ML093380151
| ML093380151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/2009 |
| From: | Beltz T Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | |
| beltz T, NRR/DORL/LPL3-1, 301-415-3049 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093380655 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, EDATS: OEDO-2009-0541, G20090510, NRC-3146, OEDO-2009-0541 | |
| Download: ML093380151 (30) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
2.206 Petition Review Board Prairie Island Petition Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
(telephone conference)
Date:
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 Work Order No.:
NRC-3146 Pages 1-29 Edited by Terry A. Beltz, Petition Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE PRAIRIE ISLAND PETITION 6
+ + + + +
7 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2009 8
+ + + + +
9 The conference call was held, Thomas B.
10 Blount, Chairman of the Petition Review Board, 11 presiding.
12 13 PETITIONER: DAVID LEE SEBASTIAN 14 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PARTICIPANTS:
15 THOMAS B. BLOUNT, Chairman 16 THOMAS J. WENGERT, Petition Manager 17 TANYA M. MENSAH, NRC 2.206 Coordinator 18 ROBERT J. PASCARELLI, Branch Chief, NRR 19 BRADLEY S. BAXTER, NSIR 20 WAYNE A. CHALK, NSIR 21 JOHN "JACK" B. GIESSNER, Branch Chief, 22 Region III 23 PRAIRIE ISLAND PERSONNEL:
24 JOHN ANDERSON 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 2
P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(3:01 p.m.)
2 MR. WENGERT: The purpose of today's 3
meeting is for the Petitioner, David Sebastian, to 4
address the Petition Review Board for the petition on 5
the request for issuance of an order for compliance 6
concerning the Prairie Island licensee's Access 7
Authorization Fitness for Duty Program. And before I 8
continue, is the court reporting service on the line, 9
as well?
10 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I'm on the line.
11 MR. WENGERT: Okay. Thank you.
12 As far as an agenda, as I said, we'll do a 13 welcome and introductions. The PRB Chairman will 14 provide some opening remarks. The Petitioner, Mr.
15 Sebastian, will have an opportunity to make a 16 presentation. And, finally, the PRB Chairman will 17 provide some closing remarks.
18 Again, I'd like to thank everyone for 19 participating in this meeting. My name is Tom 20 Wengert, and I am the NRC Project Manager for the 21 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. We are here 22 today to allow the Petitioner, David Sebastian, to 23 address the Petition Review Board regarding the 2.206 24 Petition dated September 4th, 2009. I am the Petition 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 3
Manager for this petition. The Petition Review Board 1
Chairman is Tom Blount.
2 As part of the Petition Review Board's 3
review of this petition, David Sebastian has requested 4
this opportunity to address the PRB.
5 This meeting today is scheduled from 3:00 6
to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is being 7
recorded by the NRC Operations Center, and will be 8
transcribed by a court reporter. The transcript will 9
become a supplement to this petition. The transcript 10 will also be made publicly available.
11 I'd like to open this meeting with 12 introductions. As we go around the room, please be 13 sure to clearly state your name, your position, and 14 the office that you work for within the NRC for the 15 record, and I'll start off. As I said, I'm Tom 16 Wengert. I'm the NRC Project Manager for Prairie 17 Island in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor 18 Regulation.
19 MR.
PASCARELLI:
My name is Robert 20 Pascarelli. I'm the Branch Chief of Branch 3-1 in the 21 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
22 MS. MENSAH: My name is Tanya Mensah. I'm 23 the 2.206 Coordinator. I work in the Division of 24 Policy and Rulemaking in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 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 4
Regulation.
1 MR. BLOUNT: I'm Tom Blount. I'm the 2
Deputy Director for the Division of Policy and 3
Rulemaking in NRR. I'm also the PRB Chair.
4 MR. CHALK: I'm Wayne Chalk. I work in 5
the Access Authority and Fitness for Duty programs, 6
and I'm in the Office of Nuclear Security.
7 MR. BAXTER: I'm Brad Baxter. I'm the 8
Access Authorization Program Manager with NSIR, which 9
is Nuclear Security Incident Response.
10 MR. WENGERT: Okay. We've completed 11 introductions here at NRC Headquarters. At this time, 12 are there any NRC participants from the Regional 13 office on the phone?
14 MR. GIESSNER: Yes. I'm Jack Giessner.
15 I'm the Branch Chief in Division of Reactor 16 Projections, Region III Office, Lisle, Illinois.
17 MR. WENGERT: Thanks, Jack. Are there any 18 representatives for the Licensee on the phone?
19 MR.
ANDERSON:
Yes.
This is John 20 Anderson, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Prairie Island 21 Nuclear Station.
22 MR. WENGERT: Mr. Sebastian, would you 23 please introduce yourself for the record.
24 MR. SEBASTIAN: My name is David Lee 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 5
Sebastian. I am here representing myself, as myself.
1 MR. WENGERT: Okay. Thank you. Are there 2
any others, such as members of the public on the 3
phone. No other members of the public? Okay. Thank 4
you.
5 I'd like to emphasize, again, that we each 6
need to speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the 7
court reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
8 If you do have something that you'd like to say, 9
please first state your name for the record.
10 At this time, I'll turn it over to the PRB 11 Chairman, Tom Blount.
12 MR. BLOUNT: Good afternoon. Welcome to 13 the meeting regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by 14 Mr. Sebastian.
15 I'd like to first share some background on 16 our process. Section 2.206, Title 10 of the Code of 17 Federal Regulation describes the petition process, the 18 primary mechanism of the public, for the public to 19 request enforcement actions by the NRC in a public 20 process.
21 This process permits anyone to petition 22 NRC to take enforcement-type actions related to NRC 23 licensees, or licensed activities. Depending upon the 24 results of its evaluation, NRC could modify, suspend, 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
or revoke an NRC-issued license, or take any other 1
appropriate enforcement action to resolve a problem.
2 The NRC Staff guidance for the disposition of 2.206 3
petition requests is in Management Directive 8.11, 4
which is publicly available.
5 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 6
the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any 7
additional explanation or support for the petition 8
before the Petition Review Board's initial 9
consideration, and recommendation. The meeting is not 10 a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the Petitioner 11 to question, or examine the PRB on the merits, or the 12 issues presented in the petition request. No 13 decisions regarding the merits of this petition will 14 be made at this meeting. Following this meeting, the 15 Petition Review Board will conduct its internal 16 deliberations. The outcome of this internal meeting 17 will be discussed with the Petitioner.
18 The Petition Review Board typically 19 consists of a Chairman, usually a Manager at the 20 Senior Executive Service level at the NRC. It has a 21 Petition Manager, and a PRB Coordinator. Other 22 members of the Board are determined by the NRC Staff 23 based on the content of the information, and the 24 petition request.
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 7
At this time, I'd like to introduce the 1
Board. I am Tom Blount, the Petition Review Board 2
Chairman. Tom Wengert is the Petition Manager for the 3
petition under discussion today. Tanya Mensah is the 4
Office's PRB Coordinator. Our technical staff 5
includes Bob Pascarelli from the Office of Nuclear 6
Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactor 7
Licensing. Brad Baxter and Wayne Chalk from the 8
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, 9
Division of Security Policy, and Jack Giessner from 10 NRC's Region III Division of Reactor Projects.
11 As described in our process, the NRC Staff 12 may ask clarifying questions in order to better 13 understand the Petitioner's presentation, and to reach 14 a reasoned decision whether to accept, or reject the 15 Petitioner's request for review under the 2.206 16 process.
17 I would like to summarize the scope of the 18 petition under consideration, and the NRC's activities 19 to-date. On September 4th, 2009, Mr. Sebastian 20 submitted to the NRC a request for enforcement action 21 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.2, and its subsequent parts, 22 concerning the Prairie Island Licensee's use of their 23 Access Authorization Fitness for Duty Program. This 24 request was subsequently forwarded for NRC Staff 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 8
review in the 2.206 petition process.
1 In this petition request, Mr. Sebastian 2
identified the following areas of concern. Mr.
3 Sebastian requests, one, that the NRC exhaust any and 4
all administrative remedy which may be available to 5
him, and to institute a proceeding to order the 6
Personnel Security Manager and Access Authorization 7
Fitness for Duty Manager, or the licensee in their 8
Prairie Island Nuclear facility to cease and desist 9
from their current arbitrary and capricious practices 10 using the Access Authorization / Fitness for Duty 11 program for purposes other than their created intent, 12 as they are being applied against Mr. Sebastian.
13 Two, that the NRC order compliance with 10 14 CFR 73.56, identified in 56 FR 18997, NEI 03-01, and 15 other applicable regulations and directives. Three, 16 that Mr. Sebastian be granted Access Authorization 17 without further delay to perform his accepted job 18 task, with all record of said denial from any and all 19 records, wherever found. Four, that any other order 20 be issued, or other relief be granted to which he may 21 have shown himself entitled.
22 As the basis for this request, Mr.
23 Sebastian states that he was denied unescorted access 24 to the Prairie Island Nuclear facility by the licensee 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 9
using the Access Authorization Program / Fitness for 1
Duty Program, solely based upon the existence of a 2
Federal Tax lien. Mr. Sebastian states that the 3
licensee is applying a
disproportionately harsh 4
penalty for having a lien filed, or owing back taxes, 5
and should be considered a
cruel and unusual 6
punishment because it brands [him] with the stigma of 7
untrustworthiness, and unreliability, having been 8
denied unescorted access at a nuclear facility.
9 Mr. Sebastian further states that in 10 failing to base the decision to grant, deny, revoke, 11 or continue an unescorted Access Authorization, a 12 review and evaluation of all pertinent information 13 developed, the licensee has violated 10 CFR 73.56, as 14 applied against him.
15 In addition, Mr. Sebastian states that by 16 denying his Access Authorization, the licensee failed 17 to satisfy all three elements of the Unescorted Access 18 Authorization program, in violation of 56 Federal 19 Register 18997, as applied against him.
20 Allow me to discuss the NRC activities to-21 date. On October 5th, Mr. Sebastian agreed to have 22 this request reviewed under NRC's 2.206 process, and 23 requested to address the Petition Review Board prior 24 to its initial meeting.
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 10 As a reminder for the phone participants, 1
please identify yourself if you make any remarks, as 2
this will help us in the preparation of the meeting 3
transcript that will be made publicly available.
4 Thank you.
5 Mr. Sebastian, I'll turn it over to you, 6
to allow you to provide any information you believe 7
the PRB should consider as part of this petition.
8 MR. SEBASTIAN: Thank you, sir.
9 I'd like to start by saying that anything 10 that I say here does not take away from anything that 11 is already stated within the notice of request for 12 issuance of an order of compliance. This is to help 13 to further support my position, and to give better 14 understanding of anything that might have been vague 15 within that petition, which was submitted September 16 4th, 2009. And I would like to go ahead and 17 incorporate that document within this discussion in 18 its entirety, if there's no objection to that.
19 MR. BLOUNT: This is Tom Blount, the PRB 20 Chair. We see no reason not to include it. It is 21 included as part of this review.
22 MR. SEBASTIAN: Okay. Thank you.
23 The reason give [given] by Prairie Island 24 or Excel [Xcel] for denial of Access Authorization, 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 11 which would be in Exhibit I, page 4 of 33. It says, 1
"Case facts supporting denial. You disclosed a 2
pending IRS tax lien in the amount of $108,000 on your 3
NSPM Initial Personal History Questionnaire completed 4
April 6th, 2009 in support of your request for access 5
at the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant. When the tax 6
lien has been resolved, you may resubmit your request 7
for access."
8 To me, based on the documentation that was 9
provided me, which was, there is nothing to give 10 authority for having made this determination. The NRC 11 rules and regulations, which are the law that should 12 be followed by the plant, require that according to 56 13 Federal Register 18997, which is Access Authorization 14 Program for Nuclear Power Plants, contained within my 15 notice, page 5 under Bullet 23. They have certain 16 rules and requirements they have to meet, even though 17 that they have a plan in force to grant or deny Access 18 Authorization.
19 According to the Exelon Generation Company 20 versus Local 15 IBEW, which is also referenced in my 21 petition at Bullet 20 on page 4, the District Court 22 for the Northern District of Illinois stated, "The 23 central purpose for the Access Authorization Program 24 requirement is to provide high assurance that 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 12 individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy 1
and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable 2
risk to the health and safety of the public, including 3
a potential to commit radiological sabotage. The 4
regulations set our specific elements that each 5
licensee's Access Authorization Program must include, 6
including a background investigation, a psychological 7
assessment, and a behavioral observation. The 8
regulations further direct the licensee to base its 9
decision to grant, deny, revoke, or continue an 10 unescorted access authorization on review and 11 evaluation of all pertinent information developed."
12 Whether or not Excel [Xcel] had a policy 13 or program in place that allowed for them to deny 14 access based [solely on] having a tax lien filed 15 against you, or a judgment, or any other single issue 16 as that, they are in violation of NRC rules and 17 regulations. If they are installing their own policy, 18 the purpose of this is for public interest, and public 19 policy.
20 The court in the case of Local 97, 21 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers versus 22 Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, which is also 23 included in my brief, page 4, under Bullet 18, it 24 states -- the court went ahead and stated that, "As in 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 13 Niagra Mohawk I, the NRC regulations comprise the 1
prime source and the most persuasive evidence of 2
public policy in this case." Although that court case 3
is not directly on point, it deals with arbitration, I 4
believe that some of the statements made within are 5
pertinent to this case at hand.
6 The court went on to say, "Public policy 7
in this context is to be ascertained by reference to 8
the laws and legal precedents, and not from general 9
considerations of supposed public interest." The 10 court went on to say, "In this context, however, we 11 must fulfill our duty to ascertain public policy as a 12 matter of law by reference to laws and legal 13 precedents. Noting that the question of public policy 14 is ultimately one for resolution by the courts'." The 15 court went on to say, "We must look to more specific 16 NRC regulations and enforcement actions to discern 17 what public policy requires in the nuclear safety 18 context, looking, as we must, to laws and legal 19 precedents, rather than general considerations of 20 supposed public interest."
21 The question here is, Excel [Xcel] has 22 implemented a policy that is private to them, not one 23 that complies with the NRC regulations, which are set 24 out in my notice, in my petition. They are using 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 14 their policy inappropriately to -- and out of the 1
context of what the purpose of the Fitness for Duty 2
and Access Authorization Program was designed for.
3 The position offered to me was an 4
employment at-will. If they had a policy that says we 5
don't want to hire somebody who has a tax lien against 6
them, they could have well said we will not hire you 7
until you resolve your tax issue. They did not do 8
that. They used the Fitness for Duty program, and the 9
Access Authorization program, which is a severe action 10 for anybody who works within the nuclear industry, to 11 deny me Access Authorization.
12 They have no authority by NRC rules and 13 regulations, to have done this action. This action is 14 severe, and it's very prejudicial to me, now having to 15 go to any place within the nuclear industry saying I 16 have been denied Access Authorization. They had no 17 authority. They submitted no authority in the record 18 for the decision. And it is not indicated that they 19 went to the NRC to notice the NRC that I had a tax 20 lien to get further justification, or clearance, or 21 guidance to support having denied me Access 22 Authorization based on a tax lien. There is nothing 23 in the record evidencing any of this.
24 So, not to take away from the petition, 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 15 but it appears the question reduces to whether having 1
a tax lien renders me an inherently untrustworthy 2
person within the meaning of the NRC regulations, when 3
read as a whole. So, I believe I've supported my 4
position with the petition submitted. It was asked to 5
be reviewed by the Reviewing Committee of Northern 6
States Power Company. Their reply was you may reapply 7
for a
NSPM Nuclear Access Authorization upon 8
satisfaction of the tax
- lien, or providing 9
documentation of an established payment plan. They 10 widened the field at that time, saying that oh, not 11 only is it that you satisfy the tax lien, or prove to 12 us that you have a payment plan.
13 Within my documentation, I showed my 14 attempts to establish a payment plan, which I cannot 15 do so until I have gainful employment. So, they 16 created an impossibility in law, meaning that I can't 17 comply with what they want me to do, until I'm 18 employed. And they denied me employment based on the 19 fact that I can't comply.
20 The last issue that I want to state here 21 is the fact that the question for this Board, for this 22 body is, will you find that they're lacking the 23 requisite reasonable assurance that licensed 24 activities can be conducted in compliance with the 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 16 Commission's requirements, and that the health and 1
safety of the public would be protected if I, having a 2
tax lien filed against me, were permitted, at this 3
time, to be involved in NRC licensed activities. Is 4
there cause that having a tax lien filed against a 5
person is reason for that person to be untrustworthy, 6
and unreliable?
7 I believe those procedures as they are 8
being applied now, no matter if it's just against me 9
with Excel [Xcel], or any other power corporation who 10 is applying this in this manner, is in direct 11 violation of NRC rules and regulations;
- and, 12 therefore, in violation of the law. I believe that's 13 all I have to say at the moment.
14 MR. BLOUNT: This is Tom Blount, the PRB 15 Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sebastian. I believe we have 16 heard your additional insight. Let me ask the folks 17 here at Headquarters, anyone have a question for Mr.
18 Sebastian?
19 MR. WENGERT: Yes. This is Tom Wengert, 20 Mr. Sebastian. I just wanted to get a clarification 21 on your comment about the attachments to your 22 petition. As we spoke, when we described the process 23 to you, some of the attachments, many of them contain 24 what we consider personally identifiable information, 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 17 and perhaps Privacy Act information. Is it your 1
request that these documents be made publicly 2
available in some redacted form, or just that the 3
Board consider these attachments in rendering our 4
review -- in our review of your petition request? Do 5
you understand my question?
6 MR. SEBASTIAN: I believe I do. I would 7
prefer that these documents are only for the Board's 8
determination. But if the Board believes that these 9
documents would be best made public record, then I 10 would appreciate if they were redacted to the best 11 possible ability, removing all Privacy Act data, and 12 meeting those requirements.
13 MR. WENGERT: I understand. I want to be 14 clear, if our process demands that these documents be 15 made publicly available, and they're material to your 16 petition, we will do whatever we -- whatever it takes 17 within our process to do the proper redaction. I just 18 wanted to understand what your position was on the 19 public availability of the documents, versus making 20 sure that they're considered as part of your petition 21 request by the PRB.
22 MR. SEBASTIAN: I submitted them, because 23 I wanted to give the Board as much information as 24 possible to be able to make a logical and proper 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 18 decision in this instant case. I did not hold 1
anything back, because I wanted them to see what I 2
saw. And that's why I submitted as much documentation 3
as I possibly could.
4 Now, having said that, considering that 5
yes, there is quite a bit of personal information in 6
there, if the Board feels that it can make its 7
determination without making these documents public, 8
then I would appreciate that. But if the Board feels 9
that it is in the public's best interest that these 10 documents be made public, then I request that the 11 proper information is redacted from them.
12 MR. WENGERT: I understand. Thank you 13 very much.
14 MR. BLOUNT: Mr. Sebastian, this is Tom 15 Blount, the PRB Chair, again. For my clarity, and my 16 understanding, based on your petition, is it your 17 understanding that the only reason that you have been 18 denied Access Authorization under the licensee's 19 program is because of the financial lien?
20 MR. SEBASTIAN: If you -- having read the 21 initial reason for being denied access, and then the 22 Review Board's statement for being denied access, they 23 referenced no other issue. Hey, we -- in congruence 24 with the psychological evaluation, and the tax lien, 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 19 we feel that you are not able to have unescorted 1
access, or because of this event in the past, and this 2
event in the past, and the tax lien, we feel that you 3
are not able to have unescorted access. They have not 4
provided any other documentation. If they had, and 5
made the decision based on other issues, they would 6
have stated so in their documentation, I believe.
7 If they have made that determination based 8
on other issues, and have not revealed that, then 9
they've denied me due process by not providing me the 10 issues that are being used against me. They have only 11 stated the tax lien. And they have said it in a way 12 that you resolve the tax issue, you can apply again.
13 In other words, the tax issue has nothing to do with 14 whether or not I'm a trustworthy, or untrustworthy 15 person. It has to do with their private policy of not 16 granting unescorted access to somebody who has a 17 judgment, a tax lien, or something in that manner 18 against them, because they don't want to deal with 19 that type of an issue. So, it's more of a personal, 20 rather than a public policy issue.
21 MR. BLOUNT: Okay. This is Tom Blount, 22 again. So, for my clarity, because I think I heard 23 you say there was a tax issue, and something else.
24 But you didn't mention the something else in your 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 20 petition.
1 MR. SEBASTIAN: No, no, no, no. I'm 2
saying that they -- if there was something else, they 3
did not state it. In other words, they're not 4
disclosing. If they did not disclose all the reasons 5
which they were supposed to look at as a whole, as to 6
why I'm being denied unescorted access. They stated 7
the only reason I was being denied unescorted access 8
is because I had a tax lien, and if I resolve the tax 9
lien, I can reapply.
10 MR. BLOUNT: Okay. And let me continue 11 the thread of that thought. Did, in any of their 12 dialogue with you, indicate that upon reapplying, you 13 would be granted unescorted access?
14 MR.
SEBASTIAN:
I believe with my 15 communication with -- one second, please.
16 MR. WENGERT [NRC OPERATIONS OFFICER]: The 17 Petitioner was temporarily disconnected from the 18 bridge. He should be coming back up momentarily.
19 MR. BLOUNT: Thank you.
20 MR.
SEBASTIAN:
I'm
- sorry, I
was 21 disconnected.
22 MR. BLOUNT: Understand. Welcome back.
23 MR. SEBASTIAN: Okay. Based on Wednesday, 24 29 April 2009, the -- I believe you have it as 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 21 Attachment H, one of three, the email with Grace P.
1 Suffka [Sufka], the only issue that I had that they 2
requested was more information on the tax lien. In 3
the conversation I had with her, that was the only 4
issue that was being questioned, was the tax lien, 5
itself. And I provided that documentation as 6
referenced in that email. So, in answer to your 7
question, it was implied to me that the only issue at 8
hand was the tax lien.
9 MR. BLOUNT: Understand. Just to follow-10 up for my clarity, if I might. This is Tom Blount, 11 again.
12 MR. SEBASTIAN: Yes, sir.
13 MR. BLOUNT: Are you pursuing, and I'm 14 trying to understand what other processes you may be 15 in. Are you pursuing any other legal remedy to this 16 issue?
17 MR. SEBASTIAN: I am in opposition to the 18 lien being there. It was done not in accordance with 19 law. However, because I cannot fight it in court, or 20 I cannot make arrangements to pay it off, or negotiate 21 it down, as I supplied also in the attachments, that 22 most of the legal counsel, they want an up front 23 payment of anywhere from six to seven thousand dollars 24 before they will begin to negotiate, or begin their 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 22 argument with the IRS about the tax lien. Okay? So, 1
I can't do anything until I get gainful employment to 2
be able to pay this down, or to acquire legal help, or 3
counsel. So, I'm kind of in a -- they're created an 4
impossibility in law.
They've created an 5
impossibility for me to be able to do anything.
6 MR. BLOUNT: Understand. Thank you. Any 7
other questions here at Headquarters?
8 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Sebastian, this is Brad 9
Baxter from NSIR. Would you mind if I ask you a few 10 questions about your previous access?
11 MR. SEBASTIAN: Sure. Go ahead.
12 MR. BAXTER: Okay. What was the first 13 time -- when was the first time you had access?
14 MR.
SEBASTIAN:
We're not talking 15 military. We're talking commercial. Correct?
16 MR. BAXTER: Commercial nuclear power 17 plants.
18 MR. SEBASTIAN: Commercial nuclear power 19 would have been Turkey Point, 1987.
20 MR. BAXTER: 1987 to?
21 MR. SEBASTIAN: It was 1987 through 1996.
22 I also transferred to Port Saint Lucie, and worked at 23 that station from `96 to `97.
24 MR. BAXTER: Okay. And from there, were 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 23 you -
1 MR. SEBASTIAN: No, no, I need to take 2
that back.
3 MR. BAXTER: Okay.
4 MR. SEBASTIAN: I did contract work for 5
Bartlett on Indian Point for an outage, and that would 6
have been in 1986, just prior to going to Florida 7
Power & Light.
8 MR. BAXTER: Okay. And if you just mind 9
me asking, when did you first learn of this tax lien?
10 MR. SEBASTIAN: I learned of it in 11 November of this past year, actually, was the first 12 time that I learned of it.
13 MR. BAXTER: And the lien is for property 14 taxes, or -
15 MR. SEBASTIAN: No. It's a lien against a 16 claim that I believe was made unjustly from 1997, I 17 believe. They did it in excess of the three-year 18 Statute of Limitations, and I provided all that 19 documentation to the NRC, and to the District Court in 20 Washington, D.C. And the NRC went ahead and filed 21 their lien, anyway, even though it was shown to them 22 that they were in violation of the law.
23 MR. BAXTER: Was that an IRS lien, or NRC?
24 MR. SEBASTIAN: That was an IRS lien.
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 24 MR. BAXTER: Okay. Are you employed 1
anywhere today?
2 MR. SEBASTIAN: No, I am not.
3 MR. BAXTER: What about since the last 4
time you held unescorted access?
5 MR. SEBASTIAN: The last time would have 6
been in `97.
7 MR. BAXTER: So, you haven't been employed 8
since 1997?
9 MR. SEBASTIAN: Not in nuclear power. No, 10 sir.
11 MR. BAXTER: And what you have provided 12 here today is, essentially, all the information you 13 obtained, is that from the licensee?
14 MR. SEBASTIAN: That's correct. Which, in 15 effect, is nothing. They've given me no documentation 16 or support for their position. They're provided me 17 nothing that says this is what we based our decision 18 on. This is what gives us the authority to base our 19 decision in this manner.
20 MR. BAXTER: Okay. And from here, you 21 pointed out quite extensively in your submittals here 22 that there's three areas of accumulation of 23 information that needs to be processed in order to 24 make a determination being trustworthy and reliable.
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 25 Correct?
1 MR. SEBASTIAN: Yes, sir.
2 MR. BAXTER: Such as a background check, 3
psychologicals, and behavioral observation, and this 4
all compiled to make a worthwhile decision of your 5
trustworthiness and reliability. Correct?
6 MR. SEBASTIAN: Yes, sir.
7 MR. BAXTER: So, what you provided here 8
today is, essentially, one component of the holistic 9
program.
10 MR. SEBASTIAN: Are you telling me this?
11 MR. BAXTER: I'm asking you.
12 MR. SEBASTIAN: I'm not sure what all is 13 there. I'm not able to see behind your closed doors.
14 I'm not sure what's there. This is the research that 15 I've done to be able to say wait a minute, there's an 16 action being done against me, which has damaged me.
17 It has caused me severe damage, because the phone 18 calls I get now, the first question out of somebody's 19 mouth who's interested in employing me is, have you 20 ever been denied unescorted access at a nuclear 21 station? I now have to answer yes. Okay?
22 I
can find no other supporting 23 documentation to support the power station's decision 24 for denying unescorted access based on the single 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 26 event of a tax lien. If there were more things 1
considered, there were not more things listed. The 2
only thing listed was resolve your tax issue, and 3
apply again.
4 MR. BAXTER: Okay.
5 MR. SEBASTIAN: Well, that's misuse of the 6
Fitness for Duty and Access Authorization programs, as 7
the NRC rules and regulations define it. There is a 8
reason for that program, and that's the health and 9
safety of the public, and the station equipment. And 10 it has to do with trustworthiness, and reliability of 11 the personnel.
12 MR. BAXTER: Okay. This is Brad Baxter, 13 again. We do have everything that you submitted to 14 us. If you don't mind me asking, were there any other 15 things that we should consider that would cause us to 16 rule in your favor? I mean, we just have what you 17 provided.
18 MR. SEBASTIAN: I requested any and all 19 documentation, procedures, anything that could be 20 provided that was used in the determination, so that I 21 could see maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe there is other 22 documentation which gave them the authorization to do 23 what they did. I did the research that I could, to be 24 able to say wait a minute here. If there is other 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 27 issues, I'm not finding it. You have not disclosed 1
it, so based on my research, and the rules and 2
regulations that I
have
- found, you're not in 3
compliance with that. You're using the program for 4
something other than what it was designed for, unless 5
there's something else there that you have not 6
disclosed. If you've not disclosed it, then you 7
violated my due process, because it says I have a 8
right to provide other documentation to support my 9
position.
10 Well, if they made a determination based 11 on something else, but they haven't disclosed what 12 that is, then they've denied me the ability to provide 13 other documentation to support my position. So, if 14 there is something there, and they haven't disclosed 15 it, they violated the procedure. If there isn't, 16 they're in violation of the procedure. And as public 17 policy is determined by the rules and regulations of 18 the NRC, that's what they have to comply with, not 19 personal policy. If they had a personal policy, and 20 said we don't want to hire you because you have a tax 21 lien, I would have no recourse. But they used the 22 Fitness for Duty and Access Authorization program to 23 say we don't want to hire you, because you have a tax 24 lien, so we're denying you unescorted access, which 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 28 affects me throughout the nuclear industry.
1 MR. BAXTER: Okay. I have no further 2
questions.
3 MR.
BLOUNT:
Anyone else here at 4
Headquarters? Okay. Anyone at the Region?
5 MR. CHALK [MR. GIESSNER]: No, sir, no 6
questions.
7 MR. BLOUNT: No questions. Thank you.
8 And because we have the licensee on the line, does the 9
licensee have any questions for Mr. Sebastian?
10 MR. ANDERSON: No questions.
11 MR. BLOUNT: Understand. The purpose of 12 the meeting is to provide an opportunity for the 13 Petitioner, or the public to question or examine, to 14 seek clarifying information prior to the PRB meeting 15 to discuss this issue, and the merits of the position 16 further.
17 Mr. Sebastian, thank you for taking the 18 time to provide the NRC Staff with clarifying 19 information on the petition you submitted.
20 Before we close, does the court reporter 21 have any questions, or need any additional information 22 for the meeting transcript?
23 COURT REPORTER: I have no questions.
24 MR. BLOUNT: Very good. With that, then 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 29 this meeting is concluded, and we will be terminating 1
the phone connection.
2 Thank you very much for your time and 3
attention. Mr. Sebastian, thank you very much for 4
bringing this issue to our attention.
5 MR. SEBASTIAN: Thank you all.
6 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 7
record at 3:44 p.m.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25