ML032790353
| ML032790353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml032790380 | List: |
| References | |
| %dam200610, 2.206 | |
| Download: ML032790353 (35) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Business Meeting Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Tuesday, September 17, 2003 Work Order No.:
NRC-1085 Pages 1-24 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
BUSINESS MEETING 5
+ + + + +
6
- TUESDAY, 7
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 8
+ + + + +
9 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting came to order at 3:00 p.m. in Room 12 06B2 of One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland, 13 Eric Leeds, Chairman, presiding.
14 Present:
15 Eric Leeds, PRB Chairman 16 Mel Field, Petition Manager 17 Herb Berkow, NRR 18 Antonio Ferndanez, Esq., OGC 19 Jon Hopkins, Project Manager 20 Christine Lipa, Region 3 21 Monte Phyllis, Region 3 22 William Ruland, Division of Licensing Project 23 Management 24 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 Also Present:
1 Kevin Astroski, First Energy 2
Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information and Resource Service 3
Dave Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists 4
Jim Riccio, Greenpeace 5
Angela Thornbill, Esq., Representing First Energy 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 I-N-D-E-X 1
Open Statement, Eric Leeds, Chairman
...... 4 2
Statement of Jim Riccio, Greenpeace....... 7 3
Statement of Dave Lochbaum, Union of 4
Concerned Scientists 13 5
Adjourn....................
24 6
7 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
3:09 p.m.
2 MR. FIELDS: Lets go ahead and begin. My 3
name is Mel Fields. Ive been assigned to be the 4
Petition Manager for this particular request by 5
Greenpeace on behalf of UCS and also the NIRS. Were 6
transcribing the meeting, as you can tell and it would 7
help if anybody is making a statement to first 8
introduce themselves, just give Eric a hand, make sure 9
that hes able to connect the statement with the right 10 person.
11 The transcript will be a supplement to the 12 petition and we will note that in our process.
13 And with that I will turn it over to the 14 Chairman of the PRB who is Eric Leeds.
15 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you, Mel. Perhaps 16 we should turn off our cells phones.
17 MS. LIPA: This is Christine Lipa from 18 Division 3. We can barely hear you. If you could 19 find a microphone and move a little bit closer, wed 20 appreciate it, thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Well try to speak up.
22 Again, my name is Eric Leeds. Im the Petition 23 Chairman for this petition. My normal job is Im the 24 Deputy Director in the Division of Licensing Project 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 Management in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 1
Regulation. The subject of this meeting is a 2206 2
petition submitted by Greenpeace on behalf of the 3
Nuclear Information and Resources Service and the 4
Union of Concerned Scientists.
5 Collectively, well refer to you all as 6
the Petitioners and the petition was submitted on 7
August 25, 2003.
8 The purpose of this meeting is to allow 9
the Petitioners to address the Petition Review Board.
10 This is an opportunity for the Petitioners to provide 11 additional explanations or support for their petition.
12 This is also an opportunity for the staff and licensee 13 to ask any clarifying questions.
14 The purpose of this meeting is not to 15 debate the merits of the petition nor whether we agree 16 or disagree with the contents of the petition.
17 The Petitioners have requested that the 18 NRC take enforcement actions against First Energy 19 Nuclear Operating Company, the licensee for Davis-20 Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor, Ohio and 21 the Petitioners also requested that the NRC suspend 22 the Davis-Besse license and preclude plant restart 23 until certain conditions have been met.
24 With that as an introduction, Id like to 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 get into the heart of the meeting and seek to 1
understand your petition fully and hear any clarifying 2
information you have for us.
3 We should introduce ourselves. If we can, 4
Herb?
5 MR. BERKOW: Herb Berko, NRR.
6 MR. FERNANDEZ: Antonio Fernandez, OTC.
7 MR. GUNTER: Paul Gunter, Nuclear 8
Information and Resource Service.
9 MR. RICCIO: Jim Riccio, Greenpeace.
10 MR. LOCHBAUM: David Lochbaum, Union of 11 Concerned Scientists.
12 MR. RULAND: Bill Ruland, NRC, Division of 13 Licensing Project Management and Im also the Vice 14 Chairman of the Davis-Besse 0350 Panel.
15 MR. HOPKINS: John Hopkins, NRC Project 16 Manager assigned to Davis-Besse.
17 MR. NELSON: Dave Nelson, NRC Office of 18 Enforcement.
19 MS. SKAY: Donna Skay, NRR.
20 MS. RALLEIGH: Kim Ralleigh, License 21 Information Service.
22 MR. HUSTON: Roger Huston, Licensing 23 Support Services.
24 MR. GOLDBERG: Jack Goldberg, NRC OGC.
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 MR. HORNER: Dan Horner, McGraw-Hill 1
Nuclear Publications.
2 MR. BENNEY: Brian Benney, NRR.
3 MR. BOOTHE: Don Boothe, NRC.
4 MS. BUPP: Molly, OGC.
5 MR. FIELDS: And from Region 2, we have?
6 MS. LIPA: Christine Lipa.
7 MR. FIELDS: And from the Davis-Besse 8
licensee?
9 MR. ASTROSKI: Kevin Astroski.
10 MS. THORNHILL: Angela Thornhill with 11 Morgan & Wood.
12 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Anyway, why dont we get 13 started.
14 MR. RICCIO: The petition is relatively 15 straight-forward. Were asking for an enforcement 16 action taken against First Energy for failure to 17 comply with the requirements of the 50.54(f) Letter 18 from 1997.
19 There have been repeated instances and 20 NRCs own inspection reports which have identified as 21 many as one thousand deficiencies in the design 22 licensing basis of Davis-Besse. That inspection 23 report was the premise for denying Congressman 24 Kusinichs petition despite the fact that the NRC does 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 not have, at least at this point the information in 1
hand which would basically provide backup for that 2
finding.
3 When we realized that we filed this other 4
petition in order to address those concerns and 5
address the fact that First Energy has repeatedly 6
missed opportunities to bring themselves back into 7
compliance with their design licensing basis. Were 8
asking that the NRC fine First Energy. Were also 9
asking them for the numerous licensee event reports 10 that theyve filed identifying design based 11 deficiencies dating back to the date of licensure that 12 they be held accountable for those failures. And in 13 that process you fine them based upon the days that 14 theyve been out of compliance.
15 We are still seeking information from the 16 Agency. I have a Freedom of Information Act request 17 thats in to the NRC on this topic and Ive only 18 gotten two cursory responses.
19 Additionally, Ive spoken with both Jack 20 Grobe and -- Im sorry, Im forgetting the gentlemans 21 name. Its Darryl from Sam Collins office.
22 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Darryl Roberts.
23 MR. RICCIO: Yes, seeking the information 24 to back up what was in your inspection reports. They 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 have been unable to provide us with that information.
1 Im sure its now entangled with the FOIA.
2 Our other concerns, basically revolve 3
around the fact that absent compliance with the design 4
licensing basis, it is impossible for this Agency to 5
determine whether or not the operation of that reactor 6
poses an undue threat to the public health and safety.
7 We are still seeking -- there were four 8
bullet points that came out of a meeting at Davis-9 Besse that talked about how they -- first of all, they 10 were supposedly going to establish a time line for 11 identifying those deficiencies as a thousand design 12 based deficiencies; identify why their previous effort 13 to correct those problems have been unsuccessful; 14 confirm that the previous ones were adequate; and 15 again evaluate why the design basis clarification 16 program had failed to resolve those issues previously.
17 Again, Ive not received any of that information.
18 Again, that was the premise for denying 19 Mr. Kucinichs petition, your system health reviews.
20 And so our concern is that again repeatedly, the NRC 21 has missed opportunities to enforce other requirements 22 about the design basis at First Energy dating back 23 from the 1985 event that they had. They were supposed 24 to go back in and check the design basis. Obviously, 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 didnt cover it.
1 Again, after 1997, after the wake of the 2
Millstone debacle, they went back in and the thing 3
thats truly of concern is that the very system that 4
they inspected during the 1997 time frame is the one 5
thats causing them such a headache now which is the 6
high pressure injection.
7 And I fail to see how two different 8
inspections can reach completely opposite conclusions 9
on the operability of that system. I would guess that 10 the inoperability determination that was the last one 11 that the NRC has made is probably the correct one.
12 Im at a loss as to understanding how the 13 NRC could have missed it the first time or actually 14 how a licensee could have missed and how NRC could 15 have basically approved it.
16 MR. FIELDS: A couple of times you 17 mentioned a thousand deficiencies.
18 MR. RICCIO: Right, that comes from the 19 NRCs own inspection report.
20 MR. FIELDS: And the inspection reports 21 says at the close of the inspection, 200 had not been 22 corrected.
23 MR. RICCIO: Right.
24 MR. FIELDS: So are you concerned about 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 the thousand or are you concerned about the 200?
1 MR. RICCIO: Given the fact that NRC had 2
previously determined that the high pressure injection 3
was sound and that it turns out not to be the case, 4
were concerned about how all one thousand were 5
dispositioned.
6 And given the fact that were finding that 7
the ones that purportedly have been repaired have not 8
been repaired, thats what gives us concern that 9
perhaps the resolution of the 800 other items was 10 equally as weak.
11 MR. RULAND: You referred to a meeting, I 12 thought you had referred to a meeting that maybe this 13 inspection report would turn to. Do you remember when 14 that meeting occurred? Or did I miss something?
15 MR. RICCIO: Im sorry, where --
16 MR. RULAND: It was just when you were 17 going over, talking about this inspection report, it 18 sounded like you were referring to a meeting.
19 MR. RICCIO: It wasnt a meeting. I had 20 a discussion with -- once I stumbled across this by 21 comparing different inspection reports, I had 22 conversations with Region 3 and with Headquarters, 23 seeking answers and when I couldnt get answers, 24 thats when I filed the FOIA. When I didnt get the 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 FOIA information, thats when I filed the petition.
1 MR. RULAND: Okay, I understand.
2 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: But the questions that 3
you had asked Region 3 and of Headquarters, those are 4
the same questions that youre asking here in the 5
petition?
6 MR. RICCIO: When I couldnt get the 7
answers from the Region 3 and from Headquarters, 8
thats what actually made me decide to file this 9
petition because if they didnt have the -- actually, 10 I discussed this with Christine, if she remembers. I 11 found it really problematic that the NRC had denied 12 the Congressmans petition and actually having the 13 documentation in hand that was the basis for that 14 denial.
15 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Right, and that certainly 16 is documented here in your petition.
17 MR. RICCIO: Additionally, we had asked --
18 in those conversations I was looking for -- and the 19 meeting youre referring to was the meeting that NRC 20 held out at Oak Harbor and thats where I pulled the 21 information about the degraded, but operable. Thats 22 one of the tag lines on the -- apparently, the NRC had 23 asked First Energy how many systems they were having 24 degraded, but operable condition at restart and they 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 were supposed to get back with Christine on that and 1
at least my last phone conversation with Christine, 2
they had failed to.
3 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: And that was your number 4
5 here, suspend the license and prohibit restart.
5 MR. RICCIO: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Of Davis-Besse with any 7
systems in a degraded, but operable condition.
8 MR. RICCIO: Yes, and our perspective on 9
that is after being down for this extended period of 10 time, I see no reason why the NRC should allow this 11 reactor to start with any systems that are degraded.
12 MR. LOCKBAUM: The only thing I would add 13 to what Jim said is our concern about the enforcement 14 action for the incomplete or inaccurate response to 15 the 5054 F letter is that NRC needs to send a message 16 to the industry that the responses to 5054 F letters 17 and the maintenance of design base adequacies is 18 important. If the licensee doesnt do a better job, 19 either by intent or by incompetence, whatever the 20 reason for it, NRC shouldnt treat that with 21 ambivalence. The NRC needs to send a message that 22 thats unacceptable.
23 Its not simply a matter of collecting 24 money because you dont get it, we dont get it, the 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 Treasury gets it. Were not concerned about that, but 1
in license renewal space, 10 CFR part 54, the NRC 2
changed its regulations on license renewal from the 3
licensees showing that the current licensing basis, or 4
could demonstrate that the current licensing basis is 5
met to acknowledge that the presumption going into 6
license renewal that plants meet the current licensing 7
basis. If the licensees know that they can send in a 8
bogus answer or dont have to do a very good job to 9
ensure that its a good answer, that assumption, that 10 presumption for license renewal space is very suspect.
11 Dont be surprised if you dont see that raised again 12 in license renewal space at this plant and elsewhere.
13 We havent seen the NRC either discipline 14 or elsewhere when there are signs that design basis of 15 those 5054 F responses were inadequate doing much 16 other than say just fix a few things that youve been 17 caught on. That doesnt seem to be doing very good.
18 CHAIRMAN LEEDS:
To make sure I
19 understand, let me repeat back to you and its 20 interesting that you tie it to part 54 because it does 21 assume, part 54 does assume that the licensing basis 22 is met.
23 MR. LOCKBAUM: It didnt use to. It was 24 revised.
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 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Right, it was revised.
1 I remember when that happened. And the issue here is 2
and I think the words that you used were sending a 3
message to the industry that the industry needs to 4
understand that they have to meet their design basis 5
and meet the requirements of the 5054 letter that we 6
sent on design basis. And that anything else is not 7
acceptable.
8 MR.
LOCKBAUM:
Absent
- that, the 9
presumption in 10 CFR 54 is the NRC doesnt have much 10 grounds to do that. Its when you send out the 5054 11 F and you do other inspections and the licensees know 12 they can take it seriously or not take it seriously 13 with no difference, no impunity, then --
14 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Its undermining part 54.
15 MR. LOCKBAUM: Exactly.
16 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thats not the way we 17 want the industry to operate.
18 MR. LOCKBAUM: Or even throughout the part 19 54 --
20 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Right, even without part 21
- 54. We understand.
22 MR. RULAND: You referred to it as the 23 part 52 here. Is it 52 or 54? Does anybody remember?
24 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: No, part 54 is license 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 renewal.
1 MR. RULAND: Okay, so thats a correction 2
to the letter.
3 MR. FIELDS: You itemize five specific 4
requests.
5 MR. RICCIO: Correct.
6 MR. FIELDS: And I pretty much understand 7
the basis for at least four of them. The fourth one 8
you say suspend the license and prohibit restart until 9
First Energy has updated the PRA to reflect the flaws 10 in its design and licensing basis.
11 I got the impression that you want them to 12 correct the flaws in their design basis before the 13 restart, but now youre saying dont let them restart 14 until they have a PRA that reflects the flaws. Whats 15 the tie there? I dont understand.
16 MR. LOCKBAUM: Today, the PRA reflect 17 operator errors, equipment failures and other things 18 that happen. The PRA at Davis-Besse doesnt reflect 19 design errors, configuration management errors of the 20 kind that are typified by the list of LARs that were 21 cited in the petition.
22 Its unrealistic to assume that all of 23 those have been identified. There are no other design 24 errors existing at that plant. The PRA should reflect 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 that fact.
1 MR. FIELDS: They can reflect the ones 2
that they found, but how could they -- if youre 3
saying there are ones they havent found, how could 4
they be reflected in the PRA.
5 MR. LOCKBAUM: Same way they handle 6
operator errors and equipment failures. You dont 7
assume that a valve failure will only affect valves in 8
that system any more. You look at whats the rate of 9
equipment failures. Whats the rate of coolant 10 performance problems and you apply that in your PRAs.
11 If you look at design errors, whats the 12 duration and frequency of having design errors that 13 compromise equipment operability. You then apply that 14 in your PRAs. Its not going to be a huge number, 15 hopefully, but its not zero either as it is now.
16 The PRA should reflect the reality that 17 theyre reporting.
18 MR. FIELDS: So if the flaws in the design 19 and licensing basis are indeed corrected, you still 20 would like to see those flaws reflected in their PRA?
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: No --
22 MR. FIELDS: Yes, thats what hes saying.
23 Thats the part I was a little confused about.
24 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Then Im sorry, Im 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 confused.
1 MR. LOCKBAUM: If you look today, if an 2
operator makes an error or equipment breaks at a 3
plant, you still have to fix that. You dont get to 4
say well, my PRA covers it so no big deal. So the 5
corrective action program is required under that 10 6
CFR part -- appendix B requires those things to be 7
fixed. Design are the same way. If they happen, you 8
have to fix the design error that youve identified, 9
but the PRA should reflect that there can be other 10 ones out there.
11 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: There can be other ones, 12 maybe not specifically the ones that theyve 13 identified, corrected, those are fixed. But what I 14 heard you say was that there should be some rate of 15 design errors assumed in the PRA, just like you would 16 for operator error. Just like you would for an 17 equipment failure. Assume that theres a slightly 18 different --
19 MR. RICCIO: Its slightly different than 20 the way we would have worded it.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: So how do you want that 22 one identified? Theres a request to have a PRA and 23 probably not just a Davis-Besse PRA, but PRAs to have 24 in it a component that would reflect the design 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 errors. Or do you want this specific request and then 1
the question is well, what is to be used for? Is it 2
a historical look? For this particular PRA to have 3
the flaws, the purpose of that PRA would be --
4 MR. LOCKBAUM: Well, first of all, what 5
were asking for is that the PRA be reflected, be 6
revised to reflect the fact that design and licensing 7
flaws exist in the past and are likely to exist in the 8
future that havent yet been identified and corrected.
9 So theres still some uncorrected design errors at the 10 plant. The PRAs need to reflect that reality as they 11 do the reality of operator error and equipment 12 failures.
13 The reason its important going forward is 14 that the PRAs continue to be used to justify NOEDs, 15 STBs, significance and a lot of other risk informed 16 decisions, regulatory decisions that this Agency 17 makes.
18 If the PRAs are flawed due to any reason, 19 then the value of those regulatory decisions is 20 impaired. So we want to upgrade the value of those 21 regulatory decisions by improving the quality of the 22 PRA or removing some of the poor quality of the PRA, 23 however you want to characterize it.
24 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Interesting. All right, 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 thank you.
1 MR. LOCKBAUM: Is that rewording --
2 MR. RICCIO: Its a little bit of 3
rewording, but it works.
4 MR. RICCIO: I appreciate you asking the 5
question because we thought it was clear, but in 6
hindsight we see that it didnt convey what we really 7
wanted, so I appreciate it.
8 MR. RULAND: Do you know of any example 9
where something like this is attempted, either in the 10 nuclear industry or elsewhere?
11 MR. RICCIO: No, weve been kind of 12 harping on the fact that the industry needs to redo 13 their PRAs for quite some time. I dont -- we dont 14 know that its been done yet and this is why we raised 15 it, routinely raised it.
16 MR. RULAND: And this is really kind of a 17 derivative of that. Its a piece of the PRA quality.
18 Its not the total PRA quality question, right, its 19 just a piece of it, right?
20 MR. LOCKBAUM: Thats correct.
21 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Thank you. Other things 22 we should know about?
23 MR. RICCIO: Thats basically it. Like I 24 said I wish I had more information for you to add to 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 this, but my FOIA request has not been thoroughly --
1 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Responded to.
2 MR. RICCIO: Responded to and I suspect 3
that Ill be having more stuff come in.
4 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Okay.
5 MR. BERKO: When your FOIA request is 6
responded to, do you anticipate submitting a 7
supplement?
8 MR. RICCIO: In the conversation we had 9
yesterday, I said I want to at least hold that off.
10 It may be a possibility, given what Ive seen so far.
11 MR. FIELDS: Our process allows for it, of 12 course.
13 MR. RICCIO: Yes.
14 MR. FIELDS: A couple of process kind of 15 questions --
16 MR. RULAND: Could I ask a question before 17 you ask those. I think you said something about, Jim, 18 a cursory response to your FOIA?
19 MR. RICCIO: Its a partial response.
20 MR. RULAND: Okay. Its not that you have 21 a problem with the way it was responded to --
22 MR. RICCIO: Oh no, no, no. FOIA branch 23 is one of the best parts of the Agency.
24 MR. RULAND: Ill make sure to pass that 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 along. Weve got it on the record.
1 MR. RICCIO: Theyve been wonderful.
2 Its just that Ive only gotten a partial response.
3 MR. RULAND: I just wanted to -- thanks.
4 MR.
FIELDS:
As we send out 5
communications, providing you the status, it can be --
6 PRB decides to treat this as a 2.2 petition, we like 7
to maintain routine communications. Shall I treat you 8
as a point of contact and you would disseminate the 9
information to the other two interested parties or do 10 you want me to contact all three?
11 MR. RICCIO: Why dont we, just because 12 Im going to be out of town quite often in the next 13 couple of months, so why dont we put all three, no 14 offense guys.
15 MR. FIELDS: Well start with that and it 16 becomes cumbersome, you guys can adjust it. Hows 17 that?
18 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Does anyone else have any 19 questions?
20 MR. RULAND: How about the licensee? Does 21 the licensee have any questions?
22 MR. ASTROSKI: No questions or comments.
23 MR. RULAND: Region 3?
24 MS. LIPA: Nothing here, thank you.
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 MR. RICCIO: Christine, have you gotten a 1
response yet from First Energy.
2 MS. LIPA: Let me tell you what I know, 3
Jim. You had asked about the list to prevent degrade 4
had been put on hold?
5 MR. RICCIO: Right.
6 MS. LIPA: I didnt have it in hand, but 7
the senior resident has been provided that list.
8 Subsequently, I do have a list and the changes as they 9
work things off the list. So thats the current 10 status of that.
11 Does that answer your question?
12 MR. RICCIO: I suppose. Is NRC going to 13 allow them to restart in a degraded condition?
14 MS. LIPA: Thats going to be determined.
15 MR. RICCIO: I tried.
16 MR. FIELDS: The PRB will meet on the PRA, 17 but -- and first paper trail is the acknowledgement 18 letter and the goal is within 5 weeks of the date of 19 the petition and we hope to meet that or be close to 20 it.
21 MR. RULAND: Whens that date?
22 MR. FIELDS: early October.
23 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Any other questions, 24 comments, requests?
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 MR. BERKO: So I guess we can establish 1
that all three want to be on the service?
2 MR. FIELDS: Communications on the 3
petition itself, but we usually add Petitioners and of 4
course, were assuming its Petitioners to the 5
distribution for all communications we have with the 6
licensee.
7 MR. RICCIO: Daves already on it. I 8
would like to added to that list. All three.
9 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: All right, if you have 10 nothing further. I think the business portion of the 11 meeting has been concluded.
12 Anything else for the business portion?
13 Thank you, gentlemen, thank you very much for coming.
14 MR. HOPKINS: Weve concluded the business 15 portion of the meeting, so were going to hang up now.
16 Okay?
17 CHAIRMAN LEEDS: Were off the record.
18 (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the meeting was 19 concluded.)
20 21 22 23 24 25