UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2011/03/11 · UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY...

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

March 11, 2011

Mr. Thomas Saporito, Petitioner Post Office Box 8413 Jupiter, Florida 33468-8363 [email protected]

SUBJECT: CLOSURE LETTER RE: THOMAS SAPORITO 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER (DAEC) REGARDING CRACKED WELD (TAC NO. ME5012)

Dear Mr. Saporito:

Your petition dated November 12, 2010 (Refer to Enclosure 1), addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. In your petition you requested that the NRC take enforcementtype action related to your concerns about an "indication identified in the N2A Recirculation Inlet Safe End to Safe End extension Dissimilar Metal Weld," at DAEC.

As the basis for your request, you stated that on or about November 6, 2010, the licensee noticed the NRC in a 21-page report [pertaining to an] "indication identified in the N2A Recirculation Inlet Safe End to Safe End extension Dissimilar Metal Weld." In addition, you provided a copy of a televised news article by Dave Franzman, Reporter entitled "Cracked Weld Discovered During Duane Arnold Refueling Outage."

On November 17,2010, Karl Feintuch petition manager, contacted you by email (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 103220270) to inform you on the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to provide you with an opportunity to address the NRC's petition review board (PRB) prior to the PRB's internal discussion to make the initial recommendation. On November 22,2010, you addressed the PRB by teleconference to discuss your petition. The teleconference was recorded by the NRC Operations Center and transcribed by a court reporter (Refer to Encloure 2). In addition, you provided a written statement to the PRB to supplement the teleconference discussion (Refer to Enclosure 3).

Management Directive (MD) 8.11, "Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions" ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328 is the governing process for 10 CFR 2.206 petitions. Following the teleconference, the PRB met internally on January 4, 2011, to discuss your petition as supplemented during the teleconference and to make the initial recommendation. In accordance with MD 8.11 the PRB's initial recommendation was that your petition met the criteria for rejection because the issue you raised has been reviewed, evaluated and resolved by the NRC on a generic basis and plant-specific basis. The bases for the detection, evaluation and remediation of the indication have already been the subject of NRC staff review. The following discussion provides a summary of the NRC's resolution for the issue raised in your petition on a generic basis and specifically at DAEC.

mailto:[email protected]

T. Saporito - 2

Regarding the licensee's choice of repair methods in this specific instance, the weld overlay satisfies all the structural design requirements of the pipe for the original safe-end to safe-end extension welds. The design of the overlay considers all the identified flaws, circumferential and axial, found during the initial ultrasonic test examination. The weld overlay is designed as a full structural overlay. The weld overlay design can effectively address 100 percent through-wall flaws, even though the flaws detected in this instance were not through-wall or 360 degrees around the pipe circumference.

Further, the use of the Alloy 52M filler metal, which is compatible with all the base materials and the dissimilar metal welds that are covered by the overlay, provides resistance to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and creates an effective barrier to flaw extension.

The overlay also results in compressive residual stresses on the inside surface of the weldment that helps to inhibit further SCC of the original weldment. The design of the overlay for the weldment uses methods that are standard in the industry. There are no new or different approaches in this specific overlay design, which would be considered either a first-of-a-kind or inconsistent with previous applications.

Mindful of the history and effectiveness of these repairs, the NRC reviewed the licensee's approach in its request for relief dated November 6, 2010, and its supplementary submittal dated November 10,2010, and found that the licensee's approach was suitable and effective. Based on its analysis the NRC conveyed its decision to the licensee on November 15, 2010. The decision to authorize the use of the alternative repair method (weld overlays) was conveyed to the licensee by telephone using a set of scripts to communicate the information to the licensee. The scripts are available for public view using the ADAMS Accession No. ML 110240122.

Subsequent to the authorization for the licensee to use the weld overlay repair, the associated safety evaluation (SE) is being prepared, which will be transmitted to the licensee and retained as a record of the event. That SE is expected to be available in ADAMS to the public in the near future (approximately April or May 2011). If you would like to be notified of all future correspondence that the NRC headquarters office issues to DAEC, you can subscribe to the NRC's Operating Reactor Correspondence list server: http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolvellistserver/plant-by-reg ion. html.

In an email dated January 26, 2011, the petition manager informed you of the PRB's initial recommendation and offered you a second opportunity, per MD 8.11 to provide additional information to the PRB. In that email, the petition manager requested your response before January 28, 2011, if interested in requesting a second opportunity to speak. To ensure delivery of the email dated January 26, 2011, the petition manager sent you a second email on January 31, 2011, with a response requested before February 2, 2011, if you wanted to present additional information. The petition manager emphasized that you did not need to respond to the email unless you were requesting a second opportunity to address the PRB. Since you did not provide a response to either email, the PRB presumed that you would not make a second presentation to the PRB. Therefore, in accordance with MD 8.11, the PRB's initial recommendation is now the final recommendation.

http://www.nrc.gov/public

T. Saporito - 3

In accordance with MD 8.11, we are sending you this closure letter, which documents the PRB final recommendation that your petition meets the criteria for rejection because the issue raised has been resolved by the NRC on a generic and plant-specific basis. The content of this closure letter is an update of the information provided in January 26, 2011, and January 31, 2011, email messages to you by Karl Feintuch of the NRC staff.

Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dr. Karl Feintuch at 301-415-3079 or [email protected].

Thank you for bringing the issues contained in your petition to the attention of the NRC.

Sincerely,

~4C~~ Theodore R. Quay, Deputy Division Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-331

Enclosures 1. Incoming 2.206 Petition dated November 12, 2010; 2. Court Reporter Transcript dated November 22, 2010; 3. Saporito written statement dated November 22, 2010; 4. Nuclear Technology Information

cc w/encls:

Mr. Christopher R. Costanzo Vice President Duane Arnold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324-9785

Distribution via Listserv


T. Saporito - 3

In accordance with MD 8.11, we are sending you this closure letter, which documents the PRB final recommendation that your petition meets the criteria for rejection because the issue raised has been resolved by the NRC on a generic and plant-specific basis. The content of this closure letter is an update of the information provided in January 26, 2011, and January 31, 2011, email messages to you by Karl Feintuch of the NRC staff.

Should you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dr. Karl Feintuch at 301-415-3079 or [email protected].

Thank you for bringing the issues contained in your petition to the attention of the NRC.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Theodore R. Quay, Deputy Division Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-331

Enclosures 1. Incoming 2.206 Petition dated November 12, 2010; 2. Court Reporter Transcript dated November 22, 2010; 3. Saporito written statement dated November 22, 2010; 4. Nuclear Technology Information

cc w/encls:

Mr. Christopher R. Costanzo Vice President Duane Arnold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324-9785

Distribution via Listserv

DISTRIBUTION: (G20100688/EDAT: OEDO-2010-0925)

PUBLIC RidsOcaMailCenter Resource LPL3-1 R/F RidsOgcRp Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource RidsNrrMailCenter Resource RidsNrrDorl Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1 Resource RidsNrrDpr Resource RidsNrrLABTully Resource TMensah, NRR RdisNrrPMDuaneArnold Resource MMitchell, NRR RidsOpaMail Resource AAndruszkiewicz, NRR

ADAMS A ccesslon N ML1106204710.:

OFFICE DORLlLPL3-1/PM DORLlLPL3-1/LA

NAME KFeintuch BTuily

DATE 03/11/11 03/11/11

ncomlng ML 103190731

DORLlLPL3-1/BC DPR/PGCB/PM

RPascarelli TMensah

03/11/11 03/11/11

DPR/DD

TQuay

03/11/11

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY


Enclosure 1: Incoming 2.206 Petition dated November 12, 2010

________________________

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE HON. WILLIAM BORCHARDT

1n the Matter of:

NEXTERA ENERGY, Date: 12 NOV 2010

Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant,

Docket No.: 05000331 ~I

PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. §2.206 SEEKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST NEXTERAENERGY AND DUANE ARNOLD NUCLEAR PLANT

NOW COMES, Thomas Saporito, (petitioner or Saporito) and submits a "'Petition Under 10 C.J<:R. §2.106 Seeldng Enforcement Action Against NEXTera Energy and Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant" (hereinafter, "Petition"). For the reasons stated below, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should grant the Petition as a matter oflaw:

NRC BAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORlTYTO GRANT PETII10N

The NRC is the government agency charged by the United States Congress to protect public health and safety and the environment related to operation of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States ofAmerica (USA). Congress charged the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), with this grave responsibility in creation of the agency through passing the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §58S1 (ERA). In the instant action, NEXTera Energy and Duane Arnold (hereinafter "licensee"). are collectively and singularly a "licensee" of the NRC and subject to NRC regulations and authority under 10 C.F.R. §50 and under other NRC regulations and authority in the operation of the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant (DANp). Thus. through Congressional action in creation of the NRC; and the fact that the named-actionable parties identified above by Petitioner are collectively and singularly a licensee of the NRC, the agency has jurisdiction and authority to grant the Petition in the instant action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Criteria for Reviewing PetitiollS UDder 10 C.F.R. §2.206

The staffwill review a petition under the requirements of 10 C.F.R. §2.206 if the request meets all of the following criteria:

• The petition contains a request for enforcement-related action such as issuing an order modifying, suspending, or revoking a license, issuing a notice ofvioIation, with or

115

EOO --G20100688

without a proposed civil penalty, etc.

• The facts that constitute the basis for taking the particular action are specified. The petitioner must provide some element ofsupport beyond the bare assertion. The supporting facts must be credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry.

• There is no NRC proceeding available in which the petitioner is or could be a party and through which petitioners concerns could be addressed. If there is a proceeding available. for example, ifa petitioner raises an issue that he or she has raised or could raise in an ongoing licensing proceeding, the staff will inform the petitioner ofthe ongoing proceeding and will not treat the request under 10 C.F.R. §2.206.

B. Criteria for Rejecting Petitions Under 10 CF.R. §2.206

• The incoming correspondence does not ask. for an enforcement-related action or fails to provide sufficient facts to support the petition but simply alleges wrongdoing, violations ofNRC regulations. or existence ofsafety concerns. The request cannot be simply a general statement ofopposition to nuclear power or a general assertion without supporting facts (e.g., the quality assurance at the facility is inadequate). These assertions will be treated as routine correspondence or as allegations that will be referred for appropriate action in accordance with MD 8.8, «Management ofAllegations".

• The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject ofNRC staffreview and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a directots decision. These requests will not be treated. as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information.

• The request is to deny a license application or amendment. This type ofrequest should initially be addressed in the context ofthe relevant licensing action, not under 10 C.F.R 2.206.

• The request addresses deficiencies within existing NRC rules. This type ofrequest should be addressed as a petition for rulemaking.

See, Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs, Review Process for 10 C.F.R. Petitions, Handbook 8.11 Part ill.

REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT-RELATED ACTION TO MODIFY, SUSPEND, A LICENSE AND ISSUE A CONFIRMATORY ORDER

A. Request for Enforeement-Related Action

215

Petitioner respectfully requests that the NRC: (1) take enforcement action against the above-captioned licensee; (2) issue a confinnatory order requiring the licensee to bring the DANP to a "cold-shutdown" mode ofoperation; (3) issue a confirmatory order preventing the licensee from bringing the DANP to any mode ofoperation other than "cold shutdown" Witil the licensee completes fmther testing of its safety-related primary systems and its safety-related secondary systems including. but not limited to. all primary piping systems associated with the nuclear reactor (bot-leg and cold leg) loops; all primary piping systems associated with the steam generator system (including internal piping associated with each steam generator); the nuclear reactor vessel welds (mcluding the belt-line weld); a11 nuclear reactor feed-water system piping which supports inventory to the nuclear reactor; and (4) issue a confirmatory order requiring the licensee to obtain an "independent" evaluation of all the systems identified immediately above by a "certified' independent contractor.

B. Facts That Constitute the Basis forTaJdng the Requested EnfoRement-Related Action Requested by Petitiouer

On or about November 6th, 2010, the licensee noticed the NRC in a 21-page report an "indication idenJifled in the N2A Recirculation Inlet Soft End to Saft End extension Dissimilar Metal Weld It The licensee's report describes a preliminary assessment which attributes the problem to "stress corrosion cracking".

3/5

Cracked Weld Discovered During Duane Arnold Refueling Outage By DaVIl Fnnm.n, Reporter

,ii: EMAlllKlII ARTlC:U:

'. ,~ '~1WHI':

• ~~: ....."'. _ . .$-,'

UOI6Q

8 PRlrlTlKlS ARTIClE

6o?!lCOIdMEfmI

.~

story Created: NOli 10.2010 at 10:4l . .t.M CST

PALO. lawa - NeXlEra Energy has Degun steps. 10 repair a craekec:! weld Joint in a nozzle round dlJrtng a refUelitlg outage at Ole Duane Arnold Energy Center

The discovery was oescribea In a 21..page letter to tI'le Nutlear RegUlatOry Commission on Nov. 6 It deStrtbes an 'indlcatron lt1enrified in the H2A Recln:ulatlanlnlet Safe End to Sate End extension DISSImilar Metal Weld.'

C. There Is No NRC Proceeding Available in Which the Petitioner is or Could be a Party and Through Which Petitioner's Concerns Could be Addressed

Petitioner avers here that there is no NRC proceeding available in which the Petitioner is or could be a party and througb which Petitioner's concerns could be addressed.

CONCLUSION

FOR ALL TIlE ABOVE STATED REASONS. and because Petitioner has amply satisfied aU the requirements under 10 C.F.R. §2.206 for consideration of[bis] Petition by the NRC PRB, the NRC should grant Petitioner's requests made in the Petition as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas Saporito, pro se

4/5

· .

Petitioner Post Office Box 8413 Jupiter. Florida 33468-8413 Voice: (561) 972-8363 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 12th day ofNovember. 2010, a copy offoregoing document was provided to those identified below by means shown:

Hon. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 {Sent via U.S. Mail and electronic mail}

Hon. Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman U.S. Nuc1ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 {Sent via electronic mail}

James Heller Allegations Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III Headquarters {Sent via electronic mail} d /\~O,

By: _________~~--~~----Thomas Saponto

5/5


Enclosure 2: Court Reporter Transcript dated November 22, 2010

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: 10 CFR 2.206 Petition RE Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket Number: (n/a) Location: (telephone conference) Date: Monday, November 22, 2010 Work Order No.: NRC-585 Pages 1-29 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + + + + 3

10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4

CONFERENCE CALL 5

RE 6

DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER 7

+ + + + + 8

MONDAY 9

NOVEMBER 22, 2010 10

+ + + + + 11

The conference call was held, Theodore 12

Quay, Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, 13

presiding. 14

15

PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 16

17

PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS: 18

THEODORE QUAY, Deputy director, Division of Policy 19

and Rulemaking 20

KARL FEINTUCH, Petition Manager for 2.206 Petition 21

TANYA MENSAH, Petition Review Board Coordinator 22

23

24

25


2

NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF: 1

MOLLY BARKMAN-MARSH, Office of General Counsel, 2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

MATTHEW MITCHELL, Branch Chief, Office of Nuclear 4

Reactor Regulation 5

KENNETH RIEMER, Branch Chief, Region 3, Division 6

of Reactor Projects 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


3

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(9:23 a.m.) 2

MR. FEINTUCH: Okay. First of all, let me 3

-- I'm going to give you some information. This is a 4

recorded line but I'd like to thank everyone for 5

attending this meeting. 6

My name is Karl Feintuch. And I an the 7

Duane Arnold Energy Center Project Manager for the 8

NRC. We're here today to permit the Petitioner, 9

Thomas Saporito, to address the Petition Review Board 10

regarding a 2.206 Petition dated November 12, 2010. 11

I am the Petition Manager for the 12

petition. The Petition Review Board Chairman is Ted 13

Quay. 14

As part of the Petition Review Board's -- 15

or PRB, we'll be abbreviating -- review of this 16

petition, Thomas Saporito has requested this 17

opportunity to address the PRB. The meeting was 18

scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00. We've built in 19

some slack time so that -- and I'm going off my 20

prepared statement -- so Mr. Saporito can make the 21

statement he had originally intended. 22

The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 23

Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 24

reporter. The transcript will become a supplement to 25


4

the petition. The transcript will also be made 1

publicly available. 2

I'd like to open the meeting with 3

introductions. As we go around the room, please be 4

sure to clearly state your name, your position, office 5

that you work for within the NRC for the record. And 6

I'll start with myself, Karl Feintuch, as Project 7

Manager for both Duane Arnold and Petition Manager for 8

this particular action. 9

And I'll go around the room. Next -- 10

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Ted Quay, Deputy Director 11

of the Division of Policy and Rulemaking, NRR, NRC. 12

MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah. I'm the Rule 13

2.06 Coordinator, Petition of Policy and Rulemaking, 14

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 15

MS. BARKMAN-MARSH: Molly Barkman. I'm an 16

attorney in the Office of General Counsel. 17

MR. MITCHELL: Matthew Mitchell, Chief of 18

the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Vessels and 19

Internals Integrity Branch. 20

MR. FEINTUCH: We have completed the 21

introductions at NRC Headquarters. At this time, are 22

there any NRC participants from headquarters on the 23

phone? 24

(No response.) 25


5

MR. FEINTUCH: Okay, hearing none, are 1

there any NRC participants from Regional Office on the 2

phone? 3

MR. RIEMER: Yes, this is Ken Riemer. I'm 4

the Chief of Reactor Projects, Branch 3, and that 5

includes Duane Arnold. I may be joined by Jim Heller, 6

our Allegations Coordinator, during the call also. 7

MR. FEINTUCH: Are there any 8

representatives for the licensee on the phone? 9

MR. BYRNE: Yes, this is Tom Byrne from 10

NextEra Energy, Duane Arnold. 11

MR. FEINTUCH: Mr. Saporito, would you 12

please introduce yourself for the record. 13

MR. SAPORITO: Yes, I am the Petitioner. 14

My name is Saporito. It's spelled S as in Sam, A-P-O-15

I-T-O. I'm a resident of Jupiter, Florida. 16

MR. FEINTUCH: Are there any others such 17

as members of the public on the phone? 18

(No response.) 19

MR. FEINTUCH: Okay. I'd like to 20

emphasize that we each need to speak clearly and 21

loudly to make sure that the Court Reporter can 22

accurately transcribe the meeting. If you do have 23

something that you would like to say, please first 24

state your name for the record each time that you 25


6

speak, if possible. 1

For those dialing into the meeting, please 2

remember to mute your phones to minimize any 3

background noise or distraction. If you do not have a 4

mute button, this can be done by pressing *6. To 5

unmute, press *6 again. 6

Thank you. 7

At this time, I will turn the presentation 8

over to the PRB Chairman, Mr. Ted Quay. 9

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Good morning. Welcome to 10

this meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by 11

Mr. Thomas Saporito. 12

I'd like to first share some background on 13

our process. Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 14

Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 15

the primary mechanism for the public to request 16

enforcement action by the NRC in a public process. 17

This process permits anyone to petition 18

the NRC to take enforcement-type action related to NRC 19

licensees or license activities. Depending on the 20

results of this evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, 21

or revoke an NRC-issued license or take any other 22

appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem. 23

The NRC staff guidanced for the disposition of 2.206 24

petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, 25


7

which is publicly available. 1

The purpose of today's meeting is to give 2

the Petition an opportunity to provide any additional 3

explanation or support for the petition before the 4

Petition Review Board's initial consideration and 5

recommendation. 6

This is not a hearing nor is it an 7

opportunity for the Petitioner to question or examine 8

the Petition Review Board on the merits or issues 9

presented in a petition request. No decision 10

regarding the merits of this petition will be made at 11

this meeting. 12

Following this meeting, the Petition 13

Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations. 14

The outcome of this internal meeting will be 15

discussed with the Petitioner. 16

The Petition Review Board typically 17

consists of a Chairman, usually a manager at the 18

Senior Executive Service Level at the NRC. And it has 19

a Petition Manager and a Petitioner Review Board 20

Coordinator. Other members of the Board are 21

determined by the NRC staff based on the content and 22

the information in the petition request. 23

At this time, I would like to introduce 24

the Board. I am Ted Quay, the Petition Review Board 25


8

Chairman. Karl Feintuch is the Petition Manager for 1

the petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is 2

the Office's TRB Coordinator. 3

Our technical staff includes Matt 4

Mitchell, Branch Chief from the Office of Nuclear 5

Reactor Regulations, Vessels and Internals Integrity 6

Branch, Kenneth Riemer, Branch Chief, Region 3, 7

Division of Reactor Projects, Branch 2. 8

We also obtain advice from our General 9

Counsel represented by Molly Barkman-Marsh. 10

As described in our process, the NRC staff 11

may ask clarifying questions in order to better 12

understand the Petitioner's presentation and to reach 13

a reasoned decision whether to accept or reject the 14

Petitioner's request for a review under the 2.206 15

process. 16

I would like to summarize the scope of the 17

petition under consideration and the NRC activities to 18

date. 19

On November 12th, 2010, Mr. Saporito 20

submitted to the NRC a petition under 2.206 regarding 21

the Duane Arnold Energy Center. In this petition, Mr. 22

Saporito requested that the NRC one, take enforcement 23

action against the licensee of the Duane Arnold Energy 24

Center; two, issue a confirmatory letter requiring the 25


9

licensee to bring the Duane Arnold Energy Center to a 1

cold shutdown mode of operation; three, issue a 2

confirmatory letter preventing the licensee from 3

bringing the Duane Arnold Energy Center to any mode of 4

operation other than cold shutdown until the licensee 5

completes further testing of its safety-related 6

primary and secondary systems and components; and 7

four, issue a confirmatory letter requiring the 8

licensee to obtain an independent evaluation of all 9

relevant systems by a certified independent 10

contractor. 11

As the basis for this request, Mr. 12

Saporito cites one, a November 6th, 2010, 21-page 13

report from the licensee; and two, a news article 14

entitled "Cracked Weld Discovered During Duane Arnold 15

Refueling Outage" authored under the byline Dave 16

Franzman, Reporter, dated November 10th, 2010. 17

The story, as included in the petition, 18

consists of a photograph of the facility, a caption 19

for the photograph, and a one-sentence paragraph 20

citing the 21-page letter report. The publication in 21

which Mr. Franzman's article appeared is not 22

identified in the petition. 23

Allow me to discuss NRC activities to 24

date. 25


10

On November 15th, 2010, the petition was 1

assigned to a Petition Manager to assemble a team to 2

review the petition. 3

On November 15th, the Petition Manager, 4

Karl Feintuch, contacted the Petitioner by email to 5

acknowledge the petition and to offer an opportunity 6

to appear in person or address the Petition Review 7

Board by phone. 8

On November 17th, 2010, the Petitioner 9

requested to address the Petition Review Board prior 10

to its initial meeting. 11

On November 18th, 2010, the Petition 12

Manager provided information on the date, time, and 13

telephone access for this meeting. The Petitioner was 14

also provided with an ADAMS session number for his 15

petition, which is ML 103 190 731 and for the email 16

exchange of November 16th and 17th, 2010, which is ML 17

103 220 406. 18

As a reminder for the phone participants, 19

please identify yourself if you make any remarks as 20

this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 21

transcript that will be made publicly available. 22

Thank you. And at this point, I'm going 23

to turn it over to you, Mr. Saporito. 24

MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you very 25


11

much. This is Thomas Saporito, the Petitioner. And, 1

for the record, I'm a resident of Jupiter, Florida. 2

I want to thank the NRC for this 3

opportunity to address the Petition Review Board in 4

this manner. 5

A summary of my issues -- hello? 6

CHAIRMAN QUAY: We're here. 7

MR. SAPORITO: Okay. A summary of my 8

issues is a follows: 9

The Duane Arnold Energy Center is located 10

on a 500-acre site on the est bank of the Cedar River, 11

two miles north-northeast of Palo, Iowa, U.S.A., and 12

eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids. Duane Arnold 13

began operation June 1974 and currently generates a 14

net power output of approximately 615 megawatts using 15

a single General Electric Mark 1 -- 16

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Sir, you're breaking up 17

slightly in your presentation. It sounds electronic. 18

Are you talking from a cell phone? Is there a 19

possibility of getting a little stronger signal or -- 20

MR. SAPORITO: Yes, and I'm sorry about 21

that. I don't have any control over that. 22

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. I'll tell you what. 23

Speak a little slower only for the fact that it seems 24

to to be clipping your words. And that way it may 25


12

clear as far as the transcript is concerned. 1

MR. SAPORITO: Oh, all right. I'll try 2

that. 3

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. 4

MR. SAPORITO: The nuclear plant is 36 5

years old and at the very end of its 40-year safety 6

design basis and NRC operational license. 7

As the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant aged 8

over the years, there was an increased need for the 9

licensee to address material degradation caused by 10

stress corrosion cracking, erosion-corrosion, wear, 11

and embrittlement, which can significantly reduce the 12

service life expectancy of the nuclear plant 13

components. 14

On November 6th, 2010, the licensees 15

authored a 21-page report to the NRC which described 16

an "indication identified in the N.A. Recirculation 17

Inlet Safe End to Safe End Extension Dissimilar Metal 18

Weld," for which the licensee attributed the problem 19

to "stress corrosion cracking." Apparently the 20

licensee has failed over the years to properly and 21

aggressively address the material degradation of the 22

Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant of energy center, they're 23

one in the same, and the NRC should be most concerned 24

about number one, material degradation of the balance 25


13

of the nuclear plant safety-related systems and 1

components; and, number two, the licensee's apparent 2

failure to properly address the material degradation 3

of the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant safety-related 4

systems and components overall. 5

In the instant action, the November 12th, 6

2010, petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206, requests were 7

made of NRC to take enforcement action against the 8

licensee to ensure for the protection of public health 9

and safety in these circumstances by requiring the 10

licensee to test all safety-related primary systems 11

and safety-related secondary systems as specifically 12

identified in the petition and require the licensee to 13

have a certified independent contractor evaluate the 14

safety-related systems identified in the petition 15

The NRC should require the licensee to 16

have an independent contractor certify the primary and 17

secondary safety-related systems identified in the 18

petition prior to the restart of the nuclear reactor, 19

and in further consideration of the licensee's intent 20

to seek a 20-year extension of its NRC operational 21

license for the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant. 22

NRC regulatory requirements and the Duane 23

Arnold technical specifications prohibit operation of 24

the nuclear reactor system with known through-wall 25


14

leakage from the primary water system. Furthermore, 1

NRC regulations, plant technical specifications, and 2

ASME Code requirements serve to ensure that NRC 3

licensees perform inspections to maintain an extremely 4

low probability of abnormal primary water leakage, or 5

rapidly propagating failure, and gross rupture. The 6

licensee's current inspection program implemented at 7

the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant does not appear to 8

permit timely identification of degradation of 9

materials exposed to the primary water environment in 10

a manner consistent with NRC requirements. 11

This next section deals with the 12

licensee's submittals to the NRC. On November 6th, 13

2010, the licensee submitted a document to the NRC 14

entitled, "Alternative to ASME Section XI Requirements 15

to Use Structural Weld Overlay Repairs as an 16

Alternative Repair Technique at the Duane Arnold 17

Energy Center." 18

The licensee proposed an alternative 19

repair activity to the requirements of the American 20

Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure 21

Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice 22

Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. The 23

licensee's proposed alternative would permit the use 24

of full structural weld overlay repair for an 25


15

indication identified in the N.A. Recirculation Inlet 1

Safe End to Safe End Extension Dissimilar metal weld. 2

MR. FEINTUCH: Excuse me, Mr. Saporito, 3

this is the Headquarter' Operation Officer. Hey, 4

participants, if you are not talking, please hit *6 on 5

your phone to mute your phones and that should reduce 6

the feedback. Thank you. 7

MR. SAPORITO: The licensee seeks NRC 8

authorization to extend the requested relief sought 9

until February 21, 2014, at which time the NRC 10

operational license for the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant 11

expires. 12

One November 10th, 2010, the licensee 13

authored a second submittal to the NRC entitled, 14

"Revision to Relief Request for Alternative to ASME 15

Section XI Requirements to Use Structural Weld Overlay 16

Repairs as an Alternative Repair Technique at the 17

Duane Arnold Energy Center." In its revised 18

submittal, the licensee stated in relevant part that: 19

". . . In an -- 20

COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, this is the 21

Court Reporter. What is that beeping noise? 22

MR. SAPORITO: This is the Petitioner. If 23

you're asking me, I have no -- I don't hear no beeping 24

noise. And I have no idea. 25


16

CHAIRMAN QUAY: We're hearing it at 1

Headquarters also. We think there is a feedback but 2

we're not sure because we're on mute. Participants 3

not speaking, please go to mute. 4

MR. SAPORITO: This is the Petitioner. 5

Let me continue. 6

In its revised submittal, the licensee 7

stated in relevant part that, "in an email dated 8

November 9, 2010, the staff issued a request for 9

additional information regarding Reference 1. In 10

response to these questions and a telecon with the NRC 11

on November 9, 2010, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold is 12

revising the relief request provided in Reference 1 to 13

address the request for additional information and 14

remove the discussion pertaining to Mechanical Stress 15

Improvement Process (MSIP). This request supersedes 16

the request provided in Reference 1 in its entirety. 17

"While the determination of the formal 18

root cause is being tracked in the Corrective Action 19

Program, the preliminary assessment is that the 20

indication is due to stress corrosion cracking . . . 21

10 CRF 50.55a, subsections (a)(3)(I) states that the 22

proposed alternatives may be used when authorized by 23

the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 24

Regulation provided that the proposed alternatives 25


17

provide an acceptable level of quality and safety." 1

The licensee requested, "verbal approval 2

of this revised request prior to beginning the ASME 3

Class I Leakage Test of the Reactor Pressure Vessel, 4

currently scheduled for November 16, 2010." 5

And before I continue, can the NRC advise 6

as to whether the agency gave the licensee verbal 7

approval of the licensee's revised request for relief? 8

And if so, when did the NRC give that approval? Can 9

somebody give me an answer to that? 10

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Yes. We are still 11

experiencing distortion. Could you repeat the 12

question? 13

MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Can the NRC advise as 14

to whether the agency gave the licensee verbal 15

approval of the licensee's revised request for relief? 16

And if so, when? 17

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Yes, we did. We gave 18

verbal approval. That was done this past Monday. 19

That was done, I guess, the 15th. 20

MR. SAPORITO: Okay. 21

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Do you understand our 22

verbal process? 23

MR. SAPORITO: No. 24



18

MR. SAPORITO: I would like to explain 1

that. And maybe -- let me finish this and then I 2

would like to understand that though before I end this 3

conversation. 4

I'm going to continue the discussion part 5

of this. Issue #1, as of November 6th, 2010, the 6

licensee has not specifically identified the formal 7

root cause but merely assumed that the indication or 8

crack was due to stress corrosion cracking. 9

The NRC should require the licensee to 10

affirm the formal root cause of the indication or 11

crack prior to allowing the licensee to bring the 12

nuclear reactor to any level of power. If the 13

licensee affirms that the formal root cause of the 14

indication or crack was due to stress corrosion 15

cracking, then the NRC should require the licensee to 16

conduct further inspections as outlined in the 2.206 17

petition and certified by an independent contractor 18

prior to allowing the licensee to bring the nuclear 19

reactor to any level of power. 20

If the licensee affirms that the formal 21

root cause of the indication or crack was due to 22

something other than stress corrosion cracking, then 23

the NRC should require the licensee to conduct further 24

inspections, as outlined in the 2.206 petition, and 25


19

certified by an independent contractor prior to 1

allowing the licensee to bring the nuclear reactor to 2

any level of power and take corrective actions as 3

needed. 4

Thus far, the licensee has only made 5

ultrasonic examinations of three additional 6

recirculation riser safe-end-to-safe-end extension 7

welds, which is far too narrow of an examination 8

considering the numerous safety-related plant systems 9

and components which may have similar indications or 10

cracks. 11

Issue #2, the NRC staff found that Topical 12

Report (Materials Reliability Program) TR MRP-169, 13

Revision 1, as revised by letter dated February 3rd, 14

2010, adequately described the methods for the weld 15

overlay design, the supporting analysis of the design, 16

the experiments that verified the analysis, and the 17

inspection requirements of the overlaid dissimilar 18

metal welds. 19

The licensee's November 10th, 2010, 20

revised submittal to the NRC does not appear to fully 21

comply with TR MRP-169, Revision 1, but merely states 22

that, "many of the same requirements are common in the 23

Staff's approval for the Materials Reliability Program 24

Topic Report (MRP-169), for full structural weld 25


20

overlays." 1

Thus, the licensee, through its submittals 2

to the NRC, not only seeks relief from the NRC's 3

safety parameters set out in 10 CFR 50.55a, 4

subsections (a)(3)(I), but apparently also seeks 5

relief from NRC requirements under TR MRP-169, 6

Revision 1. Thus, the NRC lacks requisite authority 7

to grant the requested relief sought by the licensee 8

in these circumstances where the licensee seeks relief 9

from NRC regulations and requirements to apparently 10

conduct an experimental and unproven repair 11

methodology, which could jeopardize the health and 12

safety of the public. 13

Notably, the licensee stated in its 14

November 10th, 2010, revised submittal, that "The 15

welding will be performed in accordance with the 16

approved weld procedure described in Attachment 1, 17

using a machine gas tungsten-arc welding process for 18

the RRA-F002A weld and adjacent RRA-J003 stainless 19

steel weld with Alloy 52M, as in Mary, being used for 20

the filler metal. In some instances of this process, 21

flaws in the first layer have occurred in the portion 22

of the overlay deposited on the austenitic stainless 23

steel portion of the assemblies. The flaw 24

characteristics are indicative of hot weld -- of hot 25


21

cracking. 1

"This phenomena has not been observed on 2

austenitic stainless steel or Alloy 82/182 DMW 3

portions of the assemblies when welding Alloy 52M, as 4

in Mary, thereon. Studies have determined that this 5

problem may be exacerbated when using Alloy 52M filler 6

metal on austenitic stainless steel materials with 7

higher sulfur content and high levels of silicon, as 8

in the case of cast austenitic stainless steel. 9

"Extensive test and field experience from 10

WSI indicate that hot cracking can be a concern when 11

the sulfur and silicon content in the diluted weld 12

puddle equals or exceed 0.014 percent. The impurity 13

hot cracking threshold level is a function of the 14

composition of the base material, weld filler 15

materials, and the welding parameters that are used 16

because these two factors control the dilution of the 17

solidified weld deposit. 18

"This suggests that a combined sulfur plus 19

silicon content of the base material of approximately 20

0.046 percent will represent a threshold for hot 21

cracking with the weld parameters WSI will use at the 22

Duane Arnold. Duane Arnold will use a barrier layer 23

(buffer layer) on all stainless steel. The barrier 24

layer will use ER308L on the stainless steel and will 25


22

incorporate Alloy 82 on the stainless steel near the 1

DMW to stainless steel fusion zone only." 2

As can be discerned from the licensee's 3

description of its intended welding repair activities 4

related to the indication or crack, the licensee 5

intends to deviate well beyond NRC requirements under 6

10 CFR 50.55a and under TR MRP-169. Essentially, the 7

licensee intends to conduct an unproven "field 8

experiment" at the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant in 9

making non-validated assumptions that a combined 10

sulfur plus silicon content of the base material of 11

approximately 0.046 percent will represent a threshold 12

for hot cracking with the weld parameters to be used 13

in the repair activities. 14

Moreover, the licensee intends to place a 15

so-called "barrier layer" using "ER308L" on the 16

stainless steel incorporating Alloy 82 on the 17

stainless steel near the fusion zone. Thus, the 18

licensee's assumptions, guesses, and use of unproven 19

methodology well outside the safety margins 20

established under NRC requirements, should be 21

categorically rejected by the NRC. 22

The final issue, which is Issue #3, the 23

licensee's submittals to the NRC fail to specifically 24

describe the methods, practices, and procedures which 25


23

the licensee intends to use at the Duane Arnold to 1

ensure that the nuclear workers involved in the repair 2

activities receive the least amount of radioactive 3

exposure possible during the repair activities, 4

including but not limited to, airborne radioactive 5

contamination, radioactive dose absorption to the 6

body, physical radioactive contamination to the body, 7

et cetera. 8

Conclusion: the NRC must ensure that 9

public health and safety is protected by requiring the 10

licensee to comply with all NRC requirements in making 11

repairs to the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant in these 12

circumstances. The licensee's proposed relief 13

request, number one, does not comport with NRC 14

requirements under 10 CFR 50.55a and under TR MRP-169, 15

Revision 1; and number two, does not appear to be 16

similar to other recent requests for dissimilar metal 17

weld overlays submitted to the NRC by other NRC 18

licensees; and three, is essentially an unproven 19

"field experiment" at Duane Arnold which will 20

jeopardize public health and safety because the 21

licensee's proposed alternatives fail to provide an 22

acceptable level of quality and safety. 23

Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to 24

email a written version of these comments because of 25


24

the poor communications here to make sure that the 1

record properly documents these issues and that 2

document will serve as a supplement to the 2.206 3

petition if there are any problems with that. 4

And if there's any questions, I'll be 5

certainly willing to answer them. But I would also 6

like to point out that -- to the NRC that, you know, 7

the licensee's, part of their proposal here is -- 8

especially with respect to the overlay weld that they 9

intend to perform at the fusion end, they want to 10

introduce further dissimilar metals because they want 11

to use Alloy 82 because of terms with respect to hot 12

cracking -- however, Alloy 82, when you introduce that 13

alloy, you are introducing another dissimilar metal to 14

the situation at hand. 15

I would highly suggest that the NRC 16

require that the licensee continue with Alloy 52M 17

throughout the entire procedure. Any concerns about 18

hot cracking with respect to the overlay weld activity 19

at the stainless steel end can be resolved through 20

ultrasonic testing and through dye penetrates to 21

ensure that there are no residual cracking. And if 22

so, they could be rewelded again using 52M. 23

But to introduce another alloy into the 24

situation, I just think is a not-very-well-thought-out 25


25

methodology. And in my review of these documents 1

submitted to the NRC by the licensee November 6th and 2

November 10th -- November 6th and November 10th 3

submittals for relief, it appears that the licensee 4

just rushed through this process for economical 5

concerns to get this reactor vessel back on line as 6

quickly as possible. 7

And in my view, that's not justification. 8

You know we need to make certain that the public 9

health and safety is protected. You have a nuclear 10

plant that is at the very end of its safety design 11

basis. It's 36 years old. It stands to reason -- and 12

a reasonably-minded individuals would certainly be 13

concerned that other safety-related systems, pipe 14

systems, components, that make up the primary water 15

system and the cooling systems for the nuclear reactor 16

core, can very well have cracking in them, cracking 17

that exceeds NRC requirements. 18

The licensee's in-service inspection 19

program, which apparently is a ten-year interval 20

program, is apparently not sufficient to detect these 21

flaws and cracks and indications because it was not 22

only until recently where the licensee discovered the 23

situation in the present matter we're discussing, that 24

this crack was discovered. 25


26

So when you get -- you know this licensee 1

tends to -- in fact I believe they've already made 2

application to the NRC to extend their operating 3

license for an additional 20 years. And, you know, 4

that's a very troubling thought in consideration that 5

this stress -- that the piping in the primary water 6

system is made of the 600-type of material, which is 7

known to be prone to this type of cracking. And it 8

just seems reasonable that a more extensive survey and 9

inspection of all the systems, including the belt line 10

around the reactor vessel, be thoroughly inspected to 11

ensure that there aren't any other flaws, cracks, or 12

indications that exceed the safety parameters bounded 13

under 10 CFR Part 50. 14

And that will conclude my comments. And I 15

will certainly try to respond to any questions if 16

there are any. Thank you. 17

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. At this time, does 18

staff here at headquarters have any questions for Mr. 19

Saporito? 20

(No response.) 21

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Seeing none, what about 22

the region? Does the region have any questions for 23

Mr. Saporito please? Did you try to respond, Ken? 24

MR. RIEMER: Yes, can you hear me now? 25


27

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Yes. 1

MR. RIEMER: Okay. Yes. No questions 2

from Region 3. 3


Before I conclude the meeting, members of 5

the public may provide comments regarding the 6

petition. They may ask questions about the 2.206 7

petition process. However, as stated at the opening, 8

the purpose of this meeting is not to provide an 9

opportunity for the Petition or the public to question 10

or examine the PRB regarding the merits of the 11

petition request. 12

Have any members of the public joined the 13

phone call? 14

(No response.) 15

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Hearing none, Mr. 16

Saporito, thank you for taking time to provide the NRC 17

staff with clarifying information on the petition you 18

have submitted. 19

Before we close, does the Court Reporter 20

need any additional information for the meeting's 21

transcript? And I will tell you that both Mr. 22

Mitchell and Mr. Feintuch will be available to help 23

you with the transcript. 24

MR. SAPORITO: Mr. Chairman? 25


28

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Yes? 1

MR. SAPORITO: This is the Petitioner, 2

Thomas Saporito. I had asked earlier if someone would 3

briefly explain the verbal authorization that was 4

given in these circumstances. 5

MR. FEINTUCH: Yes, this is Karl Feintuch. 6

I was just going to give you an idea of the process. 7

The verbal authorization doesn't preclude 8

the fact that there is a written analysis. Under 9

circumstances where there is some urgency, what 10

happens is we collect all the information on the 11

docket sufficient to make a technical decision. And 12

the technical reviewers in consultation with the 13

Branch Chief, arrive, using that information, at their 14

decision. 15

Then that information is conveyed -- the 16

decision is conveyed to the licensee. And we have 17

requirements that we then follow up with the full 18

report from our end, the safety analysis, which then 19

is used as the justification for that. So even though 20

it says verbal relief, it is, in fact, a full 21

analysis, followed by full documentation. 22

MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you very 23

much for that. 24

MR. FEINTUCH: Thank you. 25


29

CHAIRMAN QUAY: Okay. With that, this 1

meeting is concluded. And we will be terminating the 2

phone conversation. Thank you. 3

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 4

teleconference was concluded at 10:08 a.m.) 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Enclosure 3: Saporito written statement dated November 22, 2010

From the Desk of Thomas SaporitoPost Office Box 8413, Jupiter, Florida 33468

Voice: 561-972-8363 Fax: 561-247-6404Electronic Mail: [email protected]

November 22, 2010

Teleconference Call With NRC - PRB (2.206 Petition - Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant - NextEra Energy)

Summary:The Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) is located on a 500-acre site on the west bank of the Cedar River, two miles north-northeast of Palo, Iowa, USA, and eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids. Duane Arnold began operation in June 1974, and currently generates a net power output of approximately 615 megawatts using a single General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor. The nuclear plant is 36-years old and at the very end of its 40-year safety design basis and NRC operational license. As the Duane Arnold nuclear plant aged over the years, there was an increased need for the licensee to address material degradation - caused by stress corrosion cracking, erosion-corrosion, wear, and embrittlement - which can significantly reduce the service life expectancy of the nuclear plant components.

On November 6th, 2010, the licensee authored a 21-page report to the NRC which described an "...indication identified in the N2A Recirculation Inlet Safe End to Safe End Extension Dissimilar Metal Weld." for which the licensee attributed the problem to "stress corrosion cracking". Apparently the licensee has failed over the years to properly and aggressively address the material degradation of the Duane Arnold nuclear plant - and the NRC should be most concerned about: (1) material degradation of the balance of the nuclear plant safety-related systems and components; and (2) the licensee's apparent failure to properly address the material degradation of the Duane Arnold nuclear plant safety-related systems and components overall.

In the instant action, the November 12th, 2010, petition filed under 10 C.F.R. §2.206, requests were made of the NRC to take enforcement action against the licensee to ensure for the protection of public health and safety in these circumstances by requiring the licensee to test all safety-related primary systems and safety-related secondary systems (as specifically identified in the petition); and require the licensee to have a certified independent contractor evaluate the safety-related systems identified in the petition. The NRC should require the licensee to have an independent contractor "certify" the primary and secondary safety-related systems identified in the petition - prior to restart of the nuclear reactor - and in further consideration of the licensee's intent to seek a 20-year extension of its NRC operational license for the Duane Arnold nuclear plant.

1/5


NRC regulatory requirements and the Duane Arnold Technical Specifications prohibit operation of the nuclear reactor system with known through-wall leakage from the primary water system. Furthermore, NRC regulations, plant Technical Specifications, and ASME Code requirements serve to ensure that NRC licensees perform inspections to maintain an extremely low probability of abnormal primary water leakage, or rapidly propagating failure, and gross rupture. The licensee's current inspection program implemented at the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant does not appear to permit timely identification of degradation of materials exposed to the primary water environment in a manner consistent with NRC requirements.

Licensee's Submittals to the NRC:On November 6th, 2010, the licensee submitted a document to the NRC entitled, "Alternative to ASME Section XI Requirements to Use Structural Weld Overlay Repairs as an Alternative Repair Technique at the Duane Arnold Energy Center".

The licensee proposed an alternative repair activity to the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI - Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. The licensee's proposed alternative would permit the use of a full structural weld overlay repair for an indication identified in the N2A Recirculation Inlet Safe End to Safe End Extension Dissimilar metal weld. The licensee seeks NRC authorization to extend the requested relief sought until February 21, 2014, at which time the NRC operational license for the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant expires.

On November 10th, 2010, the licensee authored a second submittal to the NRC entitled, "Revision to Relief Request for Alternative to ASME Section XI Requirements to Use Structural Weld Overlay Repairs as an Alternative Repair Technique at the Duane Arnold Energy Center". In its revised submittal, the licensee stated in relevant part, that: "...In an email dated November 9, 2010, the Staff issued a request for additional information regarding Reference 1. In response to these questions and a telecon with the NRC on November 9, 2010, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold is revising the relief request provided in Reference 1 to address the request for additional information and remove the discussion pertaining to Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP). This request supersedes the request provided in Reference 1 in its entirety..." "...While the determination of the formal root cause is being tracked in the Corrective Action Program, the preliminary assessment is that the indication is due to stress corrosion cracking...10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i) states that proposed alternatives may be used when authorized by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation provided that the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable level of quality and safety..."

The licensee requested - "...verbal approval of this revised request prior to beginning the ASME Class I Leakage Test of the Reactor Pressure Vessel, currently scheduled for November 16, 2010..."

2/5

Question:Before I continue, can the NRC advise as to whether the agency gave the licensee verbal approval of the licensee's revised request for relief, and if so, when?

Discussion:

Issue #1

• As of November 6th, 2010, the licensee has not specifically identified the formal root cause - but merely assumed that the indication or crack was due to Stress Corrosion Cracking

The NRC should require the licensee to affirm the formal root cause of the indication or crack prior to allowing the licensee to bring the nuclear reactor to any level of power. If the licensee affirms that the formal root cause of the indication or crack was due to Stress Corrosion Cracking, then the NRC should require the licensee to conduct further inspections as outlined in the 2.206 petition and certified by an independent contractor prior to allowing the licensee to bring the nuclear reactor to any level of power. If the licensee affirms that the formal root cause of the indication or crack was due to something other than Stress Corrosion Cracking, then the NRC should require the licensee to conduct further inspections as outlined in the 2.206 petition and certified by an independent contractor prior to allowing the licensee to bring the nuclear reactor to any level of power - and take corrective actions as needed. Thus far, the licensee has only made ultrasonic examinations of three additional recirculation riser safe-end-to-safe-end extension welds - which is far too narrow of an examination considering the numerous safety-related plant systems and components which may have similar indications or cracks.

Issue #2

• The NRC Staff found that Topical Report (Materials Reliability Program) TR MRP-169, Revision 1, as revised by letter dated February 3rd, 2010, adequately described the methods for the weld overlay design, the supporting analysis of the design, the experiments that verified the analysis, and the inspection requirements of the overlaid Dissimilar Metal Welds

The licensee's November 10th, 2010, revised submittal to the NRC does not appear to fully comply with TR MRP-169, Revision 1 - but merely states that, "...many of the same requirements are common in the Staff's approval for the Materials Reliability Program...topical report (MRP-169), for full structural weld overlays..." Thus, the licensee, through its submittal(s) to the NRC, not only seeks relief from the NRC's safety parameters set-out in 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(a)(3)(i), but apparently also seeks relief from NRC requirements under TR MRP-169, Revision 1. Thus, the NRC lacks requisite

3/5

authority to grant the requested relief sought by the licensee in these circumstances where the licensee seeks relief from NRC regulations and requirements to apparently conduct an "experimental" and unproven repair methology which could jeopardize the health and safety of the public.

Notably, the licensee stated in its November 10th, 2010, revised submittal that:

"...The welding will be performed in accordance with the approved weld procedure described in Attachment 1 using a machine gas tungsten-arc welding...process for the RRA-F002A weld and adjacent RRA-J003 stainless steel weld with...(Alloy 52M) being used for the filler metal. In some instances of this process, flaws in the first layer have occurred in the portion of the overlay deposited on the austenitic stainless steel portions...of the assemblies. The flaw characteristics...are indicative of hot cracking. This phenomenon has not been observed on austenitic stainless steel or Alloy 82/182 DMW portions of the assemblies when welding Alloy 52M thereon. Studies have determined that this problem may be exacerbated when using Alloy 52M filler metal on austenitic stainless steel materials with higher sulfur content and high levels of silicon, as in the case of cast austenitic stainless steel. Extensive test and field experience from WSI indicate that hot cracking can be a concern when the sulfur and silicon content in the diluted weld puddle equals or exceeds 0.014%. The impurity hot cracking threshold level is a function of the composition of the base material, weld filler materials, and the welding parameters that are used because these two factors control the dilution of the solidified weld deposit. This suggests that a combined sulfur plus silicon content of the base material of approximately 0.046% will represent a threshold for hot cracking with the weld parameters WSI will use at Duane Arnold. Duane Arnold will use a barrier layer (buffer layer) on all stainless steel. The barrier layer will use ER308L on the stainless steel and will incorporate Alloy 82 on the stainless steel near the DMW to stainless steel fusion zone only...."

As can be discerned from the licensee's description of its intended welding repair activities related to the indication or crack, the licensee intends to deviate well-beyond NRC requirements under 10 C.F.R. 50.55a and under TR MRP-169. Essentially, the licensee intends to conduct an unproven "field experiment" at the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant in making non-validated assumptions that a combined sulfur plus silicon content of the base material of approximately 0.046% will represent a threshold for hot cracking with the weld parameters to be used in the repair activities. Moreover, the licensee intends to place a so-called "barrier layer" using "ER308L" on the stainless steel incorporating Alloy 82 on the stainless steel near the fusion zone. Thus, the licensee's assumptions, guesses, and use of unproven methology well-outside the safety margins established under NRC requirements should be categorically rejected by the NRC.

4/5

Issue #3

• the licensee's submittal(s) to the NRC fail to specifically describe the methods, practices, and procedures which the licensee intends to use at Duane Arnold to ensure that the nuclear workers involved in the repair activities receive the least amount of radioactive exposure possible during the repair activities, including but not limited to, airborne radioactive contamination, radioactive dose absorption to the body, physical radioactive contamination to the body, etc.

Conclusion:The NRC must ensure that public health and safety is protected by requiring the licensee to comply with all NRC requirements in making repairs to the Duane Arnold Nuclear Plant in these circumstances. The licensee's proposed relief request: (1) does not comport with NRC requirements under 10 C.F.R. 50.55a and under TR MRP-169; (2) does not appear to be similar to other recent requests for dissimilar metal weld overlays submitted to the NRC by other NRC licensees; and (3) is essentially an unproven "field experiment" at Duane Arnold which will jeopardize public health and safety because the licensee's proposed alternatives fail to provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________ Thomas Saporito

5/5

Enclosure 4: Nuclear Technology Information

Nuclear Technology Information The following information is to assist persons accessing this document who wish to have a convenient resource for interpreting the discussions. Topic Convenient information sources or brief explanation ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System – the document control system, which stores records referenced in this letter by an ADAMS Accession Number in the form of “ML(followed by 9 digits).”

Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)

See attached diagram. Source: NUREG-1350

Duane Arnold Energy Center (Duane Arnold is a BWR)

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/duan.html

Glossary of nuclear power related terminology

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary.html

Information Digest (NUREG-1350, Volume 22): General information about the activities of the NRC and the nuclear industry

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/

Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)

See attached diagram. Source: NUREG-1350

Requests by DAEC for authorization to use weld overlay repairs

1 - November 6, 2010 Letter: See ADAMS Accession No. ML103120111 2 - November 10, 2010 Letter replacing the letter of November 6, 2010: See ADAMS Accession No. ML103160155

Scripts used by NRC Branch Chiefs on November 15, 2010 to authorize the use of weld overlays.

See ADAMS Accession No. ML110240122

USNRC Management Directive 8.11

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/management-directives/volumes/vol-8.html

Weld overlay a welding process where a weld layer is applied to a base metal in order to improve its properties, for example, corrosion resistance.

Welding The American Welding Society: http://www.awspubs.com/

Weldment an assembly of parts welded together

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/duan.html�

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary.html�

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/�

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/�

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/management-directives/volumes/vol-8.html�

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/management-directives/volumes/vol-8.html�

http://www.awspubs.com/�

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2011/03/11 · UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2011/03/11 · UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY...