Regner. And I would like 10 for us to go around the room, please.
11 Dan, do you want to start us off?
12 MR. FRUMKIN: Dan Frumkin, NRC Fire 13 Protection staff.
14 MS. LONGO: Giovanna Longo, office of 15 general counsel.
16 MR. HO NIEH: Ho Nieh, division of policy 17 and rulemaking.
18 MS. REGNER: Lisa Regner, petition manager.
19 MR. KLEIN: Alexander Klein, NRC fire 20 protection.
21 MR. RUNKLE: John Runkle, attorney for the 22 petitioners.
23 MR. WARREN: Jim Warren, executive director 24 of NC Warren.
25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR.
GUNTER:
Paul
- Gunter, Nuclear 1
information and resource service.
2 MR. LOCHBAUM: David Lochbaum, director of 3
the nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned 4
Scientists.
5 MR. PAIGE: Jason Paige, DORL.
6 MR. BURNELL: Scott Burnell, office of 7
public affairs.
8 MR. DECKER: David Decker, NRC, office of 9
congressional affairs.
10 MS. ROSENBERG: Stacey Rosenberg, branch 11 two, special projects branch.
12 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah.
13 MR. WEERAKKODY: Suni Weerakkody, NRC, FIRE 14 PROTECTION BRANCH CHIEF.
15 MS. SCHWARTZ: Maria Schwartz, office of 16 enforcement.
17 MS. REGNER: Thank you.
18 I would like to stress once again, we need 19 to speak clearly and loudly. If you do have something 20 you would like to say, there are microphones here in 21 headquarters for those of you in the meeting room.
22 Please make sure you station yourselves 23 somewhere near a microphone as this is being recorded 24 as well.
25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Again, my name is Lisa Regner, welcome.
1 I've been assigned as the petition 2
manager. The Petition Review Board chairman is Ho 3
Nieh.
4 This meeting is being transcribed. It 5
will become a supplement to the petition that was 6
submitted on September 20 th, 2006. It will be made 7
publicly available.
8 Representatives from NRC's Region Two are 9
participating. Also the licensee is participating.
10 Anyone making a statement, once again 11 please state your name first.
12 And now I'll turn it over to the chairman.
13 INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAIRMAN 14 MR. NIEH: Thanks, Lisa.
15 Thank you all for coming to us for this 16 public meeting, the second attempt. We tried one 17 earlier on last month.
18 And thank you those of you on the phone 19 for bearing with us while we were trying to get your 20 name and organizational information correct.
21 We do want to make sure that the 22 information we are transcribing here today is indeed 23 accurate so that the public can have that information 24 available to them after this meeting. So thank you 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for bearing with us on that.
1 Again, good afternoon, and welcome to the 2
NRC public meeting regarding the 2.206 petition 3
submitted on fire protection issues at the Shearon 4
Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
5 Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 6
Regulations, Section 2.206, as you know, any person 7
may raise safety issues or concerns in a petition to 8
the NRC requesting an enforcement action.
9 On September 20 th, 2006, the North 10 Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the 11 Nuclear Information and Resource Services, the Union 12 of Concerned Scientists, NC Fair Share, and Students 13 United for a Responsible Global Environment submitted 14 to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding fire 15 protection issues at the Sharon Harris Nuclear Power 16 Plant.
17 I will note that subsequent to that 18 petition the NRC has received additional 19 correspondence from other organizations related to 20 that issue, and we have contacted those organizations 21 who have corresponded with us, and informed them that 22 we will make them aware of the Petition Review Board's 23 decision on this 2.206 petition.
24 In the September 20, 2.206 submission, the 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 petitioners requested that the NRC take enforcement 1
action against the Shearon Harris licensee to 2
immediately, and I will quote from the petition, issue 3
an order requiring the immediate suspension of the 4
operating license for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 5
Plant until such time that all fire safety violations 6
affecting safe shutdown functions as designated under 7
current law are brought into compliance.
8 The petitioners also requested as an 9
alternative enforcement action that the NRC issue 10 penalties for the maximum allowable amount of $130,000 11 for each fire protection violation for each day the 12 plant operates under compliance is achieved and 13 verified.
14 I will point out that the NRC staff did 15 review the immediate aspects of the submitted 16 petition, and determined that there is no need for 17 immediate action.
18 So why are we here, and where are we in 19 the 2.206 process? At this time the NRC staff has 20 received the aforementioned petition for review, and 21 as described in our 2.206 process document, Management 22 Directive 8.11, which is publicly available, the 23 petitioners have requested to meet with the Petition 24 Review Board prior to the board's internal meeting to 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 decide whether to accept the petition for review under 1
the 2.206 process.
2 I will again note that back on October 3
23rd of this year we attempted to have this meeting, 4
but due to technical difficulties, we had to secure 5
(phonetic) from that meeting.
6 The purpose of today's meeting is to 7
provide the petitioners an opportunity to provide any 8
relevant additional explanation and support for the 9
petition in advance of the Petition Review Board's 10 internal meeting.
11 As described in our process the NRC staff 12 and the licensee, who has also been invited to this 13 meeting, will have the opportunity to ask clarifying 14 questions of the petitioners.
15 Also, many members of the public may 16 observe or listen to this meeting between the 17 petitioners, the licensee, and the NRC, and the NRC 18 will be available after the meeting to answer any 19 questions from members of the public that are here.
20 I want to emphasize that the purpose of 21 this meeting is not to determine whether the NRC 22 agrees or disagrees with the contents of the petition.
23 Rather it is to clarify the issues in the petition for 24 understanding, so that the NRC can decide whether or 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 not to accept the petition for review.
1 After the Petition Review Board's internal 2
meeting, we will inform the petitioners of our 3
decision shortly after that.
4 At this time I'd like to introduce the 5
board, and then turn the meeting over to the 6
petitioners.
7 The NRC's Petition Review Board is 8
comprised pretty much of all the people you see here, 9
at the table, and are representative from the Office 10 of Enforcement, Maria Schwartz.
11 So with that if there are any questions, 12 I'll point out we have fire protection staff on the 13 Petition Review Board. We have advice from our office 14 of general counsel. And Lisa Regner is our petition 15 manager.
16 Are there any questions from the 17 petitioners before I turn it over to you?
18 MR. RUNKLE: I will ask questions as we go 19 along. We started off that way last time asking a 20 couple of questions just for clarification.
21 MR. NIEH: Any questions for those 22 participating over the phone on where we are in the 23 process and the purpose of this meeting?
24 VOICE: There are no questions in Region 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Two.
1 MR. NIEH: Thank you.
2 Again, on the phone could you identify 3
yourself if you make any remarks, please?
4 VOICE: Region Two, there are no questions 5
here.
6 MR. NIEH: Thank you.
7 With that, I'd like to turn it over to the 8
petitioners.
9 PETITIONERS PRESENTATION 10 MR. RUNKLE: Thank you, Mr. Nieh.
11 We started off when we met a couple of 12 weeks ago, and I had some clarifying questions. And 13 I think we probably need to go through those again, 14 just to make sure on the record.
15 My name is John Runkle. I'm representing 16 the petitioners. And with me today are Jim Warren, 17 the executive director of NC Waste Awareness &
18 Reduction Network; Paul Gunter with the Nuclear 19 Information and Resource Service and David Lochbaum 20 with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
21 I am probably the least technical person 22 in this room, so you all know more about the fire 23 protection and what it means to a safe shutdown of a 24 nuclear power plant than I do.
25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I am going to leave to these gentlemen to 1
really talk about some of the technical information 2
that we have in addition to the petition.
3 Now, Mr. Nieh, you said that the members 4
of the Petition Review Board were the people in this 5
room?
6 MR. NIEH: At the table here, and our 7
representative from the Office of Enforcement.
8 MR. RUNKLE: Is that a standing review 9
board, or is it representatives from the different 10 divisions and agencies within the NRC?
11 MR. NIEH: It is representative of 12 different divisions in the NRC, and that is basically 13 determined based on the information that is in the 14 petition.
15 Typically for our process and our 16 procedure, Management Directive 8.11, the board 17 consists of a chairman, usually an SES level manager 18 at the agency. It has a petition manager, which for 19 a plant specific petition, it's usually the licensing 20 project manager from our division of operator reactor 21 licensing.
22 And then other members would be determined 23 by the NRC staff as appropriate based on the content 24 of the information in the petition.
25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We do have regional support on the 1
Petition Review Board as well.
2 MR. RUNKLE: But it's the people around the 3
table that are actually making the decision whether to 4
accept the petition for further review, or to deny the 5
petition for further review?
6 MR. NIEH: Yes, sir.
7 MS. LONGO: OGC is an adviser. I don't 8
actually get a vote.
9 MR. RUNKLE: And OGC being the Office of 10 General Counsel?
11 MS. LONGO: So I provide advice but I don't 12 vote.
13 MR. NIEH: And we do receive input from -
14 we have regional representation on the board as well.
15 MR. NIEH: And who are those regional 16 representatives?
17 MR. NIEH: I thought it was supposed to be 18 Randy Musser (phonetic), but I did not hear him come 19 on the line, and I heard that there are several other 20 regional folks that are on the line. So we will get 21 the information from the region based on the people 22 that are attending.
23 MR. WARREN: Are they voting members?
24 MR. NIEH: I would not say all of them are.
25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We would typically have one representative from the 1
region supporting a plant specific issue.
2 Our process folks, can you check me on 3
that please?
4 MS. ROSENBERG: This is Stacey Rosenberg.
5 According to the process it's one regional 6
representative.
7 MR. RUNKLE: I just needed to clarify that 8
on the record so when the transcript that comes out, 9
we'll have a better understanding of actually this 10 process.
11 I'm new to the process of the Petition 12 Review Board. I haven't appeared in front of the NRC 13 since licensing Sharon Harris in the early `80s, so 14 things have changed considerably since that. And I 15 just need to understand where things are going from 16 this.
17 So we filed a petition under the 2.206, 18 and with the petition we did have a report dealing 19 with fire, that was part of it, and attached to that 20 report were various attachments.
21 One was, attachment one was the Sharon 22 Harris fire protection abridged chronology going back 23 to 1980, referencing a lot of NRC documents and 24 generic letters, regs, those kind fo things.
25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 We do have - there was a 1992 article in 1
the Raleigh News & Observer talking about the need for 2
the nuclear plant to keep watch on the fire retardant 3
materials; discussion of a couple of fires at the 4
Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant; and a follow up, 5
the NRC still assessing safety significance of major 6
fire at Sharon Harris. This is an Inside NRC article 7
that describes in I think, not in complete details, 8
but gives an overview of that fire in 1989.
9 Also looking at licensee events report in 10 2002 where there was a fairly significant inspection 11 review of the fire protection strategy at the Sharon 12 Harris plant.
13 And included in there are some various 14 operator manual actions that have been proposed.
15 That's under attachment six.
16 This is just - there are a whole series of 17 these operator manual actions, and these are just some 18 of them as an example.
19 And then looking at 2003, when the NRC 20 ponders its rule change.
21 So that was the initial petition.
22 So I guess my first question was to the 23 review board, in making your assessment whether to 24 accept the petition for further review or denying the 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 petition, whether there is a citation to an NRC 1
document, a reg or a generic letter or something like; 2
if those are documents that you would review as part 3
of either the Petition Review Board findings or later 4
on in the investigation; is that correct?
5 MR. NIEH: There are relevant documents -
6 this is Ho Nieh, the Petition Review Board chair - if 7
there are relevant documents or citations of other 8
documents or references that we would need to consider 9
we would look at them.
10 MR. RUNKLE: So as part of the record and 11 part of the petition, we do not need to have to file 12 all these documents? There are probably a 13 considerable amount of documents that are cited, and 14 some are summarized, others are not. We don't have to 15 submit all those to you as part of this petition?
16 MS. LONGO: I believe that everything that 17 you cited was publicly available.
18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
19 MS. LONGO: And that's - it's going to be 20 in our system and we can retrieve it.
21 MR. RUNKLE: Just to have that on record.
22 Now, Mr. Nieh, you said earlier that you 23 had reviewed the immediate action part of the petition 24 and decided not to recommend immediate action; is that 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 correct?
1 MR. NIEH: Yes, sir.
2 MR. RUNKLE: Now in making that decision 3
what documents did you review?
4 MR. NIEH: We reviewed your incoming 5
petition. We also reviewed - and I'm going to ask our 6
technical staff and our regional staff to chime in as 7
well - we reviewed a previous petition that was 8
submitted I believe a few years ago, in 2005.
9 We also reviewed that particular petition 10 in the NRC, the decision that was made on that one.
11 Either Alex, Dan, or the region, do you 12 want to add any other information that we reviewed?
13 MR. KLEIN: I think you accurately 14 described the information that we reviewed. I think 15 that we had sufficient information as far as I 16 understand it to make that decision.
17 MR. FRUMKIN: We also considered the status 18 from a fire protection standpoint the transition to 10 19 CFR 50.48(c) and NFPA 805. You pointed out the 20 license amendments - or license event reports. And 21 we're involved in the pilot and transition, so we were 22 involved in that transition, their letter of intent, 23 and the enforcement discretion and that type of thing.
24 MR. RUNKLE: And your 2005 petition, could 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you cite that since we're on the record?
1 MR. FRUMKIN: Sure. It's the May 12 th, 2
2005.
3 MR. RUNKLE: And it's a 2206 petition?
4 MR. FRUMKIN: Yes.
5 MR. RUNKLE: And who is it from?
6 MR. FRUMKIN: Mr. Gunter, Mark Jacobs, 7
Debbie Katz, Jim Warren, Mark - or Karen Wimpelberg, 8
Janet Zeller.
9 MR. RUNKLE: And that was not on the fire 10 protection; is that correct?
11 MR. FRUMKIN: This is a request for 12 emergency enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206 to 13 address inoperable Hemyc slash MT fire protection 14 systems at Sharon Harris and other plants.
15 MR. RUNKLE: Okay.
16 MR. McDOWELL?: This is Pete McDowell.
17 Your voices are breaking up, and they are very soft.
18 Is there a way to turn up the microphones or move more 19 closely to them?
20 MS. REGNER: Those of you that are on the 21 phones, it would help if you have muting capability, 22 if you could mute while you are listening. Because we 23 are getting interference as well.
24 So I realize some of you may not have that 25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 capability, but if you do, please mute your phones.
1 And on our end we will try to speak up.
2 MR.
RUNKLE:
This is John Runkle 3
continuing. Since the submittal of the petition and 4
your subsequent review, have you had any contacts with 5
the licensee, Progress Energy?
6 MS.
REGNER:
Other than relaying 7
information for the meetings that we're having here?
8 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. Not the procedural 9
matters, but if there was any subsequent significant 10 discussion of any of the substantive issues related to 11 the petition?
12 MS. REGNER: I have not, sir, no.
13 MR. NIEH: Sir, if the licensee is not part 14 of the decision-making process for the NRC's 2.206 15 review process.
16 It's an NRC staff decision. We invite the 17 licensee to the meeting so that they are aware of an 18 ongoing request for action against their facility, and 19 we also give them the opportunity to ask any questions 20 of the petitioners as well, to clarify anything that 21 you have submitted to us.
22 But as far as deliberations about the 23 petition that's all internal at the NRC.
24 MR. RUNKLE: Thank you just in order to 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 clarify that for the record.
1 MS. GORDON?: This is Alice Gordon. If 2
anything has happened the reception is getting worse.
3 It's softer.
4 MR. RUNKLE: Alice, we'll try to speak up.
5 This is John Runkle. Can you hear me?
6 MS. GORDON: Yes, but after the request by 7
Pete McGow (phonetic) I did not notice an improvement.
8 So just do the best you can.
9 MR. RUNKLE: I would like to distribute 10 additional information since the time of the petition.
11 MS. REGNER: I have additional copies as 12 well.
13 MR. NIEH: This is Ho Nieh, the Petition 14 Review Board chair.
15 Is the same package of information you 16 provided to us in October?
17 MR. RUNKLE: There are -
18 MS. REGNER: They said there are additions.
19 MR. NIEH: There are additions?
20 MS. REGNER: Yes.
21 MR. RUNKLE: There are three additional 22 documents. And I gave them as a review before, and I 23 can just do that fairly quickly.
24 Most of them deal with the attention that 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is given to the petition in the local media, that 1
there were various articles by the Raleigh News &
2 Observer and the Durham Herald Sun which are major 3
newspapers in the area.
4 And since that time the town of Chapel 5
Hill has passed a resolution in support of the 2.206 6
petition. The town of Carrboro, also North Carolina, 7
and Orange county in North Carolina, and - as I 8
understand after the first of the year Chatham County 9
is also considering supporting the resolution.
10 So this is really correspondence and the 11 various resolutions from the local governments, some 12 that they sent you directly, and others just to make 13 sure that you have copies in the record.
14 Also a correspondence from Jim Warren of 15 NC Warren with Robert McGehee. He's chief executive 16 officer with Progress Energy, and Progress Energy's 17 response outlining the - what was in the petition, the 18 2.206 petition, and trying to get an understanding of 19 what Progress Energy's position on it.
20 We went over that at our meeting a couple 21 of weeks ago, so really we don't need to go over them 22 again.
23 I think the three new documents that we 24 did not have last time we were here I think are 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 significant because it really goes to the heart of the 1
project - the heart of the problem here.
2 One is Progress Energy's website, which is 3
their official position, their response to the 2.206 4
petition, this was on their website as late as 5
October. It describes what the petition is about, and 6
what gives their response to how they view fire 7
protection.
8 It's - their position is troublesome.
9 Harris plant operates its fire safety program as the 10 NRC regulations require under a multilayered fire 11 safety philosophy. The fire safety program is three-12 tiered: fire prevention, fire detection and 13 suppression, and fire barriers.
14 When one aspect of the three-tiered 15 program has a deficiency, the NRC requires us to 16 strengthen the other aspects of the program.
17 The NRC has identified a deficiency with 18 the fire barrier tier, so we strengthened the fire 19 prevention and fire protection tiers through the fire 20 watch program.
21 Now looking at the prescriptive rules 22 under 3(g)(2), there are the three aspects of fire 23 protection, and looking at those a little closer, 24 these are - I mean I'm sure everybody in the room is 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 aware of those - there's a qualified three-hour fire 1
barrier system; a qualified one-hour fire barrier 2
system in conjunction with smoke detectors and 3
automatic sprinkler systems; or a minimum distance of 4
20 feet or separation between the electrical cable 5
trays or conduits with no intervening combustibles, in 6
conjunction with the placement of detection and 7
automated suppression between the electrical systems.
8 Now if there are alternatives to this, 9
they have to go through a certain process. And as the 10 official position of the licensee in response, as 11 they've reported to the local governments, to Mr.
12 Warren, and on the website, if they don't meet the 13 prescriptive standards of III.G.2, they can take other 14 kind of operator manual actions, and that would 15 somehow put them in compliance.
16 Now their public position is, and it 17 states in here that their public position is that they 18 are not out of compliance.
19 I
recently got a copy of the 20 correspondence, it's also in this packet that I handed 21 out, from October 20 th, 2006. There had been 22 correspondence back and forth between Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission and the Sharon Harris plant on 24 how to get them in compliance with the fire 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 regulations.
1 And I don't know if this is a legal nicety 2
or not. They are not in compliance with the rules and 3
regulations as they're required to, but they seem - it 4
seems that their public position is that they are not 5
out of compliance.
6 So that is something that the 2.206 7
petition needs to get to the bottom of. Are they in 8
compliance? Are they out of compliance? If they are 9
out of compliance, how do they get into compliance in 10 a timely manner.
11 As stated in the petition this has been 12 going on since 1992, and there's been a series of 13 letters, directives, inspections, enforcement actions.
14 And at the latest count the Shearon Harris plant has 15 said that it would be in compliance and replace some 16 of the fire barriers by the year 2015, so we're going 17 on for another eight or nine years.
18 So over a 24 year period, the plant has 19 been out of compliance, and even as they're saying 20 will be out of compliance.
21 And lastly wanted to draw your attention, 22 I'm sure you are all aware of the draft report for 23 NUREG 1852 demonstrating the feasibility and 24 reliability of operator manual actions in response to 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 a fire.
1 Understand that this is out there for 2
comments, but I think it's a very important document, 3
because it tells me as a nontechnical person that 4
there is a process here that must be followed before 5
you do operator manual actions.
6 First, at the nuclear plant itself you 7
have to describe the operator manual actions, and you 8
have to assess and see if they work.
9 Then you have to submit them to the NRC as 10 a license amendment as to somehow - then you are in 11 compliance with fire safety so that your operator 12 manual actions somehow substitute for your fire 13 barriers and your suppression that you should have 14 under III.G.2.
15 Now granted it's up to the NRC to review 16 that submittal, analyze the operator manual actions in 17 light of what the actual conditions at the nuclear 18 power plant, and modify them as needed and go back and 19 forth with the nuclear plant to make sure that the 20 operator manual actions at least work as they said 21 they were going to work, and that their safety meets 22 all the requirements for a safe shutdown.
23 And in that period the operator manual 24 actions must be accepted as a license amendment or 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 denied. And this is what hasn't happened since 1992, 1
these operator manual actions, we know that the fire 2
suppression and the different barriers are not 3
working. There's been a long history of that since 4
1992. We know those don't work.
5 If you are going to rely on operator 6
manual actions, what you have to do is describe and 7
assess them, and submit them to the NRC as a licensing 8
amendment, and have the NRC staff review, analyze or 9
modify them, and then accept or deny them.
10 And none of that has gone on in this 11 instance, and that is probably the most troublesome in 12 really going on to what the 2.206 petition is about.
13 We need to have - we need to put some kind 14 of end to this. That's why we asked for emergency 15 action. We think that 15 years is certainly too long 16 a time to allow something like this to go on, and 17 another eight or nine until barriers are replaced, or 18 operator manual actions are approved as alternatives, 19 the fire protection at the Sharon Harris plant is not 20 adequate.
21 Before I let my colleagues speak, I've 22 looked at the 2.206 petition requirements. This 23 obviously meets all the requirements: it's a serious 24 problem that has not been resolved; the enforcement 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 actions, if any, by the NRC in this area have been 1
inadequate; looking at the management directive 8.11, 2
the basic criteria for a 2.206 petition have been met.
3 So we would urge you to accept it for 4
further review. There is something here that needs to 5
be resolved.
6 Mr. Warren, I asked you to talk a little 7
bit about the local response to this.
8 Why don't you go ahead?
9 MR. WARREN: Well, briefly, I'd just say 10 that as evidenced by some of the interest in the 11 telephone participation today you can see that this is 12 a very important issue to local and state officials 13 and the public in our region.
14 It gets pretty easy to understand that 15 federal safety regulations are in place for a reason, 16 and despite the various types of statements, 17 explaining that Progress Energy, claiming that they 18 are in compliance, or they are in compliance if you 19 count the interim comp measures, or they are sort of 20 in compliance.
21 Elected officials and others are very 22 intent on seeing this get resolved. And one of the 23 things I think you'll hear more about today, we want 24 to have a field hearing in our region where these 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 folks that are participating by telephone can hear 1
these issues fleshed out, and let's hear Progress 2
Energy's position of where they are, and what they 3
plan to do.
4 The question as I understand additionally 5
NRC's position is that they have been allowing this 6
plant to continue operating under enforcement 7
discretion. If that's correct - but I understand 8
Progress Energy hasn't asked for that courtesy to be 9
extended. And certainly the enforcement discretion is 10 something that can't just go on indefinitely.
11 So we want to have this issue resolved, 12 and we want to have NRC to come to North Carolina 13 and let's have this resolved in front of the public.
14 MR. RUNKLE: David, why don't you go ahead 15 with your comments?
16 MR. LOCHBAUM: This is David Lochbaum with 17 the Union of Concerned Scientists.
18 I have a short three-page amplification or 19 crystallization of the petition in my comments today, 20 and I'd like that to be added to the petition review 21 record if I could.
22 It's also the same thing I handed out at 23 the October 23rd meeting with no changes.
24 Basically what concerned us, and the 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 reason we signed on to the petition, were four areas 1
that as we understand exist at Harris that shouldn't 2
exist at Harris.
3 As we understand the fire protection 4
regulations, there were the existing regulations that 5
I call 10 CFR 50.48. And then there was the more 6
recent revision, 50.48, paragraph C, that allowed 7
plant owners to opt for an NFPA 805 way of meeting 8
fire protection regulations.
9 As we understand the original and this 10
- option, they essentially provide equivalent 11 protection; neither one of them is higher or lower 12 than the other. They are just two different ways of 13 getting to the same place, and that is, adequate 14 protection of public health in the event of a fire.
15 It's also our understanding that Harris 16 does not meet either one of them and has elected to 17 pursue the NFPA 805 pathway as the quickest way to 18 restore compliance.
19 Our four concerns about that are, from the 20 record we've reviewed, and we spent some time going 21 through Adams looking at every document between the 22 company and the NRC over the last decade, we don't 23 find any evidence that either the company or the NRC 24 have evaluated the risk impact of the collective 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 noncompliances.
1 We've seen documents where the company has 2
indicated that they need to make nearly a dozen 3
physical modifications to the plant as part of their 4
efforts to restore compliance with NFPA 805, so it's 5
not just the paperwork exercise they are embarking on.
6 The plant itself has to be modified to bring it back 7
into compliance with fire protection regulations.
8 Yet we don't see any indication that the 9
company or the NRC looked at the collective impact of 10 all of these deltas, and evaluated that it was okay, 11 and it was - adequate protection of public health was 12 assured despite the many noncompliances.
13 Second concern was that the current 14 reliance or the continued reliance on interim 15 compensatory measures at Harris contradicts actions of 16 the NRC in the past which are prudent regulatory 17 practice.
18 In the early 1990s, the then-chairman of 19 the NRC, Dr. Ivan Selin, responded to the Congress 20 when asked how long can interim fire watches be used, 21 his answer was six months. I know it wasn't an exact, 22 precise, carved in stone feeling, but that was an 23 indication fo what the agency deemed to be an 24 appropriate length for interim compensatory measures.
25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 That has been used far longer than six 1
months at Sharon Harris, and will continue to be used 2
on the present path for - for years into the future, 3
not just six months into the future.
4 The problem we have with that is that the 5
public was provided with an opportunity to review and 6
comment on the regulations that now exist in 50.48, as 7
well as the recent revision, the NFPA 805 option that 8
was added. We were allowed to review and comment on 9
whether that constituted adequate public health 10 protection or not.
11 But the company is not meeting either one 12 of them. We were not allowed an opportunity to 13 comment on indefinite prolonged who knows how many 14 years reliance in interim compensatory measures. That 15 was not something the public was allowed to comment on 16 and chip in on whether that seemed to be a good idea 17 or not. It's something - wink wink nudge nudge - it's 18 a deal that's been struck behind closed doors between 19 the agency and a wayward licensee that leaves the 20 public in harm's way with no opportunity short of this 21 petition to protect themselves. So that's why we 22 think the petition is necessary, one of the reasons we 23 think the petition is necessary.
24 Thirdly, the whole concept of the current 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 process has Progress Energy running the show and NRC 1
on the wrong end of the puppet strings. There are no 2
regulatory requirements that this company is meeting.
3 These interim compensatory measures aren't codified by 4
regulation, order, or any other regulatory tool 5
available to the NRC.
6 So it's up to the company to decide what 7
they do and when they do it. That's absolutely wrong.
8 This agency is supposed to be a regulatory body. It's 9
supposed to set the standards that the Harris plant 10 meets; not the other way around.
11 The - if this company chooses to take 10 12 years instead of five years to restore compliance with 13 fire protection regulations, as it presently stands, 14 you would just sit there and watch. That is wrong.
15 This agency should determine when Progress 16 Energy finally stops being a nuclear outlaw and starts 17 complying with federal regulations.
18 We were given an opportunity to comment on 19 the rulemaking. We weren't given a chance to comment 20 on the rule breaking, so we created this opportunity 21 to do that. It's wrong, and it should stop.
22 Fourth, we compare what the NRC is not 23 doing here to what the NRC did do in the security 24 arena after 9/11. After 9/11 the NRC looked at the 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 security regulations to determine that upgrades were 1
necessary because of what happened on 9/11. Those 2
post-9/11 security regulations were a heightened level 3
of protection on the security front, and because it 4
was a different - it was an increase, the plant 5
owners, were, at the time of the NRC's decision, they 6
were in noncompliance with what the NRC wanted these 7
companies to go to.
8 So the NRC gave the companies a period of 9
time to get to that heightened level, and they did 10 that through the issuance of orders that prescribed 11 what they will do and when they will do it.
12 And if anybody, any licensee chose not to 13 do that, or was unable to do that, it left the NRC 14 with the regulatory tools to compel compliance with 15 where they were supposed to be.
16 If you contrast that situation with the 17 one that existed at Shearon Harris, if 10 years from 18 now if Shearon Harris was still promising this agency 19 that it would restore compliance, instead of actually 20 having done it, you'd have essentially no regulatory 21 tool to do anything about it.
22 This petition provides the regulatory tool 23 that's needed to bring Progress Energy, to hold 24 Progress Energy accountable, and stop the rule 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 breaking that is occurring at Shearon Harris.
1 That's why we think the petition should be 2
granted, and actually the actions sought in the 3
petition should be taken.
4 Thanks.
5 MR. RUNKLE: Go ahead.
6 MR. GUNTER: My name is Paul Gunter. I am 7
director of the reactor watchdog project for Nuclear 8
Information and Resource Service.
9 I'd like to say at the outset that the 10 operator manual actions that have been substituted for 11 physical passive fire protection features per the - as 12 prescribed per the license condition have in fact 13 diminished fire protection at Shearon Harris.
14 Neither fire watch nor operator manual 15 action represent an equivalent to rated fire barriers 16 suppression, detection, and minimum cable 17 separation.
18 There is no relationship between - I mean 19 these are all very different features that have - that 20 are being substituted by at best defined dubious 21 actions.
22 Moreover there is a history here that has 23 to be put into context. The petitioners have 24 contended that in 1997, after nearly five years of 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 meetings between the operators of Shearon Harris and 1
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fire protection 2
staff, this operator made fire safety commitments that 3
were approved by NRC to be implemented as a specified 4
set of Thermo-Lag corrective action programs, the 5
inoperable fire barrier that was declared in 1992.
6 Now Shearon Harris, the owner and 7
operator, specified that they would remove Thermo-Lag 8
fire barriers, and that they would upgrade fire 9
barrier systems for safe shutdown of the reactor, with 10 approved operable fire barrier systems, and by 11 rerouting redundant electrical cables, vital to safe 12 shutdown, to separate fire areas so that no single 13 fire could completely disable the safe shutdown 14 capability of the reactor from the main control room 15 in the event of fire.
16 It is no less true today that in the event 17 of a significant fire every nuclear power plant, 18 including Sharon Harris, is much safer shutting down 19 and controlling the reactor from the main control room 20 through electrical systems preserved to be free from 21 fire damaged by passive physical fire protection 22 features.
23 These fire protection features for safe 24 shutdown circuits are specified in Shearon Harris 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 license condition, and they are specified only to be, 1
as I already identified, three-hour rated barriers; 2
one hour used in conjunction with detection and 3
automated suppression, or cable separation by a 4
minimum distance of 20 feet with no intervening 5
combustibles in association with detection and 6
automated suppression.
7 During subsequent NRC inspections in 1998, 8
1999 and 2000, NRC inspectors found that Harris 9
operators failed to implement the agreed upon Thermo-10 Lag corrective action program.
11 The Shearon Harris safe shutdown analysis, 12 contract to its earlier commitments made by Sharon 13 Harris in 1997, as a common course of business 14 instead, substituted without NRC approval unapproved 15 operator manual actions that were largely unanalyzed 16 for their reliability to protect the reactor safe 17 shutdown functions, and therefore, failed to provide 18 any reasonable assurance to protect the public safety.
19 Now we are here today with even an 20 uncertain criteria as being developed through NUREG 21 1852, but no recognized and feasible and reliable 22 criteria for operator manual action.
23 In fact Progress Energy was found by NRC 24 inspectors to have instead abandoned required physical 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 fire protection feature of electrical circuits for 1
safe shutdown per 10 CFR 5048, and the Shearon Harris 2
license condition, again, without seeking prior NRC 3
safety analysis or approval for the illegally 4
substituted actions.
5 PARTICIPANT: I can hear stuff, I can't 6
make out any words. It sounds like it's coming more 7
from the base of -
8 MR. GUNTER: Without knowing the current 9
total, it is further documented that a number of these 10 illegal operator manual actions cannot be reliably 11 completed in time to protect safe shutdown functions 12 by the admission of NRC inspectors.
13 As documented by NRC, the Shearon Harris 14 plant was found that only if no such operator manual 15 actions could be found would the Harris owner and 16 operator physically protect these safety significant 17 electrical cables by the only three approved methods 18 under the code of federal regulations.
19 Consequently Shearon Harris has at least 20 100 known operator manual actions that they are 21 currently relying on for hot shutdown in the event of 22 a significant fire.
23 It is further documented that Progress 24 Energy did not, as required, request deviations or 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 exemptions from NRC for alternate fire protection 1
actions to protect safe shutdown components. Instead 2
it illegally substituted these operator manual 3
actions.
4 And according to the NRC documentation 5
very likely none of them were in license submittals 6
upon which the NRC safety evaluation reports are 7
based.
8 Clearly these actions taken as a common 9
course of business by Progress Energy represent 10 longstanding violations of 10 CFR 5048, the Sharon 11 Harris license condition, and the incorporated safety 12 evaluation reports as well as the updated final safety 13 analysis report and Branch Technical Position 9.51.
14 NRC has stated that its Thermo-Lag action 15 plan, confirmatory action orders, are still in effect 16 and enforceable, and have not been rescinded.
17 Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 18 as a petitioner, contends that Progress Energy 19 wilfully violated safety related commitments made 20 under its Thermo-Lag action plan to avoid being issued 21 orders then illegally substituted broad applications 22 of inferior and unreliable operator manual actions 23 rather than pursue these commitments where the safety 24 analysis had been review and approved by NRC per 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 federal law.
1 This willful violation must be redressed 2
by the requested emergency enforcement action.
3 The petitioners further contend that to 4
continue to ignore longstanding fire protection 5
violations comes at significant and unreasonable risk 6
to the security infrastructure of the Sharon Harris 7
Nuclear Power Station and public safety.
8 Inspectable and operable fire protection 9
systems for the safe shutdown and control of the 10 reactor are critical security infrastructure at the 11 nuclear power station in a post-9/11 world.
12 We urge you to take your enforcement 13 responsibilities seriously rather than subordinate 14 them to the financial interest of the nuclear 15 industry.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. RUNKLE: Anybody have anything to add 18 on to that?
19 As Mr. Warren said, as part of the review 20 of the 2.206 petition there is a request for a field 21 hearing the Triangle Area of North Carolina, which is 22 where the plant is located.
23 And we feel that there are several local 24 governments that have expertise, and certainly have an 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 interest in it, but have expertise in fire protection 1
and would like to have expanded comments on that, and 2
would like to hear from Progress Energy on what their 3
response and what their plans are.
4 If that's part of a 2.206 petition review 5
we would like to see that making that request on the 6
record. We have made it in the petition, feel that's 7
very important.
8 The local governments are considering 9
having their own session and doing their own field, 10 but I think having the NRC participate as a party in 11 that would make it a better hearing and would really 12 bring up more on this issue, and I think would help 13 the NRC to resolve this issue and to stop this 14 problem.
15 So there is a lot of interest in it back 16 home, and we want you all to come down and talk to the 17 people about what your review is, and try to find an 18 answer to it.
19 We are hear for questions and answers, 20 from the staff or from the licensee, or any members 21 on the phone, we'd be glad to do that.
22 MR. NIEH: Thank you.
23 At this time I'd like to turn it over to 24 any of the NRC staff in the room here at headquarters.
25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Questions for the petitioners?
1 MR. KLEIN: I think speaking from my 2
viewpoint that, I've read the petition over, and I 3
don't have any technical questions.
4 I do have one question with respect to the 5
2015 date. I just - I'm unsure of how that date was 6
arrived at by the petitioners with respect to the 7
Harris plant.
8 I don't know if the petitioners were 9
referring perhaps to the overall transition of the 10 entire fleet by Progress Energy when you refer to the 11 2015 date?
12 I just wanted to clarify that.
13 MR. RUNKLE: If you will look at on page 11 14 of the fire protection abridged chronology, which is 15 attachment one to the report.
16 MR. KLEIN: Page 11?
17 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. And down at the bottom, 18 in March of 2006, different modifications necessary 19 for the NFPA during the cycle twelfth, in looking at 20 the different refueling cycles and trying to keep 21 track when they were actually scheduled or probably 22 likely to be scheduled, that's how we came up with the 23 data of 2015.
24 MR. KLEIN: I see, it was physically for 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Harris plant?
1 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
2 MR. KLEIN: It's my understanding that the 3
Harris plant, cycle 15 and 16, are in the time frame 4
of I believe 2010 or so. And maybe a licensee can 5
clarify that for us in terms of the exact date of the 6
cycles for 15 and 16.
7 Again, my understanding was it was around 8
the time frame of 2010; not 2015.
9 MR. RUNKLE: We were looking at cycle 12 10 being next year, and then trying to find out an annual 11 refueling cycle going from there. So I'm sure if the 12 licensee could clarify when the cycle 15 and 16, that 13 would be great.
14 MR. LOCHBAUM: And this is Dave Lochbaum.
15 Even if it is 2010, that just gives them less time to 16 pay that $130,000 fine, so that would be fine with us, 17 if that turned out to be the correct one.
18 MR. CORLETT: This is Dave Corlett. I 19 think the question is, when is refueling outage 16?
20 Is that the question?
21 MS. REGNER: Yes, sir.
22 MR. CORLETT: It's fall of 2010.
23 MS. REGNER: Thank you.
24 MS. LONGO: I had a question for MR.
25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Runkel. Petitionerws request a field hearing in the 1
vicinity of Chapel Hill, and I just wanted to ask, are 2
you talking about a public meeting in which people can 3
exchange information, or are you talking about an 4
evidentiary hearing? What are you talking about?
5 MR. RUNKLE: At this point I would envision 6
having three or four of the parties - maybe the NRC, 7
the licensee, the representative of the local 8
government and the petitioners just to give their 9
petition some dialogue back and forth.
10 Problem in your parlance, it's probably a 11 public meeting.
12 MR. NIEH: And I will point out that our 13 process goes to acknowledgment of times and with the 14 NRC decision-making process that we would consider 15 having such public meeting.
16 MR. WARREN: Jim Warren. Going back to 17 that previous point, I don't have the document in 18 front of me. But the question of, 2015 or 2013 or 19 2010, my understanding is that Progress Energy, our 20 understanding is that we're looking for Harris to be 21 in compliance by 2015, they responded that that would 22 be their entire fleet, and that they intended to have 23 Harris at the front end so they would be under 805 by 24 2013 and they intend to apply for 805 in 2008.
25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So we're again, just as David said, 1
they're in violation now, and they need to be in 2
compliance ASAP and not 2008 or 2010 or 2013 or 2015.
3 MR. NIEH: Are there any other questions 4
from the NRC staff?
5 How about the NRC staff from Region Two?
6 MR. STAPLES: This is Nakota Staples, 7
Region Two. We have no questions from Region Two.
8 MR. NIEH: How about the Shearon Harris 9
licensee? Do you have any questions for the 10 petitioners?
11 MR. CORLETT: This is Dave Corlett. We 12 have no questions.
13 MS. LONGO: A clarifying question for Mr.
14 Gunther. Mr. Gunther, you stated in your comments 15 that Shearon Harris I current in violation of the FSAR 16 in its license.
17 Could you identify the provisions of the 18 FSAR or the license that are being violated, if it's 19 already in the package. I'm sorry, but I don't recall 20 seeing -
21 MR. GUNTER: I can provide that to you.
22 MS. LONGO: Would you please? Just so we 23 can see specifically what you are talking about?
24 Okay, thank you.
25 MR. NIEH: And there was another statement 26
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you made that I wanted to ask you about, is that what 1
you were referring to?
2 MS. LONGO: No, I just wanted to know what 3
it is they violated, the specific provisions. Those 4
are big documents.
5 MR. NIEH: Certainly the items that you 6
specified that Shearon Harris willfully violated, if 7
you can provide us with -
8 MR. GUNTER: Well, I will supplement right 9
now. The issue is that Shearon Harris provided NRC 10 staff in 1997 a set of commitments to bring Shearon 11 Harris into compliance with its license condition for 12 three G2 (phonetic) areas. And subsequent to that the 13 agency discovered that practically wholesale fire 14 barrier systems were abandoned, which includes these 15 areas of concerns that were subject to the Thermo-Lag 16 corrective action program.
17 Now the fact that the NRC's own documents 18 indicate that the licensee essentially used the 19 operator manual actions in every application that it 20 could find, and on the exception provide a physical 21 fire barrier, that I believe isn't done by mistake, 22 and raises our concern that these actions were 23 willful.
24 MR. NIEH: And that statement was based on 25 the subsequent inspections that the NRC had performed?
26 MR. GUNTER: Yes, sir, and I can provide 27 you with documentation where the NRC statement that 28 the licensee has provided - the licensee has 29 substituted operator manual action for III.2.G fire 30 areas as a general rule with the exception being where 31 they could not find an operator manual action they 32 used a fire barrier.
33
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And that's also documented in our 1
petition.
2 MR. NIEH: Thank you.
3 MR. FRUMKIN: You said in 1977 they made 4
commitments, and I'm assuming that's the Thermo-Lag 5
close out commitments, is that correct?
6 MR. GUNTER: Yes, sir.
7 MR. FRUMKIN: Is that chronology of their 8
commitments and our response in your short abridged 9
chronology?
10 MR. GUNTER: I will have to check that.
11 I'm not sure.
12 MR. FRUMKIN: There are only two bullets.
13 MR. GUNTER: I mean you are certainly aware 14 that 1997 prior to the issuance of confirmatory action 15 orders by NRC on Thermo-Lag, Shearon Harris entered 16 into agreements with staff that have been reviewed 17 through safety analysis, by staff, for a set of 18 actions, to bring these III.2.G fire areas into 19 compliance. And that was their Thermo-Lag corrective 20 action program.
21 MR. NIEH: Okay, are there any other 22 questions from staff here at headquarters?
23 Are there any other questions for the 24 other participants on the phone line for the NRC at 25 this time?
26 (No response) 27 John, did you have something else?
28 MR. RUNKLE: Just in response to, there was 29 a question about what was in the final safety analysis 30 report, and the supplement was - I'm looking at a 31 document, August 1 st, 2000, which was referenced in 32 the abridged chronology. It's a memorandum from Susan 33
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Black with the Division of Licensing Project 1
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and 2
it does describe sort of the process and what of the 3
parts of the SR and the SER are in play with these 4
prior protection rules.
5 And it's the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 6
Plant operating license condition 2.F, which states, 7
Caroline Power & Light Company, now Progress Energy, 8
shall maintain in effect all provisions of the 9
approved fire protection program as described in the 10 final safety analysis report for the facility as 11 amended in the SER safety evaluation report dated 12 November 1983, and supplements one through four, and 13 the safety evaluation dated January 12th, 1987, 14 subject to the following conclusions, and it goes 15 through several other parts of the fire protection 16 under the SAR, but the condition 2F is the one in the 17 license that the client has been out of compliance 18 with.
19 MS. LONGO: I'm sorry, section 2F of the 20 license, or of the -
21 MR. RUNKLE: Of the operating license 22 condition. It - as described in the final safety 23 analysis report.
24 And it does reference the safety 25 evaluation report in some other documents.
26 MR. LOCHBAUM: Thank you, John.
27 You just have one other small thing to 28 add. Based on the long time frame, 2010, 2015, pick 29 a date, for progress to become - to get Harris into 30 compliance, we are not sure how NRC inspectors are 31 doing fire protection inspection at Harris.
32 What criteria are they evaluating against?
33
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Are they ensuring that the plant is not in compliance 1
with the original regulations, or NFPA 805, since the 2
company has already confessed to that?
3 I would hate to be in the shoes of a fire 4
inspector going into this facility, when you arrive 5
you know they are not in compliance. I don't know 6
what you are evaluating against since you know they 7
are not in compliance.
8 I'm not saying those inspections are a 9
fraud, but they just don't seem to have a lot of value 10 to hold the plant to. And I don't think the public 11 living around that facility are getting good service 12 and respect and these other things on this back wall 13 when that's the situation.
14 MR. NIEH: Regional inspection staff, would 15 you like to address that comment?
16 MR. PAIGE: Could you repeat it please?
17 MR. NIEH: I could try to summarize. Mr.
18 David Lochbaum, his question was, if I could just 19 paraphrase, what guidance the fire protection 20 inspectors are using when they are going out to the 21 facilities to do the periodic fire protection 22 inspections, at Sharon Harris specifically.
23 MR. PAYNE: Yes, this is Charley Payne. We 24 use the inspection procedure that is prescribed in our 25 procedures here for doing triennial fire protection 26 inspections, and while Harris is in their transition 27 to NFPA 805 we use a modified version of that 28 inspection procedure, and that's inspection procedure 29 71111.05T, and have we done a -
30 MR. FRUMKIN: TTP.
31 MR. PAYNE: Yes, I realize that, but we 32 haven't done a TTP inspection yet at Harris. We 33
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 haven't gone back to them since they've actually 1
started their transition. We did a draft version of 2
what became TTP, but at the time it was just the 05T 3
procedures modified.
4 MR. WEERRAKKODY: This is Suni Weerrakkody.
5 For Sharon Harris and all other plants that are 6
transitioning to 805, we have a revised inspection 7
procedure. And at a high level what I can say is, we 8
have told inspectors to focus on the fire inspection 9
infrastructure, like for example when inspectors go, 10 you have the fire brigade, you have the suppresion 11 systems you know, and if the plant is transitioning to 12 805, in areas where we have basically said, our 13 position is that they are not in compliance, we enable 14 them to transition. In other words, that is no reason 15 to go and reinspect things like operator manual 16 actions where we believe that the licensee is not in 17 compliance.
18 So the inspector, we want to make sure 19 that they spend their time on things that - where they 20 can make a difference in the transition.
21 MR. NIEH: All right, hearing no other 22 questions and no other comments from the petitioners 23 and the NRC staff and those folks on the phone - I'm 24 sorry, Paul?
25 MR. GUNTER: I'm sorry, not to prolong this 26 too much further, but I did have one question. If you 27 could give us some insight on how the NFP 805 in the 28 Shearon Harris plants to transition to treats fire 29 protection in the context of security infrastructure, 30 where fire modeling, traditionally used to address 31 fire loads in certain fire areas that can be projected 32 or can be assessed, can't possibly be modeled in a 33
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 security scenario.
1 So we continue to have concern that there 2
is this gap that is by our assessment not being 3
addressed by NFP 805, in context of, as you could 4
provide through physical fire protection features that 5
are rates, that are tested, that are inspectable, that 6
are then maintained. I think that that's the kind of 7
proof that the public is looking for to address in a 8
9/11 world.
9 Now where is that addressed in NFP 805?
10 MR. WEERRAKKODY: I was just going to say, 11 I don't know how to answer your question without 12 getting into some of the safeguard information, but I 13 am cognizant of the relationship, because of a couple 14 of people in my branch who are participating in that 15 kind of work, I just don't know whether this is the 16 right forum or how to answer your question.
17 MR. FRUMKIN: Well, neither NFPA 805 nor 18 Appendix R or the other fire protection guidance was 19 designed with post-9/11 specifically in mind.
20 MR. NIEH: Let me supplement that. I think 21 that is the right answer to your question from my 22 understanding. I think that folks may be aware that 23 the NRC staff has been working on a mitigating 24 strategy and effort that deals with events in a post-25 9/11 environment.
26 And in those discussions, without getting 27 into safeguards information, we have been looking at 28 impacts to the plant due to fire, and means to protect 29 the core and protect the public under those 30 circumstances.
31 So although not inextricably lined to one 32 another, NFPA 805, and what we are doing with 33
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 mitigating strategies, it is something that the NRC is 1
also concerned about and working toward.
2 MR. WARREN: I had just one more thing to 3
come back to. I just want to get clear on the record 4
here what I understood this gentleman to say, and what 5
I heard David Lochbaum saying earlier.
6 To clarify for Progress Energy's people 7
and elected officials and others, the plant is not in 8
compliance with 5048, nor is the plant in compliance 9
with 805.
10 Is that agreed on at this point? That's 11 what I understood you to say?
12 MR. WEERRAKKODY: This is Sunil Weerakkody 13 again. I think what I would say is, until the plant 14 gets a license to 805, our regulatory standard for 15 them is their current requirement which is 5048.
16 That's what we hold them to. And in our view, the 17 operator manual actions need prior NRC approval. And 18 we believe that the licensee needs to keep 19 compensatory measures in place until such time as they 20 have fully transitioned to 805 and gotten their 21 license - getting to that license.
22 MR. KLEIN: Sunil, just to clarify if I 23 may, with respect to the application of Appendix R to 24 the Harris plant, because the Harris plant was 25 licensed post-`79, so in terms of the application of 26 the regulations specifically to the Harris plant, it 27 is with respect to the fire protection requirement, 28 and their approved fire protection program.
29 MR. GUNTER: Which is Branch Technical 30 Position 925.1, correct?
31 MR. KLEIN: Yes.
32 MR. WARREN: So to try to summarize, if I'm 33
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 correct, if they are not in compliance with 50.48, but 1
they are basically operating under NRC's enforcement 2
discretionary authority. Everybody nods their heads -
3 okay, I'm just trying to get clear on that, because 4
it's been a very important of contention in our area, 5
when the licensee is going out in the region 6
aggressively telling elected officials and others that 7
they are in compliance with the regulations, I just 8
want to get clear here that that is not accurate.
9 MS. LONGO: Alex, could you provide just a 10 further clarification. You made the point that Harris 11 was licensed, I can't remember whether you said before 12 or after -
13 MR. KLEIN: Post 1979.
14 MS. LONGO: Which means that?
15 MR.
KLEIN:
Which means that the 16 regulations in the 10 CFR 50.48(b) which invokes 17 appendix R on plants that were licensed to operate 18 prior to 1979, it's not the case for the Harris plant 19 because they were licensed to operate after 1979, so 20 therefore their fire protection requirements would 21 fall under, as Paul had indicated, or someone else had 22 indicated, the branch technical position.
23 Under NUREG 0800 which is our review 24 guidance for fire protection, that is the standard 25 that we use when we license the Harris plant, and not 26 to Appendix R.
27 MR.
GUNTER:
But just again for 28 clarification, that represents the equivalent of three 29 hour3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br /> rated barrier, one hour with suppression and 30 detection, minimum cable separation. And if they 31 don't meet that then they have to go through an 32 exemption process.
33
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. KLEIN: The requirements that are 1
listed in appendix R for the most part were subsumed 2
into NUREG 800. So you correct in stating that the 3
three options, the three hours, the one hour, the 20 4
feet and so forth, are part of that review guidance.
5 MR. GUNTER: And if they choose not to use 6
those three only requirements then they have to submit 7
to you, as the agency, for a safety analysis and an 8
exemption process.
9 MR. KLEIN: The licensee's license 10 condition states something to the effect that they may 11 make changes to their fire protection program provided 12 it does not adversely affect their ability to achieve 13 and maintain safe shutdown.
14 It is up to them, if they make a change to 15 their fire protection program, to make that 16 evaluation, to have that documentation on file at the 17 plant, and our inspectors have the ability to go in 18 and make a determination as to whether or not they 19 agree with the licensee.
20 If they determine that it does not 21 adversely affect their ability to achieve and maintain 22 safe shutdown.
23 If they conclude that it does not, that it 24 does affect their ability to achieve and maintain safe 25 shutdown, the licensee is required to come in for a 26 license amendment.
27 MR. GUNTER: Do you - this is Paul Gunter 28 again - do you know if Shearon Harris has provided 29 submittals under 10 CFR 50.59 with this regard?
30 MR. WEERAKKODY: You said 50.59?
31 MR. GUNTER: Yeah, 50.59. Is that the 32 wrong CFR?
33
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. WEERAKKODY: 50.90.
1 MR. GUNTER: For changes without prior NRC 2
approval. So have they made any submittals to you 3
under 50.59, for fire protection changes without NRC 4
review?
5 MR. KLEIN: They wouldn't normally submit -
6 if they conclude that it does not adversely affect 7
their ability to achieve and maintain shutdown, the 8
licensee would not normally submit that 50.59 9
evaluation into us for approval.
10 MR. FRUMKIN: Right, the NRC has issued 11 generic letter 8610, which in many many places 12 describes where a license amendment is required, what 13 the staff - staff set a line in the sand basically in 14 1986 which said, this is what we believe is an adverse 15 effect; this is not an adverse effect. This is what 16 you need to submit. This is what you can do on your 17 own. And it's an exhaustive document that covers a 18 lot of these issues in depth.
19 So I believe that Harris has submitted 20 some amendments under 50.90 where they do not meet the 21 adverse effect, and that they've also done some 22 analysis that meet the adverse effect, and submitted 23 it, or kept it in house, subject to inspection.
24 MR. WEERKODDY: This is Sunil Weerkoddy.
25 Are you using the exemption request and amendment 26 request interchangeably? Because in our job in here, 27 we make a clear distinction between the two, because 28 as Alex said, for pre-`79 plants, if they are using 29 operator manual actions, they would be requesting an 30 exemption from the regulations under 50.12, okay, 31 whereas for Shearon Harris, if they believe that they 32 are not complying with their licensing bases, not 33
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 regulations, they would be coming under 50.90?
1 Technically maybe the same thing but the legal process 2
is different.
3 MR. NIEH: Well, I think we've had some 4
additional questions and dialogue. And with that I'd 5
like to thank you, the petitioner s-6 MR. VANDERBECK: May I make a comment?
7 MR. NIEH: Yes.
8 MR. VANDERBECK: My name is Tom Vanderbeck, 9
and I just want to say that I am very confused and 10 uncomfortable with this regulatory semantics. And I 11 hope for all of us that live in the shadow of Shearon 12 Harris that this approach to faith-based fire 13 protection works. And that's all I have to say.
14 Thank you.
15 MS. GREENE?: This is Sally Greene. And 16 I'd like to ask, when will the transcript of this 17 hearing be available, and how can we get it?
18 MS. REGNER: I have been told - can you 19 hear me okay? - I am hoping that before Thanksgiving 20 we will have it in Adams, but it will depend on how 21 quickly we get the transcript back from the court 22 report. Does that sound reasonable?
23 MS. GREENE: How will we know when it's 24 available and how to get it?
25 MS. REGNER: I will notify Mr. Runkle.
26 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, and we will notify the 27 various local governments and people that we know of.
28 MR. COLEMAN?: This is Dan Coleman. I 29 wanted to go back to the point about the possibility 30 of a public meeting. We have been discussing among 31 local government officials having a public what we've 32 been calling a forum sometime after an expected 33
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Chatham County action in January. And I think it 1
would be very important for the NRC in your public 2
meeting format at that event or some other event that 3
you all might organize, there is a lot of concern 4
among elected officials and among the general public 5
about this, something here in the field that people in 6
the community could attend would be very very helpful.
7 MR. NIEH: Okay,thank you for that 8
feedback. And this is Ho Nieh, the PRB chairman.
9 As I mentioned before our process does ask 10 the staff to consider the extent to which further 11 public meetings with the petitioners would benefit the 12 process, and we will of course consider that as we 13 carry out the process in this petition that you've 14 submitted.
15 Any seconds on any questions, any further 16 comments, before we conclude?
17 Okay, hearing none I want to thank the 18 petitioners for taking the second time again to come 19 to NRC headquarters to provide us with the clarifying 20 information on the petition you've submitted.
21 With that, I'd like to conclude the 22 meeting. And we are going to secure the telephone 23 connection.
24 Thank you.
25 (Whereupon the proceeding in 26 the above-entitled matter was 27 adjourned) 28 29 30 31 32 33
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1