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