ML050050526
| ML050050526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/2004 |
| From: | NRC/OI |
| To: | |
| Skay D, NRR/DLPM, 415-1322 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML050050534 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML050050526 (39) | |
Text
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEETING 6
7 8 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9 0-7B6 10 11222 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, Maryland 20852 12 13 The above-entitled matter was conducted at 2:00 p.m.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 MR. MILANO: Do you have a quorum now, Mr.
4 Judson (phonetic)?
5 MR. JUDSON: Yes, we do. We should be 6 joined shortly by Robin Miller who will be dialing up 7 in just a couple of minutes.
8 MR. MILANO: Do you want to wait for -- is 9 it a her?
10 MR. JUDSON: Yes, well, we can go ahead.
11 MALE VOICE: Robin should be on the line.
12 MS. MILLER: Im here.
13 MR. MILANO: Okay, great. Then well go 14 ahead and get the meeting started.
15 MR. JUDSON: Okay, so Im assuming that 16 everybody got the agenda that we put together.
17 MALE VOICE: Yes, Gateway did.
18 MR. JUDSON: Okay, so what we figured we 19 start with is --
20 MR. MILANO: Well, let me kick it off, Mr.
21 Judson.
22 MR. JUDSON: Okay.
23 MR. MILANO: Okay, yeah, this is Patrick 24 Milano. Im the petition manager for your October 25 27th, 2004 petition and what Id like to do now is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 Ill introduce the NRC members at headquarters. Then 2 we have -- we have participants from NRC Region 1 and 3 we have the licensee representatives on hand also and 4 then from the petitioners. And what well do is well 5 go through and everybody can introduce themselves.
6 Ill begin with, again my name is Patrick 7 Milano. With me, Ive got -- Ill introduce everybody 8 else. Its James Kim (phonetic) and Richard 9 Lauffer,(phonetic) both of which are with Division of 10 Licensing Project Management, Steven Lewis (phonetic) 11 from our Office of General Counsel, and James Lyons, 12 (phonetic) whos the Deputy Director for the Division 13 of Licensing Project Manager and the M.S. Fasbee 14 (phonetic) is the Petition Review Board Chairman and 15 our Petition Coordinator Donna Skay (phonetic), and 16 from our technical staff, Daniel Frumkin (phonetic).
17 Region 1, would you introduce yourselves?
18 MR. ROGEY: (Phonetic) Yeah, this is John 19 Rogey, Im the electrical branch chief. With me, I 20 have Gene Colby, he is the branch chief in projects 21 that is responsible for the Fitzpatrick Site and I 22 believe Doug Dempsey is no the phone, the resident 23 inspector at the site.
24 MR. MILANO: Entergy?
25 MS. FAYE-DUNN: (Phonetic) This is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 Charlene Faye-Dunn of Entergy in White Plains, New 2 York.
3 MR. PLATT: (Phonetic) And this is Rick 4 Platt, Entergy at the site, licensing engineer.
5 MR. MILANO: Okay. Mr. Judson, (phonetic) 6 would you go ahead and take care of your 7 introductions?
8 MR. JUDSON: Sure, what we figured what we 9 would do is the Petitioners who are on the line could 10 introduce themselves and make a couple of comments 11 about, you know, what their concerns are about -- and 12 why they joined on the petition. Im Tim Judson, Im 13 with Citizens Aware Network in Central New York and I 14 was the lead person in putting together the petition.
15 Deb, do you want to go?
16 MS. KATZ: (Phonetic) Yes, sure, Deb Katz, 17 Citizens Awareness Network. Im the executive 18 director. We have been concerned about this violation 19 thats been in existence since 1992 with the 20 ventilation problem and we are concerned that it 21 remains unsolved and undealt with by the NRC and has 22 been allowed to fester for too long a time.
23 MR. BOARDWAY: (Phonetic) My name is 24 Lawrence Boardway. I represent Carl Patrickson 25 (phonetic). Im an attorney representing Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1 Patrickson. Mr. Patrickson is one of the petitioners.
2 Id like to explain, though, that I only represent Mr.
3 Patrickson in connection with this telephone 4 conference. I do represent him in connection with the 5 whistle blower complaint that he filed against Entergy 6 that is currently pending before an Administrative Law 7 Judge and thus, because this matter relates to the 8 whistle blower complaint, Mr. Patrickson has asked me 9 to sit in on the telephone conference. I dont 10 represent any other parties to the petition, however.
11 MS. GATELY: (Phonetic) Im Susan Gately 12 with Lake Shore Environmental Action. Im interested 13 in this safety violation potential as a generic issue.
14 I live midway between Fitzpatrick and the Ganay Plant 15 which might have a similar problem.
16 MS. MILLER: Im Robin Miller. Im co-17 chair of the Justice of Peace, which is a peace based 18 group of education and awareness of the City of 19 Oswego. I also live in the City of Oswego, seven 20 miles from the power plant and I have great concerns 21 about its safety.
22 MR. HAWKINS: My name is Larry Hawkins, 23 Im chair of the Green Party of Onanda (phonetic) 24 County, downwind from the plant.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1 MR. JUDSON: Okay, and is that everyone?
2 We also -- there are also two reporters on the line, 3 Dillon Goldberg (phonetic) from the Post Standard and 4 Sean Tracy from the Palladian Times (phonetic) who are 5 just listening in at this point. Ill start going 6 through some of these items. It may actually go 7 quicker than the time I allotted on the agenda.
8 MR. MILANO: Yes, also, excuse me for a 9 second. Mr. Lyons, he just has some opening remarks 10 that could set the stage for -- you know, for the 11 discussions this afternoon, and then well be turning 12 to over to you, Mr. Judson. Jim.
13 MR. LYONS: Thank you, Pat. Again, Im 14 Jim Lyons and Im the chairman of the Petition Review 15 Board and this conference call deals with the petition 16 filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 on October 27th, 2004 17 by Mr. Tim Judson of the Central New York Citizens 18 Awareness Network on behalf of the Central New York 19 Nuclear Security Coalition. Petitioners have 20 requested that the NRC order suspension of the 21 facility operating license for the James A.
22 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, owned and operated by 23 Entergy Nuclear Operations until the following actions 24 are completed.
25 Number one, conduct physical tests of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 ventilation and heat uprates of the pump room under 2 simulated fire scenarios with verification of the test 3 results by an independent third party, followed by an 4 open public meeting where the results are presented 5 and reviewed.
6 Two, seal floor and ceiling penetrations 7 between the basement level pump rooms and the first 8 floor. Three, provide alternate cooling and 9 ventilation for the emergency service water in fire 10 safety related pump rooms, and four, verify the 11 adequacy of actions by the NRCs Division of Reactor 12 Safety, Fire Protection and Inspection Team as the 13 Agency planned to do in 1997.
14 In addition, the petitioners request a 15 demand for information to provide for any document 16 related to a 2003 allegation that were not provided in 17 response to a prior FOIA, a Freedom of Information Act 18 request from the Citizens Awareness Network. In 19 accordance with the NRCs management directive 8.11, 20 on 10 CFR 2.206 process, the purpose of this 21 teleconference is to give the petitioners an 22 opportunity to address the Petition Review Board to 23 provide additional explanations or supporting 24 information for their petition.
25 It also provides an opportunity for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1 NRC staff and the licensee to ask any clarifying 2 questions. However, the purpose of this conference 3 call is not to debate the specific merits of the 4 petition. Since we have members of the public who are 5 not petitioners, I want to insure that you understand 6 that this is a teleconference only between the 7 petitioners, the NRC and the licensee. Thus, I ask 8 that you refrain from asking questions or commenting 9 during the proceeding.
10 After this phone call, the PRB will meet 11 to determine whether the NRC will accept the petition 12 under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and whether the issues 13 should be dealt with under another agency program.
14 The PRBs meeting will not determine whether we agree 15 or disagree with the contents of the petition. This 16 teleconference is being transcribed, so anyone 17 desiring to make a statement needs to first state his 18 or her name clearly. The transcript will become a 19 supplement to the petition and will be made publicly 20 available.
21 Since Mr. Judson, youve previously agreed 22 to be the point of contact for petitioners, I will now 23 ask you to briefly discuss the supporting basis for 24 the actions requested in the petition and to describe 25 any supporting information that was not provided when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 filing the petition. In particular, Mr. Judson 2 notified us yesterday that one of the petitioners had 3 submitted additional information for inclusion as part 4 of the petition. The PRB has not seen or received 5 this information as yet, so wed like a brief 6 explanation of the description of this new 7 information.
8 Furthermore, the petition notes that the 9 issues were reviewed in the past under the agencys 10 allegation program. Thus, we would like your 11 statement to point out or emphasize any new or 12 different information that is now being provided in 13 this petition from that previously provided to the 14 NRC. With that, I will now turn over the discussion 15 to Mr. Jordan and thank you for your patience.
16 MR. JUDSON: Yes, Mr. Judson? You said 17 Mr. Jordan and I --
18 MR. LYONS: Im sorry, I misspoke.
19 MR. JUDSON: Well, first, you know, wed 20 like to thank the NRC for the opportunity to have this 21 conference call. Were very concerned about this 22 issue and to some extent, theres a question about 23 what happens when, you know, one branch of the NRC 24 whos reviewed a safety issue, has done so 25 inadequately and has failed in their regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1 function in our view? And you know, and that the 2 2.206 petition is really the only other avenue that 3 the public has to try to have, you know, some justice 4 in this matter.
5 And you know, I also wanted to make clear, 6 you know, that there are a number of petitioners who 7 werent able to make it on this conference call who 8 were very concerned because were having it during the 9 work day and they have work obligations to attend to.
10 With that said, I guess the first item of business is 11 to clarify that since weve submitted the petition, we 12 do have three new petitioners. One is the Green Party 13 of Onandaga (phonetic) County, also the Nuclear 14 Information and Resource Service and Carl Patrickson 15 has signed on. So that should clarify the number of 16 petitioners that we have at this point.
17 Now, as far as the technical basis for the 18 petition, we believe that the licensee event report 19 from 1991 that originally documented this problem 20 stands on its own as far as being able to identify 21 that there is a potential problem with the 22 ventilation, the emergency service water and prior 23 safety related pump rooms at Fitzpatrick and in fact, 24 that that technical evaluation was affirmed when NIFA 25 (phonetic) applied in 1992 for a temporary exemption NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1 to postpone installing modifications that they 2 expected to be quite extensive at that time and that 3 NRC understood this when they granted that exemption 4 on September 10th, 1992. So rather than dwell too 5 much on the technical details which are very well laid 6 out in the OER (phonetic), what wed like to focus on 7 is a couple of other things.
8 But prior to stating that, you know, what 9 we wanted to make sure it was clear is that it isnt 10 just the emergency service water and more residual 11 heat removal that are at issue in this. The OER in 12 1991, clearly identified that the fire safety related 13 pumps, were perhaps even more clearly than a problem 14 with inadequate ventilation than the other sets of 15 pumps that were talking about. And that, in fact, 16 none of NIFAs responses to NRC about this issue, 17 addressed the problems of the fire safety related 18 pumps and instead focused exclusively on the ESW and 19 RHR pumps.
20 This was a major oversight and were not 21 sure why the NRC didnt catch it in its allegations 22 department review. In fact, you know, as far as the 23 diesel fire pumps are concerned, just to quote 24 directly from the LER, "The dampers to the room must 25 be open for proper operation of the pumps". There is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1 no ventilation air or air for combustion for those 2 pumps except for what comes through the fire dampers 3 which will be closed in the event of a fire. And 4 that, as Mr. Patrickson has confirmed, was never done.
5 And the NRC doesnt seem to have ever followed up to 6 inspect the plant to make sure that those 7 modifications were installed.
8 The other issue which falls somewhat 9 outside the issues which was raised in the 1991 10 Licensee Event Report, are the four ceiling 11 penetrations between the basement pump rooms and the 12 first floor. And we believe that in combination with 13 the ventilation problem, this presents -- those 14 penetrations present a serious security vulnerability 15 as well as an ongoing safety problem and the only 16 reason that those penetrations themselves do not have 17 any fire dampers on them is because NIFA applied in 18 1986 for an exemption from the fire safety regulation 19 and the NRC granted that on the basis that they were 20 going to minimize the amount of combustible material 21 in the building.
22 We believe that especially post-9/11 with 23 the possibility for terrorist attacks that could 24 exploit such a vulnerability deliberately, for 25 instance, you know, by using you know, jet fuel, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1 that decision is invalid at this point and needs to be 2 revisited, that in combination with the ventilation 3 problems that we discussed makes a clear case that 4 those penetrations need to be addressed as a 5 comprehensive solution to the problem.
6 Moving on from there, the issue that were 7 especially concerned about at this point, is that --
8 is that NIFA basically pulled a bait and switch in 9 1992 when it applied for a temporary exemption from 10 having to install modifications. And then the NRC 11 granting that acknowledged that, in fact, NIFA had 12 made a commitment to make extensive modifications to 13 the plant to address this issue. Now, subsequent to 14 that none of NIFAs responses to the NRC beginning in 15 1997 with Carl Patricksons first allegations, even 16 addressed this commitment which was enforceable and 17 made under its license in order to gain permission to 18 restart the reactor in 1992.
19 In fact NIFAs response to Mr.
20 Patricksons 1997 allegation which served as NRCs 21 sole basis for deciding not to investigate this 22 problem at that point, does not even acknowledge their 23 commitment under that exemption request. As well, 24 NIFA submitted to NRC its own internal response to Mr.
25 Patricksons concerns which were reported to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 companys "Speak Out" program and that response also 2 ignores those commitments.
3 In fact, its impossible to tell whether 4 the actions that that report cites as completed 5 corrective actions for the LER were in fact relevant 6 or even adequate since no information about them was 7 presented to NRC. And not even a date on which the 8 calculations at the site were performed. We dont 9 even know if those were calculations that were 10 performed prior to the submission of the LER.
11 Now, theres two indications that 12 especially this latter document provided by NIFA lack 13 credibility. One is that despite a memo about the 14 pump room ventilation requirements, a meeting that was 15 held in which the report mentions as though it were 16 evidence that corrective actions in the LER were 17 completed, now that memo was issued before the LER was 18 written and, in fact, seems to have been the memo that 19 provided the basis for the creation of the LER in the 20 first place. So, in fact, that would not have been a 21 corrective action.
22 The report also indicates that at least 23 four of the dampers were reclassified to have their 24 safety significance downgraded. Now, not only did 25 downgrading their safety rating not a corrective NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 action, it doesnt address, you know, the ventilation 2 problem that was identified in the LER, but it is in 3 direct contradiction to NRCs denial in 1996 or 1986 4 of NIFAs request for an exemption from Appendix R for 5 those same fire dampers.
6 And Id like to read a quote from that, 7 from that exemption notice that illustrates this.
8 "With regard to the remaining 12 fire dampers", these 9 fire dampers are included in this, "the licensees 10 approach is based on quote downgrading existing 11 multi-hour fire barriers and justifying the absence of 12 fire dampers on the basis of test results and that the 13 National Fire Protection Association does not require 14 fire dampers in one-hour fire related walls. However, 15 this report should negate the basis by which we 16 accepted the fire protection program at Fitzpatrick 17 during our review of the program. In addition, since 18 these barriers, as designed, possess a fire rating in 19 excess of two hours, the Fire Protection Association 20 Standards requires the fire dampers be installed where 21 HVAC duct penetrations exist. Fire excess on one-hour 22 rated walls with unprotected HVAC duct penetration 23 were not conducted with continuous air ducts without 24 air registers.
25 The licensee has not established that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1 configuration of ducts at Fitzpatrick reflected the 2 tested configuration. Therefore, the results of these 3 tests may not be applicable to this issue. If fire 4 dampers were not installed in these barriers, we would 5 not have reasonable assurance that a fire, if one 6 should occur, would be confined to the room of 7 origin".
8 Now, what NIFAs response I 1997 indicates 9 is that theres a repeated approach by NIFA of 10 attempting to get out of regulatory requirements of 11 fire protection by pretending that necessary safety 12 systems were expendable and we believe that this is 13 further evidence that NIFA was essentially trying to 14 wiggle out of the requirement and that NRC failed to 15 notice this was going on. Now, as far as the 16 requested actions that weve listed, I was hoping that 17 Carl would be able to speak to some of the engineering 18 issues involved in this and what should have been done 19 as a proper response to the 91 LER.
20 MR. MILANO: Would the 9/11 change things, 21 the overall fix to seal the ceiling penetrations and 22 seal the side wall penetrations at the elevation of 23 the pump rooms and provide one or two-unit coolers for 24 each of the pump rooms to cool the rooms for the pump 25 heat and any external heat to come through the outside NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1 walls especially through a narrow fire, that type of 2 thing so that if there was a terrorist attack, it 3 would minimize the chance of fuel or heat coming from 4 the fire getting into the pump room and then the 5 cooler core would again, cool the heat generated by 6 the motors and any external heat coming through 7 especially from a fire? Thats really about all it 8 would take and not take a major shutdown of the plant 9 or a major shutdown of the emergency pump room to 10 install that modification.
11 MR. JUDSON: And how about, do you also 12 want to comment on the diesel --
13 MALE VOICE: And the diesel fire pumps 14 would basically need just a small hole either up 15 through the building roof or through the north outside 16 wall to provide an outside combustion air for the 17 diesel so theys have a short air supply.
18 MR. JUDSON: Great. Item 2 on the agenda, 19 the next thing we were planning to discuss was the new 20 information that wed like to submit at this point and 21 the first item in that is, obviously, the information 22 that Carl Patrickson submitted to Dr. Reyes 23 (phonetic) office, or Mr. Reyes office subsequent to 24 our submission of the petition. And am I correct in 25 understanding that the Petition Review Board has not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 seen that information yet?
2 MR. MILANO: That is correct. That 3 information had not been provided. The only thing 4 thats been -- the only thing that we got subsequent 5 to -- you know, to your October submission was the 6 item that was -- or the two-page letter that you sent 7 to me yesterday, dated November 16th and it has -- you 8 know, is that the -- all the information or was there 9 something attached to it?
10 MR. JUDSON: There was nothing attached to 11 the letter. Carl, maybe you could clarify what you 12 sent and when?
13 MR. BOARDWAY: This is Lawrence Boardway, 14 the attorney representing Mr. Patrickson. Before we 15 discuss the materials that Mr. Patrickson provided to 16 the NRC, we need to address the fact that Mr.
17 Patrickson is bound, by virtue of his employment for 18 Fitzpatrick by a confidentiality agreement and while 19 he can disclose the information to the NRC, he cannot 20 disclose it to any members of the public. So we cant 21 really discuss the substantively what this information 22 that he provided was in this conference.
23 If you want to talk about it, well have 24 to do that solely with the NRC and to the members that 25 are present at the conference that are employed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 Entergy.
2 MR. MILANO: Okay, I understand that, Mr.
3 Boardway. What well do is well make -- the Petition 4 Review Board will make an attempt to try to obtain 5 that information from the Office of the Executive 6 Director for Operations and you know, and well 7 proceed from there. If we need further discussions, 8 well work through Mr. Judson to attempt to contact 9 you and Mr. Patrickson.
10 MR. BOARDWAY: Thank you.
11 MR. MILANO: Youre welcome.
12 MR. LYONS: This is Jim Lyons. Just a 13 quick question for clarification. What was the date 14 of that letter that was sent to Luis Reyes office?
15 MR. BOARDWAY: Youre talking about the 16 letter that I sent?
17 MR. LYONS: Yeah, that --
18 MR. BOARDWAY: That was sent -- my letter 19 is dated September 29th, 2004 but it was mailed in 20 close proximity to Tim Judsons 2.206 petition.
21 MR. JUDSON: Okay, it should have been 22 received within a day or two after we submitted the 23 petition.
24 MR. LYONS: Okay.
25 MR. JUDSON: The letter that we sent to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1 Mr. Reyes office was on November 16th.
2 MR. LYONS: We have the November 16th 3 letter. Its the September 29th letter that we need 4 to go find. Given the -- if we have the date it helps 5 us a little bit of trying to track it down.
6 MR. JUDSON: Sure.
7 MR. LYONS: Thank you very much.
8 MR. JUDSON: Uh-huh.
9 MR. MILANO: Briefly, in regards to this 10 issue, what we wanted -- I mean, because we understand 11 that this is, in some sense, an unusual circumstance 12 where one of the petitioners has submitted information 13 into the proceeding that the other petitioners havent 14 been able to review --
15 (End of first audio) 16 -- will be transcribed in its entirety and 17 will be made part of the petition itself and the 18 transcript will also be provided to you for your 19 records.
20 MR. JUDSON: Pat, you said that the 21 recommendation will be made to -- within a month after 22 reviewing the new information. Now, seeing that were 23 waiting on a FOIA request and we havent been able to 24 obtain the 1992 violation, how -- you know, is that 30 25 days a moving, sort of target at this point?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 MR. MILANO: No, thats -- excuse me if I 2 misled you there. The -- that process for the final 3 decision on the part of NRC management will be made in 4 about 30 days. So the Petition Review Board will make 5 its recommendation to management sooner to that such 6 that the final decision back to you and the other 7 petitioners will be made within about 30 days.
8 MR. JUDSON: Is that 30 days after weve 9 been able to submit this information that were 10 waiting on?
11 MR. MILANO: No, thats 30 days --
12 MR. LEWIS: This is Steve Lewis with 13 General Counsels office. The additional information 14 that youre speaking about, you know, will certainly 15 be important to us when we get, but you know, if we 16 feel that were able to go ahead and make the decision 17 as to whether or not youve met the threshold of 2.206 18 based on what we have, well go ahead and make that 19 decision. And you know, whatever additional 20 information comes in later, well certainly look at 21 and see how it relates to your petition.
22 MR. JUDSON: Well, in that case, I mean, 23 were not sure what the rush is.
24 MR. MILANO: Are you saying a rush to make 25 a decision as to whether to accept or reject your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 petition?
2 MR. JUDSON: Yeah, 30 days from today, I 3 mean, you know, clearly theres information that were 4 waiting on that we havent been able to obtain for 5 outside reasons and were just not sure, you know, why 6 -- why the clock starts today as opposed to when NRC 7 has actually been able to -- you know, to have that 8 information in hand.
9 MR. LEWIS: This is Steve Lewis, again.
10 Mr. Judson, I really dont think -- the way I see it 11 is I dont really think that youre disadvantaged 12 here. Were going to make a very good faith effort to 13 make a determination as to whether or not you -- you 14 know, youve met the threshold. You know, its --
15 lets just hypothetically make the situation whereby 16 we might say, "Well, you didnt meet the threshold",
17 and but (inaudible)*** and you know, the week after 18 that you have some information from the Department of 19 Labor proceeding which you think, you know, shows that 20 we were wrong in making that. Well, you know, we 21 certainly would want to consider that and bring it to 22 our attention but you know I just think were doing 23 nothing other than following our normal process at 24 this point.
25 MS. MILLER: Robin Miller here. My NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 biggest concern as a citizen of the Town of Oswego is, 2 how is the public to benefit if theres no real 3 disclosure of important information concerning public 4 safety and its constantly kept from us?
5 FEMALE VOICE: We do get that impression.
6 MS. MILLER: Thats the impression I get 7 and thats what certainly my neighbors get.
8 MR. MILANO: Im not sure I understand 9 what information you think is being withheld?
10 MS. MILLER: Information about safety at 11 the plant. If theres a safety issue and were not 12 kept informed and the problem isnt repaired and were 13 not kept updated in that, then you know, we dont have 14 the sense of security.
15 MR. MILANO: Well, I understand that and 16 with this process, we should be able to address those 17 issues. So --
18 MR. JUDSON: Heres another question in 19 this vein. I mean, the Petition Review Board in its, 20 you know, review of this petition going to rely on the 21 Allegations Division regarding Mr. Patricksons 22 allegations?
23 MR. MILANO: Yes, we look back on all the 24 information that we have here in the NRC to make a 25 determination of whether or not we should move forward NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 on this petition was requested.
2 MR. JUDSON: Well, I mean, for instance in 3 this case, I mean one of the major issues in our 4 petition is, of course, the lack of confidence in the 5 Allegations Departments review of this issue. You 6 know, how does the Petition Review Board deal with 7 issues like that?
8 MR. MILANO: We would consider that. We 9 would consider that you felt that it wasnt adequately 10 addressed and we would look at that.
11 MR. JUDSON: Does the Petition Review 12 Board have the authority to supersede the Allegations 13 Departments review?
14 MR. MILANO: Certainly, if there is 15 additional information that would lead us to call into 16 question the -- you know, the previous Agency actions, 17 we would consider that. Its similar to what Steve 18 Lewis was saying about if you had additional 19 information even after -- even if the Petition Review 20 Board were to say this petition doesnt warrant to be 21 handled under 2.206, if you had additional information 22 that came to light after that and you provided it to 23 us, we would relook at that and relook at our decision 24 and determine if that would change our decision and 25 weve done that in the past. Weve picked up reviews NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 that we had originally put aside.
2 MR. JUDSON: Well, I mean, just sort of 3 probing further with this, is you know, for instance, 4 you know, theres the most recent allegation that Mr.
5 Patrickson made in 2003, the allegation that the 6 Department had conducted a review, that information 7 that we havent been able to review ourselves, is that 8 -- you know, is that Allegation Department information 9 going to be considered in denying our petition or 10 approving it whichever way it goes?
11 MR. LEWIS: This is Steve Lewis again. I 12 was just mentioning that I could add a little 13 something to this. I mean, once again, my concern is 14 the same one I voiced before, which is that the NRC 15 has available to it information that Mr. Patrickson 16 has supplied which was done in connection with an 17 allegation process. I think that you know, the way 18 the NRC would handle a matter that is being handled 19 under 2.206 would -- we would probably erect a barrier 20 between reliance on what was a basis for a 21 determination and an allegation process and what were 22 considering now.
23 And thats because we -- because the 24 public needs to know what were relying on. Now, to 25 the extent that anyone who is assisting you with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1 regard to your petition has chosen to use the 2 allegation process, you know, that was an option that 3 they exercised and of course, I think we always make 4 it clear to people in the allegation process is a 5 confidential process and a non-public process and 6 whereas 2.206 is a public process. So I mean, I want 7 to be candid with you.
8 Certainly well look at things that are 9 available to us and if, in fact -- if, in fact, it 10 turns out that it was very important to out thinking 11 to probe into, you know, why a certain matter that was 12 handled or an allegation process, you know, was not 13 satisfactory, I think at that point, you know, the 14 Petition Review Board would be talking quite a bit to 15 me and the Office of General Counsel because, you 16 know, thats a problem area.
17 Were trying to -- we certainly welcome 18 any ones participation in your petition but I just 19 want to make it clear that we have to be able to 20 proceed on the basis of information that is publicly 21 available basically, and when I start to hear things 22 about how Mr. Patrickson is bound by a certain 23 confidentiality agreement he has with Entergy and 24 things of that nature, well, you know, thats another 25 matter. That will have to be dealt with elsewhere and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 so, you know, thats my response to it.
2 MR. JUDSON: Let me ask this. I mean, if 3 for instance, you know absent putting our information 4 together with information that Mr. Patrickson has 5 provided, you know, to the PRB, the Petition Review 6 Board decided that an investigation wasnt warranted, 7 but with Mr. Patricksons information it became clear 8 that an investigation would be warranted, even though 9 that information isnt available to the public, would 10 the PRB then still decide that an investigation wasnt 11 warranted just because theres this firewall that 12 youre discussing?
13 MR. LYONS: No, no. And, in fact, I think 14 there are two points that Id like to make and I hope 15 this helps, and this is Jim Lyons. We have not been 16 good about giving our names all the time. First of 17 all, with respect to the technical concerns, were 18 going to judge the technical concerns that you 19 provided in here regardless of whether we treat this 20 as a 2.206 petition or not. So you will get a 21 response on those technical concerns one way or the 22 other. So I want you to know that.
23 And the other is, you know, as your 24 petition stated that you had some concerns about the 25 way this was handled in the past. We have referred NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 those comments to our Inspector General who will also 2 look at any problems as to the way would had handled 3 things previously. So there are things that are going 4 to happen whether or not we accept this as a 2.206 5 petition or not. I just wanted to let you know that.
6 MR. JUDSON: Uh-huh. Now on this point, 7 I mean, one thing that, you know, I mean, this is 8 obviously sort of -- you know, moving target but based 9 on the FOIA request we put into the Department of 10 Labor, if those -- you know, if and when those 11 documents are provided to us, then, in fact, we -- you 12 know, it can turn out that the information that Mr.
13 Patrickson has provided, you know, would not be 14 information that isnt available to the public and 15 then, in fact, could change that entirely.
16 MR. MILANO: Yeah, I guess it could.
17 MR. JUDSON: And in certain events, you 18 know, this is a little bit of a red herring because, 19 you know, obviously as I said earlier, those documents 20 have already been discussed in public and Entergy 21 didnt bother to object to that being done. So, in 22 fact, you know, in a certain sense, were waiting for 23 the documentary record to catch up with history.
24 MR. LEWIS: Well, well just acknowledge 25 -- this is Steve Lewis. Were acknowledging your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1 point and certainly, we want you to provide us with 2 whatever information that after your review, you 3 believe is relevant to our -- to the issues that you 4 have raised in the petition at whatever time --
5 whenever that happens.
6 MR. JUDSON: Okay.
7 MR. MILANO: All right, well, with that, 8 I really appreciate the information youve given us 9 and the time youve taken to put this together and to 10 provide us with your thoughts today and thank you very 11 much for the phone call. And with that, well sign 12 off.
13 MR. BOARDWAY: When will the transcript 14 become available? Do you know?
15 THE REPORTER: A week or two.
16 MR. MILANO: Within about a week or two 17 we should have it.
18 MR. BOARDWAY: Do you know where it will 19 be accessible from?
20 THE REPORTER: It will be sent to the 21 Petitioners.
22 MR. MILANO: Yes, it will be sent to the 23 Petitioners.
24 MR. BOARDWAY: And Tim, youll make that 25 available?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 MR. JUDSON: Yes, I will.
2 MR. BOARDWAY: Okay, thanks.
3 MR. MILANO: All right, well, thank you 4 very much.
5 (Whereupon the Teleconference concluded.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com