ML050870619
| ML050870619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/2005 |
| From: | NRC/EDO |
| To: | |
| Dick G F, NRR/DLPM,415-3019 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML050870621 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, G20050160, NRC-272, TAC MC6311 | |
| Download: ML050870619 (21) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Docket Number:
(not applicable)
Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Friday, March 4, 2005 Work Order No.:
NRC-272 Pages 1-21 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 (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
+ + + + +
6 FRIDAY 7
MARCH 4, 2005 8
+ + + + +
9 The conference call was held, JIM LYONS, 10 Petition Review Board Chairman, presiding.
11 12 PETITION REVIEW BOARD:
13 JIM LYONS, Chairman, Deputy Director, 14 Division of Licensing, Project Mgmt/NRR 15 HERBERT N. BERKOW, Project Director, DLPM/NRR 16 DONNA M. SKAY, 2.206 Petition Coordinator 17 GEORGE DICK, 2.206 Petition Manager and 18 Project Manager, Byron Station 19 PETITIONER:
20 BARRY QUIGLEY, Exelon 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 (202) 234-4433 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
1 ABY MOHSENI, NRR 2
GENE SUH, Section Chief, NRR 3
MELISSA DUFFY, Office of General Counsel 4
TOM SCARBOROUGH, Mechanical Engineering 5
Branch, NRR 6
FRANK ORR, Reactor Systems Branch, NRR 7
NRC STAFF PRESENT FROM REGION III:
8 KEN O'BRIEN, Enforcement Director 9
DAVE PASSEHL, Branch Chief 10 JIM HELLER, Allegation Coordinator 11 RICHARD A. SKOKOWSKI, Senior Resident Inspector 12 PRESENT FROM BYRON STATION:
13 BRAD ADAMS, Director of Site Engineering 14 STEVE KOZINSKI, Site Vice President 15 PRESENT FROM EXELON CORPORATION:
16 KEITH JURY 17 JOE BOWER 18 TOM O'NEILL 19 DEAN LARK 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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
MR. DICK: Let me just start off by saying 2
I'm George Dick. I'm the Project Manager for Byron.
3 And for this particular activity, I'm also the PRB 4
manager, Petition Manager.
5 What I would like to do initially, we got 6
the organization. So I'd like just within those 7
organizations for everyone to identify themselves.
8 And as far as the people here at headquarters, if 9
others are interested, we can provide a written list 10 of who all is participating. So, with that, why don't 11 we just ask people to identify themselves?
12 MR. BERKOW: Okay. Yeah. Herb Berkow.
13 I'm a PRB member.
14 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Jim Lyons. I'm the PRB 15 chairman.
16 (Inaudible.)
17 MS. DUFFY: Melissa Duffy, Office of 18 General Counsel.
19 MR.
SCARBOROUGH:
Tom Scarborough, 20 Mechanical Engineering Branch, NRR.
21 MS.
SKAY:
Donna
- Skay, NRC 2.206 22 Coordinator.
23 MR. DICK: Region III?
24 MR. O'BRIEN: Is Ken O'Brien. I'm the 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 Enforcement Director.
1 MR. PASSEHL: I'm Dave Passehl. I'm the 2
Branch Chief.
3 MR. HELLER: Jim Heller, the Allegation 4
Coordinator.
5 MR. SKOKOWSKI: Rick Skokowski, Senior 6
Resident Inspector.
7 MR. DICK: Okay. Thank you. Exelon 8
environ site?
9 MR. ADAMS: This is Brad Adams, Director 10 of Site Engineering.
11 MR. KOZINSKI: Steve Kozinski, Site Vice 12 President.
13 MR. DICK: Okay. Thank you. Exelon 14 corporate?
15 MR. JURY: Yes. Here we have Keith Jury, 16 Joe Bower, Tom O'Neill, and Dean Lark.
17 MR. DICK: Okay. And, Mr. Quigley, you 18 identified yourself?
19 MR. QUIGLEY: That's correct.
20 MR. DICK: And Frank Orr?
21 MR. ORR: Frank Orr, Reactor Systems 22 Branch, NRC.
23 MR. DICK: Great. I think we have 24 everybody. And, with that, I'll just turn it over to 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 Jim Lyons, who is the PRB Chairman for this activity.
1 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Thank you, George. The 2
subject of this teleconference is a 2.206 petition 3
submitted by Mr. Barry Quigley dated March 2nd, 2005.
4 The petitioners requested that the NRC 5
take enforcement action against Exelon for failure to 6
correct the longstanding problem on a reactor coolant 7
system cold leg loop stop isolation valve at Byron 8
Station.
9 The purpose of this teleconference is to 10 allow Mr. Quigley to address the Petition Review 11 Board. This is an opportunity to provide additional 12 explanation in support for this petition. This is 13 also an opportunity for the staff and licensee to ask 14 any clarifying questions about the petition. The 15 purpose of this teleconference, however, is not to 16 debate the merits of the petition.
17 Following this phone call, the Petition 18 Review Board will meet to determine whether the NRC 19 accepts the petition under the 2.206 process or 20 whether it will be dealt under another mechanism. The 21 PRB meeting today will not determine whether we agree 22 or disagree with the content of the petition.
23 This teleconference is being transcribed.
24 So it will help if anyone making a statement first 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 state their name clearly. The transcript will become 1
a supplement to the petition and will be made publicly 2
available.
3 If the PRB decides that the petition will 4
be considered under 2.206, then the NRC will issue an 5
acknowledgement letter to the petitioner. The 6
petition manager will keep the petitioner and licensee 7
periodically informed of the progress of the staff's 8
review.
9 So, with that introduction, I'd like to 10 turn it over to you, Mr. Quigley, to kind of go 11 through your request and provide any other additional 12 information you would like us to consider as part of 13 our deliberations.
14 MR. QUIGLEY: Well, in addition to the 15 petition, which I wrote relatively quickly due to time 16 constraints, -- I wanted to get this into the system 17 because I thought it was very important -- you can 18 kind of break the issues down into three areas.
19 There's a technical area, a procedural area, and a 20 cultural area.
21 The first one I want to deal with is the 22 technical area. The previous evaluations have not 23 completely addressed the loose parts that can be 24 (Inaudible.) valve. (Inaudible.) get into the hot leg 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 (Inaudible.) to get into the hot leg. The flow path 1
is to the head cooling nozzles, then down through the 2
(Inaudible.) tubes, then out the hot leg. So that's 3
(Inaudible.).
4 In the original Westinghouse 1999 safety 5
evaluation, which I wrote a paper on in 1999, the 6
response to it was relatively detailed except for one 7
part that did not address the concern I had raised.
8 I was questioning the amount of debris in the vessel 9
(Inaudible.).
10 PARTICIPANT: Mr. Quigley?
11 MR. QUIGLEY: Yes?
12 PARTICIPANT: Sorry to interrupt. You 13 seem to be breaking up quite a bit on the phone.
14 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay.
15 PARTICIPANT: So we may (Inaudible.) some 16 parts.
17 MR. QUIGLEY: Let me try something 18 different here.
19 PARTICIPANT: Okay. I'm going to call on 20 a different line. Give me a moment, please.
21 PARTICIPANT: Okay.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. Is that better?
24 PARTICIPANT: We'll let you know when you 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 start talking. We can hear you right now.
1 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. How is that?
2 PARTICIPANT: It sounds good.
3 MR. QUIGLEY: All right. In the PIP in 4
1999, I raised the concern about the scope of the 5
5059. The scope of the 5059 was limited to loose 6
parts from the loop stop isolate valve. And in two 7
intervening outages, we have found loose parts that 8
have not been from the LSIV. So that to me might 9
invalidate the concerns that the only debris is from 10 the loop stop isolation valve.
11 Also, the 5059 does not address completely 12 all the piping valves in the loop stop isolation 13 valve. There are two tap-offs: the pressurizer spray 14 and the CVCS let-down system.
15 The 5059 acknowledges that the parts can 16 get in that area, but they do not fully address the 17 effects. For the CVCS line, the let-down line, it 18 says that it's possible that the debris could have 19 blocked the let-down orifice. That is acceptable 20 because we have the XF let-down system.
21 The CVCS let-down system is required to 22 perform a safety function for natural circulation 23 cool-down to provide let-down from the RCS. And, 24 therefore, the blocking of that line cannot be 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 dismissed.
1 For the pressurizer spray, the evaluation 2
talks about getting lodged in a valve seat or lodged 3
in the nozzle. It does not clearly address the fact 4
that with a blocked pressurizer spray valve, the RCS 5
can depressurize and cause a safety injection.
6 The second part relates to procedural 7
issues. The decision-making process, OPAA 106, 101, 8
1006, the procedure is not followed completely. The 9
issue resolution documentation form that was done does 10 not address operating experience. In addition, the 11 procedure for the operational decision-making calls 12 out in several places whether or not an independent 13 review should be done for significant issues.
14 Now, we could argue about whether this is 15 significant or not. I believe it is. But more 16 detailed is a procedure called AQAA 1212. This is a 17 result of the AMAG event, where we developed a 18 procedure for technical issues. And basically the 19 decision-making procedure said it's for technical and 20 operational decisions and it produces a document.
21 The purpose of the AQAA 1212 is to provide 22 quality for technical work that produces some tangible 23 product, usually a document. So in that regard, the 24 AQAA 1212 procedure should have been used in the 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 decision-making process, which by my read of it would 1
have kicked it to an independent review, which we did 2
not get.
3
- Also, the evaluations that the 4
decision-making is relying on are not complete. There 5
appears to be a hole in the procedures with loose 6
parts associated with the reactor coolant system, our 7
Nuclear Fuel Department does a loose parts evaluation.
8 And that has been done.
9 We also have a procedure for material in 10 general, which also requires an evaluation. The loose 11 parts procedure for the nuclear fuels area 12 specifically excludes things like valve-seat 13 interactions, flow blockages in other areas. And the 14 procedure for regular foreign material, if you will, 15 requires that those types of evaluations take place.
16 I was not able to find the second evaluation done 17 under the general foreign material procedure.
18 The third part is the cultural aspect of 19 this. When we attempt to close this value, it does 20 what is called torquing out. The motor torques out.
21 And what we are doing there is we are routinely 22 actuating a protective feature and then relying on 23 that feature.
24 As part of the communication from the 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 decision-making plan, we see that the performance of 1
this valve has improved over time. My contention is 2
it's improved because we're shaving the metal off and 3
we're putting it in CRS.
4 The decision-making plan also addresses an 5
organizational concern that this could be viewed as, 6
this decision to not repair the valve could be viewed 7
as, negatively by the organization.
8 The response to that concern was that Mr.
9 Kozinski issued a page and a half letter describing 10 the decision-making process and why the decision was 11 made.
12 That letter was not effective in 13 correcting any organizational concerns. There has 14 been a lot of concern among the station employees 15 about this issue. Their concern has ranged from they 16 probably shouldn't have done that to rather expressive 17 concerns using a fair amount of profanity. So the 18 letter was not effective in addressing that 19 organizational issue. That's my statement so far.
20 CHAIRMAN LYONS: All right. Thank you 21 very much. (Inaudible.)
22 With that, I look around the table here.
23 Are there any questions that we have, any additional 24 questions, on the issue? Yes. We've got a question 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 here.
1 MR. SCARBOROUGH: This is Tom Scarborough.
2 I'm with the Mechanical Engineering Branch with NRR.
3 You mentioned about the motor was 4
torquing out in terms of how it was operated. So I 5
assume what you're saying is it was operated on the 6
torque switch when it was closing?
7 MR. QUIGLEY: Yes.
8 MR. SCARBOROUGH: And when they operated 9
the valve, do you have any knowledge of how the torque 10 switch was set up, what was used as a basis for the 11 setup of the torque switch in terms of the weak link?
12 MR. QUIGLEY: No, I do not.
13 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Do you know if after 14 they operated it, they -- when they operated it a 15 second time -- you said they continued to operate it.
16 Did they leave the torque switch in the circuit for 17 the second try or did they bypass it?
18 MR. QUIGLEY: The torque switch was left 19 in the circuit.
20 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. So it was 21 operated that way. Do you know of any other 22 diagnostics that they had on the motor operator valve 23 when they were running it?
24 MR. QUIGLEY: They were doing a current 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 trace on the motor.
1 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. Do you have any 2
results of that, do you know?
3 MR. QUIGLEY: I've had the result 4
explained to me. And basically by looking at the 5
current trace, you can tell when the valve guide pops 6
back in by looking at the current trace. So what we 7
do is we run the motor until it torques out. And then 8
we back it up and try again in trying to get the valve 9
guide to pop back into the seat.
10 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. So what you saw 11 during the trace was that the guide was not fully 12 attached and that it was being bent and then once it 13 got to a certain point, it popped back into its normal 14 alignment?
15 MR. QUIGLEY: It's a vertical guide that 16 is essentially hinged at the top and has a smaller pin 17 you pin at the bottom. And that's all that holds it 18 in.
19 What is happening is that the pin at the 20 bottom breaks and it allows the valve guide to 21 basically kick out a little bit at the bottom as the 22 pin that's up at the top. And when it does that, the 23 valve cannot fully close.
24 So closing the valve, repeated attempts to 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 close the valve, will eventually cause that valve 1
guide to pop back into the body.
2 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Now, what type of valve 3
body is it?
4 MR. QUIGLEY: It's a stainless steel valve 5
body.
6 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Do you know what's the 7
manufacture?
8 MR. QUIGLEY: Westinghouse.
9 MR. SCARBOROUGH: During the operation, 10 are you familiar with any motor type of burnup issues 11 or problems of noise issues that accompanied when they 12 operated the valve?
13 MR. QUIGLEY: No, I'm not.
14 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. Whenever you were 15 operating, did you notice any valve or stem 16 degradation or packing issues? Was there any 17 knowledge of that?
18 MR. QUIGLEY: I reviewed the condition 19 reports. And I was talking to some of the systems 20 engineers on this. And I have not heard that 21 information.
22 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Checking my notes here.
23 (Pause.)
24 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Yes. A question I had 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 was, do you know what the actual -- the guide is 1
material, what is the guide material?
2 MR. QUIGLEY: I believe the guide is also 3
stainless steel.
4 MR. SCARBOROUGH: In terms of your 5
description, it talked about there was a plan for 6
resolution but then it was cancelled. Can you tell us 7
a little bit about what the plan for resolution was 8
that subsequently was cancelled?
9 MR. QUIGLEY: The longstanding plan to fix 10 this valve that had existed for basically a large 11 portion of the planning for B1R 13 was to install --
12 we were going to have the core barrel out. And that 13 will allow us ready access to the collate connection 14 to the reactor vessel.
15 The plug has been manufactured and 16 reviewed by engineering. And that plug is going to be 17 installed into the cold leg nozzle from the reactor 18 vessel side, inflated with a dual seal. And that 19 would have allowed work to proceed on the RCS cold leg 20 isolation valve.
21 That plan had been reviewed by the POR 22 Committee, Plant Oversight Review Committee, and 23 approved by the committee.
24 MR. SCARBOROUGH: And, again, can you talk 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 a little bit about what the actual operation on the 1
valve was planned to be in terms of what corrective 2
action was going to be taken?
3 MR. QUIGLEY: The bonnet was going to be 4
removed and a new type of valve guide installed that's 5
not acceptable to this type of failure.
6 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. So they were 7
going to remove that guide itself and weld in a new 8
guide of some type or attach?
9 MR. QUIGLEY: I don't believe any welding 10 was involved. I think it was us placing it in.
11 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. Anything else you 12 can think of that might be helpful in terms of the 13 technical issue?
14 MR. QUIGLEY: On the valve itself? No.
15 MR. SCARBOROUGH: Right. Okay. Thank 16 you.
17 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Any other questions here 18 in headquarters? Region or the residents, do you have 19 any questions that you have or would like to ask?
20 PARTICIPANT: Region III has nothing from 21 the office.
22 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Rick?
23 PARTICIPANT: And nothing from the site.
24 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay. Frank Orr, who is 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 from headquarters, did you have any questions?
1 MR. ORR: I don't have any questions on 2
the equipment. I didn't know if we had been satisfied 3
in our yesterday's discussion that we had -- had we 4
concluded that we had enough technical information 5
about the function of the valve and its necessity?
6 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Well, I guess that is one 7
of the questions (Inaudible.) is one of the questions 8
that we had had.
9 MR. QUIGLEY: The valve has a maintenance 10 function to close. It has a safety-related function 11 as a pressure boundary. And it has an implied safety 12 function to not put pieces of metal in the reactor 13 coolant system.
14 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay. (Inaudible.)
15 Exelon, do you have any questions from the site?
16 PARTICIPANT: None from the site.
17 CHAIRMAN LYONS:
How about Exelon 18 headquarters?
19 PARTICIPANT: None from here, Jim.
20 CHAIRMAN LYONS: All right.
21 MS. SKAY: Mr. Quigley, this is Donna 22 Skay. Just an administrative question. I know you 23 are trying to fax in a signed copy of the petition.
24 MR. QUIGLEY: Yes.
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 MS. SKAY: Were you ever able to get that 1
through or did you mail in a --
2 MR. QUIGLEY: I was not able to get it 3
through.
4 MS. SKAY: Okay. We will use the version 5
you e-mailed, then, as the sole copy.
6 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay.
7 MS. SKAY: Fine. Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay. If there are no 9
other questions, I think we had mentioned that we need 10 to move forward with this. And I appreciate, Mr.
11 Quigley, your discussion of this. I thought it was 12 very good that you were able to run through it in an 13 orderly manner.
14 Sometimes we have people that tend to 15 stray on their discussions. And it's nice when we 16 have someone who can explain their issues clearly and 17 succinctly. So I appreciate that.
18 And hearing no other questions or comments 19 20 MR. QUIGLEY: Well, just one thing I 21 wanted to close with --
22 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Sure.
23 MR. QUIGLEY: -- is what I believe to be 24 the driver of this issue --
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 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay.
1 MR. QUIGLEY: -- with the excessive 2
emphasis on dose reduction --
3 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay.
4 MR. QUIGLEY: -- and the fact that the 5
dose reduction plays such a large role in everyone's 6
bonus, including mine. Now, the same thing happened 7
at David Bessee with dose, and an engineer came in in 8
the morning. The scaffold was down because of dose.
9 They wouldn't let him look at it again because of 10 dose. Previous jobs they had cut the jobs due to 11 dose.
12 And their bonuses were tied to production.
13 Here it's a little bit closer tie where our bonuses 14 are tied directly to dose. Essentially the 15 (Inaudible.) has gone out the window because we don't 16 know what reasonable is because we don't know how much 17 we're willing to spend to save a millirem.
18 And that money had to come from somewhere 19 else. And we are diverting money from things that 20 could be better used for dose. You know, like I said 21 in the petition, you know, reducing dose sounds noble, 22 but when it starts compromising safety and you start 23 deferring maintenance, that becomes the issue.
24 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay. Actually, we do 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 have another question here at headquarters.
1 PARTICIPANT: Can we go (Inaudible.)
2 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Yes. Hold on just one 3
second.
4 PARTICIPANT: Sure.
5 (Pause.)
6 PARTICIPANT: Mr. Quigley (Inaudible.)
7 just a question of clarification. Your letter states 8
that you're looking for enforcement action. Can you 9
provide any more specifics on what particular 10 enforcement action you had in mind?
11 MR. QUIGLEY: Criterion safety requires 12 that you correct conditions adverse to quality. This 13 condition has existed for at least six years and had 14 not been corrected. So it will be a violation of 15 criterion 16.
16 PARTICIPANT: So you're looking for a 17 notice of violation? Is that what you're requesting?
18 MR. QUIGLEY: Yes.
19 PARTICIPANT: Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN LYONS: All right. Well, thank 21 you. And I guess hearing no other -- I guess I'll 22 give kind of a second chance for anybody else if they 23 have any other questions or comments.
24 (No response.)
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 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Okay. Hearing none, 1
again, I appreciate everybody's time and attention on 2
this phone call. After the Petition Review Board 3
makes its determination, we will be getting back in 4
touch with you, Mr. Quigley.
5 MR. QUIGLEY: Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN LYONS: Thank you very much.
7 MR. QUIGLEY: You're welcome.
8 PARTICIPANT: Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 10 adjourned.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25