ML062960293
| ML062960293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/2006 |
| From: | Thadani M C NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV |
| To: | |
| Thadani, M C, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1476 | |
| References | |
| NRC-1140, TAC MD2157, TAC MD2158 | |
| Download: ML062960293 (30) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Petition Review Board Docket Number: Location: Date: Not provided Teleconference Wednesday June 28, 2006 Work Order No.: NRC-1 140 Pages 1-28 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .....4 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)5 CONFERENCE CALL 6 7 WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE 28, 2006 9 10 The conference call. was held, Mohan 11 Thadani, Project Manager, NRR/DORL/LPLR, presiding.
12 PRESENT: 13 MOHAN C. THADANI, NRR/DORL/LPL4 14 AL GUTTERMAN, Morgan Lewis & Bockius 15 GIOVANNA (JENNY) M. LONGO, OGC/NRC 16 LISAMARIE JARRIEL, Office of Enforcement 17 DOUG STARKEY, Office of Enforcement 18 HO K. NIEH, JR., NRC/NRR/DPR 19 GLENN ADLER, Service Employees International Union 20 (SEIU)21 DONNA WILLIAMS, NRR/ADRA 22 DAVID TERAO, NRR/DORL/LPL4 23 JOHN CRENSHAW, General Manager of Oversight 24 SCOTT HEAD, Manager of Licensing 25 JOHN DIXON NEAL R. GROSS COUR33 k .W.AIERS WASrggf .&ýW.'132 Ho -0 www.nealrg!~~~i 433 2 1 PROCEED ING S 2 (Time not given..)3 MR. THADANI: Will everyone sign in. Is 4 everybody on the line? Can you please identify 5 yourself?6 MR. HEAD: South Texas is here.7 MR. THADANI: This is Mohan Thadani.8 MR. HEAD: Mr. Thadani, how are you doing 9 today?10 MR. THADANI: Fine, how are you?11 MR. HEAD: Fine, thank you. At South 12 Texas here I'll go ahead and identify everybody.
We 13 have John Crenshaw who is the General Manager of 14 Oversight and myself, Scott Head, the Manager of 15 Licensing.
16 PARTICIPANT:
Good morning.17 MR. THADANI: Good morning.18 MR. DIXON: John Dixon at the site.19 MR. THADANI: Hi, John. Good morning. I 20 think everybody is on the line and it's about that 21 time.22 My name is Mohan Thadani. I've been 23 assigned as the project manager for this petition.24 The Petitioner for this -- his name is Mr. Adler.25 He's present at the meeting.NEAL R. GROSS COURT3gOp p tRIB ERS 0 H. "4"3 O 701 www.neaIrgicSMM 433 3 1 The meeting will be transcribed and the 2 transcript will be made (Inaudible) to the meeting 3 summary.4 (Inaudible)
NRC Resident Inspector, 5 ..representatives of (Inaudible).
The Licensee's 6 attorney is also present in this meeting. The 7 licensee is invited to participate to ensure it 8 understands the concerns about its facility and 9 activities.
i0 I would ask that everyone present and on 11 the present, sign the attendance sheet, state their 12 name, affiliation and their phone number, so that I 13 can ensure their names to be included in the 14 attendees' list.15 Anyone making a statement should first 16 identify himself or herself. Those are my 17 introductory remarks and (Inaudible).
18 MR. NIEH: Thank you, Mohan. Before we do 19 that perhaps we'll go around the room here at 20 Headquarters and introduce the participants so members 21 on the phone know who we are here.22 Again, my name is Ho Nieh. I'm the 23 Petition Chairman.
I am from the Office of Nuclear 24 Reactor Regulation, Division of Policy and Rulemaking.
25 MR. STARKEY: Doug Starkey, Office of NEAL R. GROSS COUROESLAND AVW.&IBERS COUISLANDI AV WFERS 1323 RHODE SINDAbW (21ýý43 WASAYOHS T V& iOM~~7O1 www.neairg1zWr'&
433 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Enforcement.
MS. JARRIEL: Lisa Jarriel, Office of Enforcement.
MS. LONGO: Jenny Longo, Office of General Counsel.MR. GUTTERMAN:
Al Gutterman from (Inaudible).(Inaudible)
MR. TERAO: (Inaudible)
Branch 4.MR. THADANI: Manager for South Texas Manager for the Petition.This is David with NRR, Mohan Thadani, Project Project and the Petition PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible), Service Employees International Union in Washington, D.C.MR. THADANI: Region IV, could you please identify?PARTICIPANT:
Yes, this is Tom (Inaudible), Senior Project Engineer, Region IV.PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible), Branch Chief (Inaudible), Region IV.MR. THADANI: Thank you. I also heard John Crenshaw and Scott Head, is that correct?MR. CRENSHAW:
That is correct.MR. THADANI: Is it just you two?NEAL R. GROSS COUR;ýM4 ftA PWAA RIBERS COURI NERS 1(2323ROE SAND0ANTN.
WASA&"Tb 09 *'00-?71 (20 4433 5 1 MR. CRENSHAW:
Okay, thank you.2 PARTICIPANT:
We'll get started. The 3 subject of this meeting is 2.206 edition submitted by 4 the Service Employees International Union of the 5 Petitioner on May 16, 2006.6 The purpose of this meeting is to allow 7 the Petitioner to address the Petition Review Board 8 and this is an opportunity for the Petitioner to 9 provide additional explanations and support for the 10 petition.11 This is also an opportunity for the staff 12 and the licensee to ask any clarifying questions to 13 the Petitioners about what was submitted.
I do want 14 to emphasize that the purpose of this meeting is not 15 to debate the content of the petition and not to 16 determine whether or not the NRC agrees with the 17 content in the petition.18 I just want to summarize our understanding 19 of what was submitted on May 16, 2006 before we begin.20 In that petition, the Petitioner requested that the 21 NRC take enforcement actions against the South Texas 22 Project Nuclear Operating Company, the licensee for 23 South Texas Project in (Inaudible)
County, Texas. The 24 purpose of the enforcement action would be a demand 25 for information, a DFI, that would require South Texas NEAL R. GROSS COUR;4F1&ES ,QLIAR1UBERSA' .. ERS 132X3W RODEq9LP IA7ND O A-V "
wAsMW W 06 '%596 7o1* ,,w',.nealrr0%.&,-433 6 1 Project Nuclear Operating Company to provide the NRC 2 its assessment of a safety-conscious work environment 3 at the South Texas Project conducted in January 1, 4 2004, and a couple other related documents.
5 The Petitioner states that it's necessary 6 for the NRC to obtain and review this information to 7 ensure that maintenance of a safety-conscious work environment, which is a vital condition for safe 9 operation of the nuclear plant. The Petitioner states 10 that (Inaudible) in the request, pursuant to the 11 Freedom of Information Act back in 2004, SEIU 12 requested any documents related to the South Texas 13 Project, (Inaudible) formal action plan, any remedial 14 action that had, in fact, taken place as a result if 15 any of such remedial action. And the NRC's response 16 to that request was that no Agency records existed or 17 could be located for that request.18 The Petitioner further stated that the 19 Agency's response made it unclear as to what actions 20 were taken by the South Texas Project in that regard.21 And the Petitioner finds that the absence of that 22 documentation at the NRC, in light of the confirmatory 23 order issued back on June 9, 1998, is conserving.
And 24 the information in the Petitioner's possession 25 indicates to the Petitioner that the safety-conscious EOU LR RO R COUR .ERS (20 JizI3-4433 WASAYWNiCWiB'O-7701i 3 3 7 1 work environment problems that led to the June 1998 2 confirmatory order have continued at the South Texas 3 Project and that remedial efforts have been expected.4 That's our summary of what was contained 5 in the information and following this meeting, the 6 Petition Review Board will meet internally to 7 determine whether or not the NRC accepts the petition 8 under the 2.206 process or whether it would be 9 addressed under another agency mechanism.
10 Again, the PRB's meeting will not 11 determine whether or not we agree with the content;12 it's merely to determine whether or not it meets the 13 criteria to be entered into the hopper for review or 14 some other resolution.
15 After the Petition Review Board reviews 16 SEIU's letter using criteria for 2.206, the Petition 17 Manager will inform you of the results of what we've 18 determined.
And, after informing the Petitioner of 19 the recommendation, the Petitioner will also be 20 provided an opportunity to comment on the 21 recommendation in a subsequent phone call.22 Now, I try to summarize what we had, what 23 you had provided us back in May. I understand that 24 you provided us a revised copy, notes for the 25 telephone attendees that the Petitioner provided us a NEAL R. GROSS COUAFWAAM&IBERS COUR ERS (2 0°JHM 4WASffl6&85'foP--0701' www.nealrg 4 433 v 8 1 revised petition dated June 26, 2006. There are four 2 copies here for the Headquarters.
3 So, with that, I'd really like to turn it 4 over to the Petitioner to, one, provide any additional 5 information and also with respect to (Inaudible) 6 whether or not we've characterized what your original 7 request was appropriate, or accurately, I should say.8 PARTICIPANT:
Thank you very much 9 (Inaudible) and those in the room attending the PRB 10 and those on-line. I hope you can hear me.11 PARTICIPANT:
Yes we can, (Inaudible).
12 (Inaudible) but can I ask a quick question of any of 13 you all don't mind. These copies, has Al been 14 provided one to look at? (Inaudible) at this point?15 PARTICIPANT:
There's one sitting right in 16 front of him.17 PARTICIPANT:
Okay.18 PARTICIPANT:
The copy doesn't change the 19 argument.
It produces the evidence that extends the 20 information that I related in May. And, as I 21 understand the purpose of this hearing is to provide 22 additional information that could be of use to the PRB 23 in its review of my Petition.24 So it has extensive appendices, with 25 facsimile copies of supporting documentation I refer NEAL R. GROSS COURNWA&t~
AlQASRIBERS 1323 RHOD ISNDAVE N.W.(206M_%4433 WAS S "-701 www.nealrg8lH 4 433 9 1 to in the May letter. As far as I know the argument 2 is consistent.
3 Mr. Nieh, thank you very much for the 4 summary. In the main, I agree with that and it really 5 does cut to the chase. What.I'll do today is provide 6 a little bit of the background information that I 7 refer to. The documents are here available and 8 explain the evidence on which we make the petition, 9 which I understand is one of the criteria for petition 10 evaluation.
11 I think, to summarize this and really to 12 cut to the chase and make a long story short, there 13 were three separate surveys, two of which are on the 14 public record and one of which isn't, into the safety-15 conscious work environment at the South Texas Project 16 that are relevant here. There are three of these 17 surveys, in 2001, again in 2003 and we surmise in 18 2005.19 The results show that there are certain 20 problem units at the South Texas Plant which are 21 performing poorly according to South Texas' own 22 internal (Inaudible) for evaluation and performing 23 poorly against the industry standard.
Now we know 24 that with respect to the 2001 and 2003 surveys because 25 they're available and we've obtained -- it was on the NEAL R. GROSS COURtAPWJ&
AFRI6BERS 1323 RHOD#AEID aw WASI*4 WASMA 7 1 www.nealrg~tc#" 3 3 10 1 ADAMS website and the other one we obtained through 2 FOIA.3 The third in 2005, through FOIA, we 4 obtained the- minutes of the meeting that described 5 problems with security and other units at the plant 6 including IT and some other (Inaudible).
What it 7 shows is that over a 5-year timeset, according to 8 these independent surveys, there were named 9 (Inaudible), the safety-conscious work environment and 10 critical areas of the plant. We're focusing here on 11 security.12 After the 2001 and 2003 surveys, there 13 were efforts by the survey (Inaudible), the 14 contractor, to make recommendations about what to do 15 with these problems.
Then there were recommendations 16 where, in fact, commitment by South Texas Project TDO 17 that steps would be taken to evaluate the problem and 18 to remediate the problem.19 PARTICIPANT:
I'm sorry, if I could 20 interrupt for one minute. Did someone else join us on 21 the teleconference on the bridge?22 PARTICIPANT:
I dropped out.23 PARTICIPANT:
I'm sorry.24 PARTICIPANT:
As I was saying, there were 25 commitments (Inaudible) to evaluate the problems with NEAt R. GROSS COUR h & ANA'RIBERS COUR R' ERS (2010fYR-4433 www.nealrgig*
-433 1.1 1 these units and to remediate the problems.2 We note though that the (Inaudible) any 3 efforts, whether they took place or not, the problems 4 persisted into 2005 in some form that's unknown to the 5 public.6 We at the Service Employees International 7 Union made a FOIA request in 2004 to obtain the 8 surveys of 2003 which at that point it wasn't on 9 ADAMS. And supporting documents without the 10 evaluation and remediation efforts. As Mr. Nieh said, 11 we received the survey and there were no other 12 documents that were responsive to our request at the 13 time, which we perhaps mistakenly interpreted as 14 meaning there was no record at the NRC about these 15 remediation and evaluation efforts for these poorly 16 performing units.17 Subsequently, we learned at the end of 18 2005 that a follow-up survey had been done and looks 19 *to us like a comprehensive cultural survey, same 20 methodology, same (Inaudible), similar kinds of 21 questions we received.
And again, those units 22 performed poorly.23 We FOIA'd for the survey and for 24 supporting documents and we received some documents 25 that indicated, as I mentioned, the poorly performing NEAL R. GROSS iIA.RIBERS COURTRfPT TW VRS 13 2 3 RH O E lS 8 ND AVE., N.W.(20jH1-W-4433 WAS1WA&8T" &0-M7'01*
www.nealrg99HA`4 433 12 1 units. The survey itself was not available.
It was 2 not in the possession of the NRC, it seemed. There 3 was no other exceptions cited, safeguards or anything 4 else. And we were, if you will, stuck or limited with 5 that one (Inaudible) information that were handed 6 (Inaudible) meeting done in August of 2005 and 7 typescript, seemed to be a summary of the meeting.8 And that's what we know about the 2005 survey, showed 9 consistent problems in 2001 and 2002.10 Now stepping back from all this and 11 (Inaudible), there appear on the record not an 12 allegation by us or anyone else that there are 13 persistent problems.
There seems to be an absence of 14 documentation that would allow the NRC to accept the 15 nature of these problems, to accept the efforts taken 16 to evaluate those problems and to remediate those 17 problems.18 So we are quite simply asking for a 19 (Inaudible) information under Section 2.204 of the 20 Title 10 of the GFR, that the NRC obtained this 21 material from the licensee so that it can perform its 22 oversight role into the safety-conscious work 23 environment at the South Texas project. That's it, in 24 a very brief summary.25 Now that's all consistent of what we said COUR-M U M" 9RIBERS COUR13F3ERS WAS N(4&3Tb.06 7'0 1 www.neairgM29Go-4 4 433 13 1 in May. What I provided here for your understanding 2 is further background into the nature of these surveys 3 that we can understand them from the public record.4 You are all familiar that the licensee has been 5 subject to -- had been subject to a confirmatory order 6 arising from federal violation a whistleblower brought 7 in the 1990s. That confirmatory order had, as part of 8 the agreement between the NRC and the licensee, the 9 understanding that periodic surveys would be conducted 10 at the plant, including the comprehensive cultural 11 survey, but these would be done by an independent 12 contractor who is above reproach and well-experienced 13 in the industry.14 It was also an understanding from the 15 confirmatory order that (Inaudible) would report the 16 results to the NRC and as I mentioned, that was part 17 of the agreement from 1998.18 Wackenhut Corporation took over security 19 at the plant in 2001, July 2001. The 2001 survey took 20 place some months after they arrived on the scene. In 21 2001 and 2003, we know that the South Texas Project 22 results on this survey were in question.
According to 23 the norms established for the industry and its own 24 internal performance (Inaudible) consistently over the 25 lack of these surveys. However, a number of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT 3 F3F 3 .A AIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLND AVE.
- N'W (2°ý"j-4433 WAS 5-701 www.neaIrg o.&A-n4t 433 14 1 components of the plant came in for some severe 2 criticism, the findings showed them to be poor 3 performers both in terms of the STP (Phonetic) 4 internal norm and the industry norm. And in this 5 instance, Wackenhut and some other units had scored 6 poorly on the independent survey on a range of 7 dimensions.
8 In fact, in the 2001 survey, Wackenhut was 9 identified as a priority 1 organization for its 10 performance relative to the other units at STP 11 (Phonetic).
I can identify the areas where it 12 performed poorly either summarized on the documents 13 with effort from the 2001 survey. They go into 14 greater length in the appendices.
15 -According to Synergy (Phonetic) the 16 consultants, after the 2001 survey, the company --17 Wackehut required further evaluation and took remedial 18 action in the near term. It was also identified as a 19 priority level 3 organization, not a low score, but a 20 priority level 3 organization for its low rating 21 compared to industry standards and distinct from STP 22 standard.23 Following the survey, the CEO, then CEO 24 (Inaudible) said that formal action plans would be 25 prepared to address the survey results, specifically NEAL R. GROSS COURn 1+&A AIA WA~RIBERS C O U R--4OSra&M 1B TOW q.F. ERS 1323AH ID[4ANDWVE., N.W.(2°"-1-4433 1 www.nealrgB.
433 15 1 in the context of the poor performance and the letter 2 in which he made this statement in the attachment to 3 the appendices.
4 There's another CTA (Phonetic) that took 5 place in 2002, in fact, and it's reported in 2003. We 6 obtained that, as I mentioned through a FOIA request.7 It's at that point it wasn't publicly available.
And 8 in the 2003 survey, a number of units, including 9 Wackenhut showed deteriorating performance.
That they 10 (Inaudible) -in the 2001 survey. So if any remediation 11 and evaluation had taken place after 2001, it 12 (Inaudible) effective.
Something that deteriorated in 13 the interim.14 Again, Wackenhut was rated as a priority 15 level 1 organization, but the worse score. Again, 16 because it had relatively low results compared with 17 STP's own performance.
So yes, STP is performing 18 well. It's including safety-conscious work 19 environment as being reinforced.
There's outliers who 20 are not ineluding (Inaudible), in fact, they're 21 getting worse. And I present the area, some of the 22 areas in which the consultants showed this poor 23 performance.
24 The deterioration came as well in some of 25 these units, including Wackenhut's performance against NEAL R. GROSS C U COUR i~R R (2 0?H_4 M--4433 WASMIiqt-8 O-9701 433 16 1 the industry.
But again, the comparison of the plant 2 and the comparison to the industry and according to 3 this, Wackenhut's performance deteriorated from a 4 priority.
level 3 to priority level 2. And again, 5 there was recommendation for the evaluation and 6 remedial action by the consultant in the near term and 7 once again, the STP president told to the NRC that 8 formal action plan and an evaluation would be prepared 9 to address these problems.10 So that should be the end of the story if 11 the evaluation and remedial action had been 12 successful, but it doesn't appear to be the end of the 13 story. We have, as I said, through FOIA requested the 14 2005 survey and we received that, I think four or five 15 pages from that, including information about the poor 16 performers, which again included security.
There were 17 handwritten notes which I'll get into in a moment. So 18 it seemed from 2001 to 2005, the three data points 19 that I mentioned as revealed by the recent FOIA 20 request that we made.21 Now I think that there doesn't seem to be 22 any evidence on the public record that steps were 23 taken to remediate this poor performer. (Inaudible) 24 produced a FOIA request and the responses to those in 25 2004 and 2006 and in both, we are told there are no NEAL R. GROSS GOURflWAIW¶ AAMRIBERS COA Nffffi ERS 1323 HODE ND .71eWa (20?'0 434433 WASffl t 1f ." --701 www.n ealrg Mqý,"433 17 1 documents responsive to our request, when we asked for 2 -- I think the specific wording -- the specific 3 wording -- hold on a minute. Basically we asked for 4 memoranda, notes, emails, correspondence, about any 5 steps to remediate, to evaluate the results thereof as 6 well as a copy of the 2005 survey.7 So we were told that there weren't 8 documents that were responsive to this. We weren't 9 told there was an exception (Inaudible), can't see 10 them f or safeguards reasons, for proprietary 11 information or some other (Inaudible).
12 Now, as I said, in the 2005 survey, there 13 were two occasions singled out for further attention 14 who had previous poor assessments.
The documentation 15 doesn't seem to be there about what happened to the 16 treatment of these entities.
In the Agency's reply, 17 it's unclear whether any action plan had, in fact, 18 been developed by (Inaudible), whether it had been 19 implemented or whether the results were satisfactory.
20 Now in the FOIA that we received in 2006, 21 the handwritten notes, the typed notes of the meeting 22 that took place in August 2005, there's a very 23 interesting observation by an anonymous (Inaudible) 24 who produced the document, about concerns regarding 25 the safety-conscious work environment at STP. They NEAL R. GROSS COUR R T394 S ALI. ERS 1323SRHODE ISLAN A71w.g 8" (20jh'ýIS-4433 WAS M M' , i0W--7*01 Vwww.nealrg 433 18 1 referenced outdoor (Inaudible) and problems with 2 restructuring that have caused or called into question 3 the trust of management. (Inaudible) to safety, but 4 not yet at least. Safety is still seen as a priority, 5 however, the question is of the commitment to the 6 staff. The keduction that has occurred, I don't know 7 the details of those, but it says although the staff 8 has decreased, the workload is not adjusted to 9 compensate which might suggest problems with overtime 10 issues and fatigue if the staff has been reduced, at 11 least the workload has not.12 Many comments regarding the supervisors' 13 lack of commitment to employees.
Again, strong -- I'm 14 just quoting the notes, more commitment to profit than 15 to workers. The question is whether time (Inaudible) 16 more to money than to safety. Does not seem to 17 indicate (Inaudible), profit drives the station. So 18 these notes, in our reading, describe the potentiai 19 problem in which (Inaudible) may trump safety.20 (Inaudible) those notes, the discussion of 21 the meeting, which I said is summarized only in those 22 documents and given the absence of documentation about 23 action plans (Inaudible) such as Wackenhut, it is 24 important for the NRC to scrutinize the steps taken by 25 (Inaudible) to rectify the persistent problems NEAL R. GROSS coURN 1323(r RHODEISaNAVE.n N.W.(20fifI -4433 , .' -701 www.nealrgRP&P?"33 19 1 identified in 2005, 2003 and 2001.2 So we are requesting through the demand 3 for information the documents that are referencing 4 that August 2005 meeting that the NRC attained these.5 A (Inaudible) analysis, an outsourcing lessons learned 6 and an evaluation, again, an evaluation of IT's 7 (Inaudible) chain and technical training at Wackenhut.
8 By attaining this information, we believe the NRC will 9 better be informed about the licensing progress for 10 including the plant's safety-conscious work 1i environment top to bottom.12 In addition, we think the NRC will be able 13 to assess the effectiveness of steps taken in the past 14 to address the problem which persist despite 15 apparently repeated remediation efforts. We make a 16 number of requests of the NRC that it demand 17 documentation including the 2005 survey itself, 18 without which I don't think you're empowered to 19 perform your oversight role.20 I'm willing to take any questions at this 21 point.22 PARTICIPANT:
May I ask you one 23 (Inaudible).
I want to emphasize that the purpose of 24 the questioning for the Petitioner are to clarify the 25 request, not to debate the contents of the petition.NEAL R. GROSS COUR;iý"WS AM RIBERS 1323 RHO433 ISLAN AVE.n 8 W (208MI' -4433 WASNA bC ' www.nealrgf82M 433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 PARTICIPANT:
You said several times that the result of the survey said that different groups and I think you particularly emphasized Wackenhut for performing poorly. Was that characterization of performing poorly in the document or is that how you interpreted -them?PARTICIPANT:
Good question.
More or less how we interpreted it. If you wish, I could say low graded organization.
Use the terminology of the surveyor himself. They themselves described the situation as low (Inaudible) results. So I think the specific words "poorly" would be ours. And notwithstanding the actions that were stated by or committed by Mr. (Inaudible), are the actions stated (Inaudible) significant to warrant remediation and evaluation iii the near term.PARTICIPANT:
If I understand right, (Inaudible) all documents you obtained from the NRC?PARTICIPANT:
Pardon me?PARTICIPANT:
The factual basis for your petition is all documents you've obtained from the NRC?PARTICIPANT:
Yes.PARTICIPANT:
And what you're seeking is demand for information under 2.204? You're not taking COUR R...ERS'JW -M-4433 WAS IWP?% CD 9M." J-ý7*01 " www.nealrg 8 f.&%z44 3 3 21 1 an order under 2.202, are you?2 PARTICIPANT:
No. I think that depends on 3 what comes out in the 2.204 (Inaudible).
4 PARTICIPANT:
Right now, you're not saying 5 you know of any safety problem that hasn't been 6 reviewed by the NRC?7 PARTICIPANT:
No.8 PARTICIPANT:
Or any violation of NRC 9 requirements?
10 PARTICIPANT:
No.11 PARTICIPANT:
Those are the only questions 12 I have. Appreciate it.13 PARTICIPANT:
I have a question for 14 clarification.
The document (Inaudible).
15 PARTICIPANT:
Well, we're hoping that 16 they've been prepared because steps were (Inaudible), 17 including evaluation and remediation.
If it turned 18 out that no such steps were taken, that the documents 19 don't exist anywhere, that prevents other 20 difficulties.
One wonders then whether that was done 21 to solve the problems that have been shown survey by 22 survey.23 We're pretty confident that the 2005 24 survey does exist. That probably is indisputable.
So 25 any document that there are no commitments made in NEAL R. GROSS COURJ4"IM&AM¶SS, RIBERS COUR E 3 ERS (201323 RO D .1-7O1 wMA N. V w~XWAS NTlV.. -ýM7*01' 43 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 successive surveys.PARTICIPANT:
I'm not thinking of (Inaudible).
I'm just trying to find out the (Inaudible) of your request.PARTICIPANT:
Right, we would accept to go back and (Inaudible).
PARTICIPANT:
So what I heard in your response, Glenn, is the petition specifically requests documentation (Inaudible).
PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) general question, does the NRC gives SEIU copies of these documents?
PARTICIPANT:
As far as I know, we don't request that. We're not in a position, if I understand.
I think what we do request is on page 10 think. Copies of all correspondence (Inaudible) regarding the petition.
Advance notice of all public meetings.
Opportunity to participate in all relevant (Inaudible)
.Copies of correspondence sent to Members of Congress, etcetera.
If documents are obtained by the NRC from South Texas, I believe if they're not put on the public record by the NRC, as a matter of course, we would then request them via FOIA.So we happen to be in the loop on what you learned. It's just that the NRC attained them. If NEAL R. GROSS~~~~~~ 5AR~'E~ ~I.RIBERS*COURNEF&A AQ0 IS ( 1323AHO I AVE.A 'N.W.*F°t-443 WAS ,. -W4 701 3
23 1 they come to the NRC, we have to (Inaudible).
But the 2 NRC must -- should be in the position to fulfill its 3 oversight role, regardless of what gets distributed to 4 the public.5 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) 6 PARTICIPANT:
Yes. I think it may be 7 divided up this way and I apologize if the document 8 isn't clear. What we're asking NRC to do is obtain 9 this information from South Texas Project (Inaudible) 10 What we are asking of the NRC is to keep us informed 11 of the process. And the information we want from you 12 is what those are between us and you and between you 13 and STP and anybody else. So if there are phone 14 calls, letters, that sort of thing, you'd like to be 15 in the loop on that. But as for the actual 16 (Inaudible) of documents that you receive, that's 17 (Inaudible).
18 As I said before (Inaudible) likely later 19 on.20 PARTICIPANT:
Thanks.21 PARTICIPANT:
Are there any other 22 questions from the participants here at headquarters?
23 Our participants over the phone, I guess 24 I'd start with the licensee.
Are there any questions 25 from either John or Scott for the Petitioner?
NEAL R. GROSS 00UR;4F4&E03 )I9IQWSR1BERS COURT~ E P ERS 1323 'HODD7E ISLANDDwA.W." (2' 2JýRJ -M -33 WASA W I '0 701 www.nealrg/Mc?-0 433 24 1 PARTICIPANT:
Maybe just one or two.2 (Inaudible), you have I think in your position or have 3 seen the NRC inspection report where they close the 4 confirmatory order?5 PARTICIPANT:
Yes,. I have.6 PARTICIPANT:
Which was based on -- my 7 recollection of being involved with that, of NRC 8 inspections activities and reviewing stuff while they 9 were on site.10 PARTICIPANT:
Yes.11 PARTICIPANT:
Okay. And I assume you have 12 a -- the closure letter where we basically said we had 13 fulfilled the order and in that letter or subsequent 14 letter noted that we would continue doing these 15 cultural surveys and that they would be made available 16 for your review which I would note, not as question, 17 but note that, in fact, this cultural survey that's 18 being talked about has been reviewed by members of the 19 NRC, as part of that agreement part of that allowance 20 that we stipulated.
So I assume you have that letter 21 also?22 PARTICIPANT:
Yes, I have that letter 23 also.24 PARTICIPANT:
Okay, then I would -- I just 25 want to make sure that NRC is aware that you have L OSS COUR ERS WAS-ftiiRSTftP2'M701 www.nealrgýM)?M 433 25 1 that.2 -PARTICIPANT:
May I ask a question?3 PARTICIPANT:
Yes.4 PARTICIPANT:
What does review mean in the 5 context (Inaudible) use it?6 PARTICIPANT:
In the case of review, the 7 NRC comes in and performs their typical inspection 8 activities and --9 PARTICIPANT:
Does it mean the NRC is 10 shown the documents, reads the documents, has it in 11 their possession?
12 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) and they have to 13 have it in their possession to do it, but they don't 14 take it back with them.15 PARTICIPANT:
You've read these cultural 16 surveys, haven't you?17 PARTICIPANT:
Yes.18 PARTICIPANT:
They're fairly cumbersome 19 documents, aren't they?20 PARTICIPANT:
Define cumbersome.
21 PARTICIPANT:
Lengthy, detailed, 22 methodologically complicated.
23 PARTICIPANT:
Given the scope, I think 24 they're appropriate.
25 PARTICIPANT:
I agree with that, that's NEAL GROSjS COUR#OAA SN BE.W COU(4W -werRS (20 JýHJIM4433 WA~~TC oI~iiwww.neairg1Z2V.&A 4 433 26 1 why the seriousness of the issue and the importance of 2 the survey indicates why they should be so cumbersome.
3 PARTICIPANT:
Are you (Inaudible) the NRC 4 is actually in possession of this, they have it or 5 they've just seen it and read it?6 PARTICIPANT:
Seen it and read it.7 -PARTICIPANT:
Then there shouldn't be any 8 problem with them actually obtaining a copy of it?9 PARTICIPANT:
Yes, there is a problem with 10 that.11 PARTICIPANT:
Sounds like we're getting 12 into a debate.13 PARTICIPANT:
I think we want to 14 understand what the Petitioner is seeking. I 15 appreciate the clarification.
16 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) whether you have 17 it or not.18 PARTICIPANT:
I understand that and I 19 think these are the questions that we will actually --20 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) 21 PARTICIPANT:
As we review the --22 PARTICIPANT:
I just didn't want to be 23 mistaken that perhaps there was a problem with the 24 FOIA process. And in fact, it is in your possession 25 and someone made an error in the letter (Inaudible).
NEAL R. GROS COUR ERS (201)2I'4-33 WASFIOftV'0 www.nealrg!g.f.&%*
'433 27 1 PARTICIPANT:
Are there any other 2 questions from the licensee on the phone for the 3 Petitioner?
4 PARTICIPANT:
That completes our.5 questions.
6 PARTICIPANT:
Okay, thank you. How about 7 the regional participants, Tom and John, do you guys 8 have any questions for the Petitioner?
9 PARTICIPANT:
Not from Region IV.10 PARTICIPANT:
No, not at this time.11 PARTICIPANT:
Okay, well, let me conclude 12 this meeting. I just want to again summarize 13 (Inaudible).
Thank you for coming to addr.ess the 14 Board and provide clarification to what you've 15 submitted in 2.206 process. Again, the Petition 16 Review Board is going to meet following this meeting 17 to. determine whether or not your request meets the 18 criteria for review under Part 2.206. We will make 19 the decision and the Petition Manager Mohan Thadani 20 will inform you verbally and we will also follow up 21 with a -- in writing on the results of our meeting.22 'bo you have any questions on the process?23 PARTICIPANT:
Just to thank all the 24 participants for your attendance and participation and 25 the seriousness with which you've dealt with the NEAL R. GROSS COURNM61%
qQARIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W.( i°lW-433 WAS 1 .-701 3 3 28 1 issues.2 PARTICIPANT:
Just an administrative 3 question. (Inaudible) or are these the only copies?4 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) 5 PARTICIPANT:
That's okay. I just need to 6 know. We'll (Inaudible).
7 -ARTICIPANT:
Mohan, will you go ahead and 8 fax us?9 MR. THADANI: I'll do that after this 10 meeting.11 PARTICIPANT:
We'll make sure here at 12 headquarters that you get -- Donna mentioned, we'll 13 docket the supplemental (Inaudible) provided today and 14 distribute it to the appropriate parties.15 PARTICIPANT:
Okay, well, that concludes 16 the meeting. Thank you for your time.17 -PARTICIPANT:
Thank you very much. Hey, 18 Al, will you call us on 8171 when you step out?19 MR. GUTTERMAN:
I'll do it.20 PARTICIPANT:
Thank you very much. Thank 21 you all very much for this dialogue.22 PARTICIPANT:
Thank you.23 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded.)
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURJ 3 kJ ShSAF ERS 1323 RHODE I AVE N.W (20 J 43ý-4433 WAS 01fA#W " 0 -7*01* www.nealrg[8.&
-4 4~3 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: Name of Proceeding:
Petition Review Board Docket Number: not provided Location:
via teleconference were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings as recorded on tape(s) provided by the NRC.Francesca
ýok Official Transcriber Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com