ML081650438
| ML081650438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/30/2008 |
| From: | Mozafari B NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLII-2 |
| To: | |
| Mozafari B, NRR/ADRO/DORL, 415-2020 | |
| References | |
| NRC-2240 | |
| Download: ML081650438 (6) | |
Text
OfficialTranscriptofProceedings
NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION
Title:
Petition Review Board Teleconference Between Thomas Saporito and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 10 CFR 2.206 Petition on Turkey Point Docket Number:
(Not provided)
Location:
Teleconference Date:
Friday, May 30, 2008 Work Order No.:
NRC-2240 Pages 1-39 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 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4
+ + + + +
5 TELECONFERENCE 6
BETWEEN THOMAS SAPORITO AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY 7
COMMISSION ON 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION ON TURKEY POINT 8
+ + + + +
9
- FRIDAY, 10 MAY 30, 2008 11
+ + + + +
12 The teleconference convened at 10:00 a.m.
13 Eastern Daylight Time.
14 PRESENT:
15 HO NIEH, NRC PRB 16 MICHELLE HONCHARIK, NRC PRB 17 JENNY LONGO, NRC PRB 18 JOEL MUNDAY, NRC Region 2 19 BRENDA MOZAFARI, NRC PRB 20 TRACY ORF, NRC PRB 21 THOMAS SAPORITO, Petitioner 22 GARMON WEST, NRC PRB 23 TOM BOYCE, Project Manager, Turkey Point 24 RUSS BARNES, Office of Enforcement 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
APPEARANCES:
1 2
On Behalf of Florida Power and Light:
3 4
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
5 Florida Power and Light 6
700 Union Boulevard 7
Juno Beach, Florida 33408 8
(561) 304-5288 9
10 11
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(10:15 a.m.)
2 MR. NIEH: My name is Ho Nieh. I'm with 3
the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I'm the 4
Deputy Director in the Division of Policy and 5
Rulemaking, and I am the Petition Review Board Chair.
6 Mr. Saporito, you've heard the other 7
participants to the teleconference.
We have 8
representation from Florida Power and Light. We have 9
our Court Reporter, who will be transcribing this 10 teleconference, as part of the public record for your 11 petition. And we have Mr. Joel Munday from Region 2, 12 NRC's Region 2, who is supporting the Petition Review 13 Board today.
14 Mr. Saporito, do you have anybody else 15 with you that you'd like to announce?
16 MR. SAPORITO: No. No, I do not.
17 MR. NIEH: Okay. We'll go around the room 18 here in headquarters, just to announce the participants 19 here at NRR. As I mentioned, my name is Ho Nieh. I'm 20 the Petition Review Board Chair.
21 MS. HONCHARIK: My name is Michelle 22 Honcharik. I'm in NRR, Division of Policy and 23 Rulemaking. I am the office's Petition Coordinator.
24 MR. WEST: I'm Garmon West. I'm 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 4
Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
1 MR. BOYCE: I'm Tom Boyce, Branch Chief 2
for the Project Manager for the affected plant.
3 MR. SAPORITO: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, we 4
can't hear the members of the NRC staff identify 5
themselves.
6 MR. NIEH: Okay. We'll try that again.
7 We'll try to speak louder.
8 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you.
9 MR. NIEH: You're welcome.
10 MS. HONCHARIK: Michelle Honcharik, in the 11 NRR, Division of Policy and Rulemaking. I'm the 12 office's 2.2 06 Petition Coordinator.
13 MR. WEST: And Garmon West, with the 14 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
15 MR. BOYCE: I'm Tom Boyce. I'm the Branch 16 Chief for the Project Manager.
17 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the Court 18 Reporter. I'm not picking up that participant.
19 MR. BOYCE: I'm Tom Boyce. I'm the Branch 20 Chief for the Project Manager for Turkey Point.
21 MS. MOZAFARI: Brenda Mozafari. I'm the 22 NRR Project Manager for Turkey Point.
23 MR. BARNES: Russ Barnes. I'm with the 24 Office of Enforcement.
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
MS. LONGO: Jenny Longo, with the Office 1
of General Counsel.
2 MR. ORF: Tracy Orf. I'm with NRR. I'm a 3
Project Manager, and I'm the Petition Manager.
4 MR. NIEH: Okay. Did you get everybody 5
there, Mr. Saporito?
6 MR. SAPORITO: Mr. Chairman, this is 7
Thomas Saporito. I didn't hear a representative from 8
the NRC Office of Investigations. Is the NRC OI 9
represented here today?
10 MR. NIEH: Not today.
11 MR. SAPORITO: But isn't that part of the 12 requirements for the Part 8.11, Part 3, for the review 13 process?
14 MR. NIEH: Not that I am aware of. Our 15 procedure has us, when necessary, obtain advice and 16 support from the Office of General Counsel and the 17 Office of Enforcement.
18 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I understand that the 19 Office of Enforcement is present.
But it's 20 specifically OI -- I didn't hear anybody from OI. That 21 was the question.
22 MR. NIEH: No, we do not have anybody from 23 the Office of Investigations present for this 24 particular meeting. And if they are -- if it is 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
determined from the outcome of this meeting that there 1
is a need to engage the Office of Investigations, then 2
we will take the appropriate action.
3 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. This is 4
the Court Reporter. Mr. Nieh, you are fading out as 5
you get to the end of your sentences.
6 MR. NIEH: I'm sorry. If we determine 7
that there is a need for representation from the Office 8
of Investigations, we will handle that following this 9
meeting.
10 MR. SAPORITO: So, Mr. Chairman, just so 11 I'm clear, and just for the record, it's your opinion 12 that it's your opinion today that the OI 13 representative is not required to attend these type of 14 meetings?
15 MR. NIEH: At this point, we believe that 16 the OI representative is not needed for this meeting 17 today. However, if there is additional information 18 that is presented today that we believe needs the 19 support of the Office of Investigations, we will ensure 20 that that occurs.
21 MR. SAPORITO: So is it -- just for 22 clarification, you're saying that the OI is not 23 required for this meeting. But my question is, in 24 general, is OI -- is it your opinion that OI is not 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
required to attend any 10 CFR 2.206 petition review 1
panel?
2 MR. NIEH: No. No. The staff would make 3
a determination as to whether or not --
4 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the Court 5
Reporter. Mr. Nieh, we are losing you again. I don't 6
know if you are -- if you are on a speakerphone, you're 7
going to have to pick up, because I'm not catching you.
8 MR. NIEH: Okay. You know what I'm going 9
to -- I'm going to go on mute just for one second.
10 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the foregoing matter 11 went off the record at 10:19 a.m. and went 12 back on the record at 10:25 a.m.)
13 MR. NIEH: When we last interrupted, we 14 were talking about the need for the Office of 15 Investigations. And, again, as far as the Petition 16 Review Board activity so far, we have not determined 17 the need to involve the Office of Investigations.
18 However, if there is information provided where we 19 believe that we do need their support, we will ensure 20 that that occurs. Does that answer the concern or 21 question you had, Mr. Saporito?
22 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, it does.
23 MR. NIEH: Okay. Fantastic.
24 Well, good morning, everybody, and welcome 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
to the NRC's teleconference today regarding the 2.206 1
petition submitted regarding the Turkey Point Nuclear 2
Powerplant in Florida.
3 Before we get into the heart of the 4
discussion, I
want to just give some general 5
information about the NRC's 2.206 petition process.
6 Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 7
Regulations, Section 2.206, any person may petition the 8
NRC to take an enforcement-related action, such as 9
modifying, suspending, or revoking a license, and the 10 NRC staff's guidance for the disposition of these 11 petitions is in Management Directive 8.11, which is 12 publicly available for review.
13 The purpose of today's meeting is to 14 provide Mr. Saporito an opportunity to comment on the 15 Petition Review Board's -- or PRB's -- initial 16 recommendations and to provide any additional 17 explanation and support for his petition.
18 This meeting is not a hearing, nor is it a 19 meeting for the participants to examine the merits of 20 the issues presented in the petition. And no decisions 21 regarding the merits of the petition will be made at 22 this meeting.
23 Following this
- meeting, the Petition 24 Review Board will conduct its internal deliberations to 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
determine if there is a need to modify its initial 1
recommendations, and the outcome of this subsequent 2
meeting will be documented in an acknowledgement letter 3
to the Petitioner.
4 At this time, I want to summarize the 5
scope of the petition that was submitted to the NRC and 6
describe the NRC activities to this date. Mr. Thomas 7
Saporito, the Petitioner, submitted on April 27, 2008, 8
a petition under 2.206 regarding deficiencies of the 9
security -- of security officer attentiveness at the 10 Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant, as required by 10 CFR 11 Part 73.
12 In this petition request, Mr. Saporito 13 requested that the NRC do several things, and I'll just 14 read them from the petition. One, take actions to 15 immediately suspend the licensee's operating licenses 16 at Turkey Point until such time as the licensee can 17 demonstratively demonstrate to the NRC and to the 18 general public that it is in full compliance with 10 19 CFR 73.55(f)(1).
20 Also, issue a notice of violation with a 21
$500,000 civil penalty to Wackenhut Nuclear Services 22 for its part in violating that previous 10 CFR that I 23 mentioned.
24 Third, increase the amount of the civil 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 penalty imposed on the licensee from $130,000 to 1
$1,000,000.
2
- Four, disallow the licensee from 3
participating in the NRC alternative dispute resolution 4
program.
5 Five, disallow Wackenhut Nuclear Services 6
from participating in the NRC alternative dispute 7
resolution program, or ADR, what we will use from here 8
on in.
9 Six, order the licensee to post his 10 petition at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant and at the 11 licensee's St. Lucie Nuclear Station.
12 And, seven, hold a public hearing granting 13 petition leave to intervene -- granting the petitioner 14 leave to intervene in such hearing regarding the 15 substance of the 2.206 petition.
16 So what has the NRC done with the 17 information that was provided by Mr. Saporito so far?
18 On May 22nd, the NRC PRB -- Petition Review Board --
19 met to review the petition against the acceptance 20 criteria in Management Directive 8.11, and to discuss 21 the need for any immediate NRC actions related to the 22 Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant.
23 From that PRB meeting, and based on the 24 information submitted in the petition, the PRB made an 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 initial determination to reject the petition from 1
review under the 2.206 review process, and the PRB also 2
determined that there was no need for any immediate 3
enforcement actions at the Turkey Point facility on the 4
basis that the petition request did not identify a 5
safety basis to warrant such action.
6 Following the May 22nd
- meeting, the 7
petition manager, Tracy Orf, informed Mr. Saporito of 8
the initial decision of the Petition Review Board, and 9
made available the opportunity for the Petitioner to 10 address the PRB, which is the meeting we are having 11 today.
12 Mr. Saporito, I've tried to summarize your 13 petition and describe to you the actions that have been 14 taken to date. If I did not summarize your petition 15 correctly, please clarify that during your remarks.
16 Again, the purpose of the meeting today is 17 to provide you with the opportunity to address the 18 PRB's initial recommendations and provide additional 19 information in support of your petition. This will not 20 be a meeting to question or examine the Petition Review 21 Board regarding the merits of the petition, because 22 it's not a hearing, and we will not be making any final 23 decisions on the merits of the petition at this 24 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 12 And as I mentioned before, subsequent to 1
the teleconference today, the PRB will meet, consider 2
all of the information you have provided us today, and 3
determine whether or not any changes are needed to the 4
initial recommendation.
5 I just want to take a moment to introduce 6
the Petition Review Board, and I will just go through 7
the names again. My name is Ho Nieh. I'm the Petition 8
Review Board Chair. Tracy Orf, the Petition Manager.
9 We have support from our Office of General Counsel, 10 Jenny Longo. We have support from our Office of 11 Nuclear Security and Incident Response with Mr. Garmon 12 West and Russell Barnes.
And we also have 13 representation from NRR's Division of Operating Reactor 14 Licensing with Mr. Thomas Boyce and Ms. Brenda 15 Mozafari. And Joel Munday is supporting us from 16 Region 2.
17 As described in our process, during this 18 meeting, as the Petitioner presents the information to 19 the NRC staff, the staff may ask clarifying questions 20 to better understand the Petitioner's presentation and 21 information in order to -- we can make a reasoned 22 decision on how to proceed.
23 We also have the licensee, Florida Power 24 and Light, on the line as well, and they are also --
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 will also have the opportunity to ask any clarifying 1
questions, because the petition pertains to one of 2
their facilities. Okay? But I do want to stress that 3
the licensee is not -- is not part of the NRC's 4
decisionmaking process for the review of 2.206 5
petitions. We just invite them because we want them to 6
be aware of ongoing requests for action against their 7
facility.
8 Mr. Saporito, are there any -- or anybody 9
else on the line, are there any other -- any general 10 questions regarding the 2.206 process before I turn it 11 over to the Petitioner?
12 (No response.)
13 Okay. Hearing none, I just want to remind 14 the folks participating via phone, we are transcribing 15 this meeting, and it will be made publicly available 16 after the transcription is complete. So, please, 17 before you make any remarks, just identify yourself, so 18 we can help our Court Reporter to get an accurate 19 transcription.
20 Thank you for the introduction. With 21 that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Saporito.
22 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Good morning, 23 everyone. This is the Petitioner, Thomas Saporito.
24 First of all, I would like to address 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 14 Petition Review Board and direct their attention to the 1
NRC 8.11 Part 3 document. And, specifically, it's the 2
criteria that the Board relied upon, as I understand it 3
from the Chair, who spoke earlier in rejecting this 4
petition, if you look down at the -- let's see, page 12 5
of that document, it's the mandate 8.11 Part 3, Volume 6
8, page 12, I'm looking at the second paragraph, and it 7
states there that the Petitioner raises issues that 8
have been -- that have already been the subject of NRC 9
staff review and evaluation, either on that facility or 10
-- either on that facility, other similar facilities, 11 or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been 12 achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the 13 resolution is applicable to the facility in question.
14 The petition, in my view, cannot be 15 rejected on that basis, because the criteria that I 16 just read there have not been achieved. There is no 17 outstanding resolution to the issues that were 18 identified in the petition, and the issues are ongoing.
19 20 And for clarification, in the petition 21 itself, if you look at -- refer everybody to page 5 of 22 the petition that I submitted, there was -- in the 23 first paragraph there I indicated that the NRC -- when 24 the NRC reviewed all of the licensee responses to 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 15 issue of the security guards sleeping on the job, and 1
other security guards covering up for those individuals 2
sleeping on the job --
3 MR. NIEH: I'm sorry. Can you -- I was --
4 I'm a little slow in following. Can you point me to 5
the page that you're referring to in your petition?
6 You said page 2?
7 MR. SAPORITO: No. I said -- well, here, 8
on page -- it's page 5 -- I'm going to be referring to 9
page 3 and page 5 of the petition.
10 MR. NIEH: Okay. Thank you. So you're on 11 page 5 right now?
12 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. I'm going to -- well, 13 I'm going to first -- I'm going to first talk about 14 page 3, and then I'll go to 5, keep them in sort of 15 order here.
16 But there's two -- there's two significant 17 issues I want to address to the Petition Review Board.
18 I would like them to consider my comments with respect 19 to the mandate 8.11 Part 3 on page 12, specifically the 20 second paragraph that I just read into the record.
21 So with respect to that paragraph there is 22 two issues that I'm going to address here now to the 23 Board, and I would like them to keep in mind the 24 criteria when I speak of these two issues, because 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 16 my view these are serious health and safety issues that 1
the public needs to be guarded from by the NRC. And 2
that is why -- hence, the generation of the 2.206.
3 Okay. Looking at the petition on page 3, 4
at the bottom, it says here -- I state in this petition 5
that the licensee brazenly stated with respect to the 6
incident that occurred on April 6, 2006, that it could 7
not substantiate a
security officer had been 8
9 Okay. What that means is the tail is 10 attempting to wag the dog, meaning the licensee is 11 dictating to the government -- the government being the 12 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, what is 13 what at their plant, and this is -- this is 14 unbelievably outrageous conduct, especially because it 15 comes from the most senior levels of management of the 16 licensee.
17 And it clearly shows that there is a 18 problem with the culture within the management of that 19 nuclear plant, and it's a culture that has been 20 deteriorating over the years as sufficiently and 21 exactly documented by the NRC during the course of 22 their investigations into these security issues dating 23 back to 2004, and probably earlier.
24 Now, the NRC itself -- the NRC of course 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 meaning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- I'm going 1
to now refer to page 5 of my petition. And it says 2
here at the top, it says -- notably it says, "Based on 3
the NRC's review of previously docketed correspondence, 4
including the licensee's response to NRC Bulletin 2007-5 001, the licensee's letter dated February 28, 2008, and 6
the licensee's letter dated March 14, 2008, the NRC 7
determined that the licensee's response is insufficient 8
to permit the NRC to conclude that the licensee has 9
determined the root cause and contributing causes of 10 the violation examples, such that the agency can 11 conclude that prompt and comprehensive corrective 12 actions were taken that prevent violations of similar 13 root causes."
14 Okay. So what this is -- what the NRC 15 did, their investigators did an excellent job. They 16 went in there and they found violations. They cited 17 the licensees with these violations. This is over a 18 period of years, all the way up through and including, 19 you know, the licensee's response of March 14, 2008.
20 And the NRC said, "Hey, look, your guards are sleeping 21 on the job, other guards are covering up for the ones 22 that are sleeping, and this is a nuclear plant. We're 23 writing up these notices of violation, and we are 24 imposing civil penalties to make a point. You've got 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 to do something here."
1 When the licensee turns around, and they 2
said, "Well, you know what? Your investigation and 3
your information is insufficient for us to determine 4
that any of that stuff even occurred at our plant." I 5
mean, how arrogant and brazen of a comment from a 6
senior-level manager at the licensee. That in and of 7
itself -- and that's the written comments. So that in 8
and of itself is extraordinary.
9 The NRC needs to look into that issue, as 10 it's detailed in the petition, because that's a public 11 health and safety concern. It's a deteriorating 12 culture that -- at that nuclear powerplant, the Turkey 13 Point Nuclear Plant, which allows -- you know, which 14 allows a continuing violation of the 10 CFR 73.55, 15 which the NRC grants them license to operate these 16 nuclear powerplants.
17 So the senior-level management at the 18 licensee defies the NRC's orders, directions, and 19 guidance, and they -- their responses are that, hey, 20 you know, we can't substantiate whether this occurred 21 or not, even looking at your documents where you had 22 live NRC Office of Investigations officers and 23 investigators interrogate these individuals and made 24 sufficient statements to make a determination that 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 19 violations did, in fact, occur.
1 And then, you look on top of that, the 2
licensee's brazen attitude is that over the years, and 3
up to and including March 14th of this year, all their 4
responses in writing were not sufficient in the view of 5
the NRC to make a conclusion that the licensee is in 6
compliance with 10 CFR 73.55. In other words, their 7
license should be suspended until such time as that 8
licensee comes into compliance.
9 They have provided no documentation to the 10 government, the
- NRC, to substantiate that they 11 recognize there is a problem, because they don't 12 recognize there's a problem. They provided no 13 documentation to NRC to say, "I have determined the 14 root cause of the problem." And they can't provide us 15 that documentation, because -- going back to number 1 -
16
- they don't believe they have a problem. They are in 17 defiance.
18 And then, there is no plan of action 19 provided by the licensee to the NRC to say, "Okay. We 20 admit there is a problem, and we've identified the 21 problem. Here is the root cause, and here is the plan 22 to correct that deficiency, so it will never happen 23 again."
24 Go back square one again. They don't 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 believe there is a problem, so, therefore, there is no 1
root cause to be determined, and there is no -- there 2
is no solution, because there is no problem to resolve.
3 Okay? The licensee's mind-frame, you go all the way 4
back now, you have to go back into the early 2000s, 5
because the NRC has been on top of this issue, very 6
detailed issue, and very comprehensive investigation 7
which have -- which prove to date that the licensee 8
continues in violation of 10 CFR 73.55.
9 And the fact that senior-level management 10 refuses to acknowledge this, refuses to determine the 11 root cause, and refuses to take corrective action, is 12 overwhelming evidence to support a suspension of their 13 operating license until such time as they -- they need 14 to come around.
15 Right now, in my view, the public health 16 and safety is in grave jeopardy. We've got these crazy 17 people around the world -- al-Qaeda and others -- they 18 want to take the United States down into ashes. I 19 mean, they want to kill us, they want to bomb us and 20 destroy us, and they want to do this in a spectacular 21 manner.
22 And they have already threatened nuclear 23 powerplants in the past. This here is an open target.
24 You can just walk right in the plant. These guards are 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 asleep, and the licensee is unaware of it. They are 1
denying that the guards are asleep at the switch here.
2 So who is guarding the plant? Nobody.
3 This is a very, very serious issue, and 4
it's -- the seriousness cannot be overstated here, 5
because this goes on for a period of years where you 6
have a very deteriorating culture at the most senior 7
level of the licensee's management.
8 That's my comments so far.
9 MR. NIEH: Okay. Do you have any more 10 comments? Any other particular areas that you want the 11 Petition -- this is Ho Nieh, the PRB Chair. Mr.
12 Saporito, do you have other comments or areas that you 13 would like us to focus on?
14 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Yes, I do. Okay.
15 I'll give you the rest of them. The other areas of the 16 petition is -- what do you guys call it? This ADR --
17 MR. NIEH: Alternative dispute resolution, 18 yes.
19 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Yes, I really -- I 20 really want the NRC to listen to what I have to say 21 about this alternative -- this ADR program. I think 22 that is the most unbelievably incredible development 23 that the NRC has come up with to date. I mean, who 24 thought this one up? I mean, this totally, 100 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 percent, goes against the mandate that Congress 1
intended with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 2
throughout the years.
3 The NRC's mandate is clearly to protect 4
public health and safety through the regulation and 5
oversight of all licensed nuclear facilities within the 6
Continental United States of America. This program --
7 this program is a joke.
8 Listen, you cannot go into a nuclear 9
powerplant, such as the one that is as poorly managed 10 as the Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant, identify 11 serious, extraordinary circumstances where security 12 guards are sleeping on the job and others are covering 13 up for them, and then turn around and offer the 14 licensee an opportunity to take up with some university 15 and resolve this issue. That's totally outrageous.
16 The NRC, in my view, with respect to the 17 public, you know, we depend on the NRC to go in there 18 and do a job, investigate -- like they did, and they 19 did a fine job. OI -- people involved in this 20 investigation, OI should be commended in writing.
21 Those people did their
- job, and in 22 enforcement it's a little shy. You know, I think the 23
$130,000 is a slap on the wrist to a nuclear powerplant 24 that makes a million dollars a day per reactor. So 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've got a $2 million a day revenue source over 1
there, and to be slapping $130,000 -- you know, if I 2
was management at FP&L, I'd say, "Hey, here's the 3
check, buddy. Here, take it and go away, you know, and 4
let us alone."
5 I mean, what the hell is $130,000 to them?
6 It's nothing.
It's a
multi-billion dollar 7
corporation. $130,000 is a joke.
8 So, but going back to the ADR, that 9
program needs to go away. You know, I don't know if 10 it's within the PRB's authority to make it go away, or 11 maybe they can suggest it to somebody else -- I'm 12 probably going to bring it up with a few Congressmen 13 and Senators myself.
14 But that program is -- undermines public 15 health and safety with respect to the NRC's mandate to 16 take significant enforcement action and to curtail the 17 activities that have been -- such as, for example, 18 what's going on there at the Turkey Point with the 19 sleeping guards. And to allow them to go to some 20 alternative dispute resolution program held by a 21 university, or those type of
- people, is just 22 outrageous.
23 And on that same -- on that same page of 24 music, this other company that the licensees contracted 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 with -- let's see who they are here. Some kind of 1
security contractor here.
2 MR. NIEH: This is Ho Nieh. Are you 3
referring to Wackenhut?
4 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. Wackenhut Nuclear 5
Services. Thank you, sir.
6 MR. NIEH: You're welcome.
7 MR. SAPORITO: Wackenhut Nuclear Services 8
-- they are at the heart of this problem. Well, they 9
are the participants. I'd say they're not the heart --
10 the licensee is always at the heart of the problem.
11 The licensee is the one that is granted the license to 12 operate this facility.
13 But the contractor here is the one putting 14 the sleeping guards in place, and the enforcement 15 action taken against them is totally insufficient.
16 They have -- should not be allowed to resolve their 17 issues before the NRC alternative dispute resolution 18 program. They need a stiff penalty issued to them.
19 They not only -- they have contracts at 20 other nuclear facilities around the country, and, you 21 know, for them to get off literally scot-free from the 22 significant violation is -- just undermines and 23 undercuts the confidence that the public has come to 24 gain that the NRC is protecting their interest as far 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 as public health and safety goes with respect to 1
operations of licensed nuclear reactors in the United 2
States.
3 My God, we're in an energy crisis here, 4
being held hostage by the world, because we need some 5
oil. And our -- one of our solutions is to build more 6
nuclear plants, and I'm all for that. But we need to 7
have a regulator vis-a-vis the NRC who is going to take 8
significant enforcement action to make sure that not 9
only the licensees operate their plants in compliance 10 with 10 CFR 50 and its subparts therein, but they --
11 that these contractors, like Wackenhut Nuclear 12 Services, get the message that you don't put sleeping 13 guards at a nuclear powerplant.
14 And this by no means sends a message to 15 Wackenhut. You know, Wackenhut is going to attend 16 their little class, or whatever it is, and talk to a 17 few people and tell them, "Oh, yes, we won't do that 18 again." Yes, right.
19 Well, you know, it don't work like that in 20 real life. This program -- this NRC alternative 21 dispute resolution program needs to go away. This is 22 very poor judgment exercised by somebody up there in 23 the upper echelons of the NRC, but, you know, I'll 24 probably have to bring that up with the EDO or some 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 Congressmen and Senators. But if the PRB has any 1
influence on anybody, I would urge them to make this 2
program go away at their earliest opportunity.
3 With respect to Wackenhut Nuclear 4
Services, they need to have a significant enforcement 5
action. They need to be hit in the pocketbook. They 6
need to pay a substantial monetary civil penalty, as 7
addressed and identified in this petition. That is the 8
only way that they are going to get the message.
9 That's the only way that they are going to identify the 10 root cause of their problem and provide the NRC with a 11 plan to address and correct that deficiency.
12 And until the NRC hits them with a 13 substantial enforcement action, it is just not going to 14 happen. You know, these things are going to continue.
15 And in this day and age, this is -- this type of 16 activity and this type of behavior and conduct is 17 totally unacceptable.
18 It's totally unacceptable without 19 before the 9/11 incident occurred in this country, but 20 since 9/11 it is just -- I'm just astonished that there 21 is such a lack of sufficient enforcement action here, 22 especially based on a substantial investigation by the 23 NRC OI. I'm just -- I just -- I don't know. I just 24 can't say enough about 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 27 I believe that the Turkey Point Nuclear 1
Powerplant, as well -- the licensee, St. Lucie's, 2
nuclear powerplant -- have workers there, employees 3
there, in an environment that is chilling, instead of 4
bringing out nuclear safety concerns, such as security 5
issues and operational issues, and what not. And, 6
therefore, these petitions should be posted. The PRB 7
should take into consideration the environment there, 8
and their record is well documented in the DOL files.
9 But these petitions should be -- not only 10 this one but all 2.206 petitions should be mandatorily 11 posted at the sites in question, so that other 12 employees can read about what is going on in the 13 company and volunteer information to the NRC to help 14 get these things corrected.
15 And there is a lot of good people that 16 work at Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant and the St.
17 Lucie Nuclear Powerplant. And they need to be able to 18 feel free to bring this information to the government, 19 and one way to do that is to start posting these 20 petitions. That's why I requested that in the 21 substance of this petition.
22 The other item here is a public hearing --
23 you know, I feel this is such a serious matter event 24 that public -- the public should be offered an 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 opportunity at a public hearing to engage the licensee 1
on each and every issue within this petition.
2 The public has a right to know what's --
3 what the licensee's mind-set is, how they're going to 4
correct this these deficiencies, why these 5
deficiencies were allowed to continue on for a course 6
of several years, and why they -- why the licensee 7
continues to operate its nuclear powerplants in 8
violation of its licensee requirements -- of its 9
license requirements within 10 CFR 50, and specifically 10 the subparts that address security issues at 10 CFR 11 73.55. The only way to do that is a public hearing.
12 That holds the licensee accountable.
13 There's a lot of good people and families and children 14 and other members of the public that live very close to 15 that powerplant and well -- and work well within the 16 NRC's zone of interest, including myself. And we 17 deserve an opportunity to engage the licensee directly 18 on these issues. And that's the reason that the 19 petition addresses a public hearing on this.
20 I fully understand that there are avenues 21 through the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Program 22 for public
- hearings, but this is separate and 23 indifferent to that. That Atomic Safety and Licensing 24 Board Panel addressed issues such as non-compliance to 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 technical issues or licensee amendment requests and 1
those type of things. And they don't provide forums 2
and grant hearing requests on the basis of items such 3
as the security issues addressed in this petition.
4 Therefore, you know, we have -- "we" being 5
myself and the public have no other means to get 6
resolution to these serious issues. One avenue would 7
be to allow us to entertain leave to attend a hearing 8
on Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant with respect to the 9
substance of this petition, so that we can get at the 10 heart of these issues and get some understanding of why 11 they occurred, why they continue unresolved to date, 12 and why there is no plan of action to get these 13 resolved, etcetera, etcetera.
14 Let's see. I think that about sums it up 15 here, unless something else comes to mind through the 16 rest of this PRB forum.
17 MR. NIEH: Thank you, Mr. Saporito. This 18 is Ho Nieh again, the Petition Review Board Chair. I 19 do appreciate you clarifying your petition. I think I 20
-- for me it has accomplished the objectives of this 21 particular call. I have a better understanding of the 22 underlying bases for your petition request and the 23 issues that you are concerned with. And it will indeed 24 help me look at your petition again, as we consider our 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 30 initial recommendations to disposition of your 1
petition.
2 I do not have any further questions for 3
you. Again, your input was very helpful to me, but I 4
would like to offer the other members here of the 5
Petition Review Board the opportunity ask Mr. Saporito 6
any clarifying questions.
Anybody here at 7
headquarters?
8 MR. BOYCE: This is Tom Boyce. I'm a 9
Branch Chief in NRR. I just wanted to go back to your 10 first point and make sure I understood it, and that was 11 when you challenged the criteria of whether or not this 12 met the criteria in the management directive for 13 rejection. I think your argument was hinging on the 14 word "resolved" in that criteria, and your contention 15 is is that the issue has not been resolved. Is that 16 correct?
17 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, that's certainly 18 correct, not just one issue, but the issues that I have 19 discussed, I don't believe that there is any resolution 20 to date.
21 MR. BOYCE: Okay. Understood. Thank you.
22 MR. NIEH: Any questions? Joel Munday in 23 Region 2, do you have any questions for Mr. Saporito?
24 MR. MUNDAY: No, I don't. Thanks, though.
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 31 MR.
NIEH:
Okay.
I'll offer the 1
opportunity now for our representative from Florida 2
Power and Light, Mr. Fernandez, do you have any 3
questions that you would like to get clarification on 4
from the Petitioner?
5 MR.
FERNANDEZ:
I do not have any 6
questions for the Petitioners, but we would like to 7
make a brief statement and have some questions for the 8
Board's consideration.
9 MR. NIEH: Okay. We are -- we will listen 10 to the statement, but I do, again, want to stress that 11 the NRC's decisionmaking process is based on the NRC's 12 review. And we -- you know, the licensee is not part 13 of the decisionmaking process on dealing with 2.206 14 petitions. But if there is something that you want to 15 say to the Petition Review Board, we are ready to 16 listen to that.
17 MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We 18 appreciate you allowing us to make a brief statement, 19 and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify certain 20 statements that were made. And since they're on the 21 record, and we're on the phone, we're obligated to make 22 a correction.
23 First of all, let me state that Florida 24 Power and Light takes the matters covered in 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 32 enforcement action which was covered in the course of 1
the 2.206 petition very seriously. We take our 2
stewardship of the plant at Turkey Point with the 3
utmost seriousness, and issues associated to the 4
inattentiveness of security guards and the safe and 5
secure operations of the nuclear powerplants are our 6
first priority every day we're there.
7 Additionally, we would like to -- that was 8
the brief statement that we wanted to make.
9 Additionally, we wanted to ask the Board to please 10 consider whether the 2.206 petition is in fact a 2.206 11 petition, or is it more appropriately characterized as 12 a petition that should be filed with the Atomic Safety 13 and Licensing Board in the docket of the notice of 14 violation.
15 I believe there has been a notice of 16 opportunity to request a hearing published by the NRC 17 with the notice of violation. And as far as we can 18 tell, all of the issues that were in the petition that 19 were read at the outset of this meeting, listed on 20 pages 2 through 3, numbered 1 through 7 -- they are all 21 issues related to the enforcement action that the NRC 22 imposes -- has proposed to take against Florida Power 23 and Light.
24 So we would like the Board to at least 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 33 consider whether -- the question of whether these 1
issues are better addressed within the scope of that --
2 of that licensing action, of that enforcement action.
3 I'm sorry.
4 That's it for us.
5 MR.
NIEH:
Okay.
Thank
- you, Mr.
6 Fernandez. And, again, I wanted to stress that the 7
Petition Review Board will thoroughly consider the 8
information presented by the Petitioner in his letter 9
dated April 27, 2008, and, again, the information that 10 the Petitioner provided today, and we will reach an 11 independent conclusion on how this petition will be 12 dispositioned.
13 Thank you for your statement, and for 14 adding that.
15 Are there any other questions for the NRC 16 Petition Review Board?
17 MR. SAPORITO: This is Thomas Saporito. I 18 have a comment.
19 MR. NIEH: Yes, sir.
20 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, sir. You know, I have 21 read the notices of violations issued with respect to 22 these -- to the Florida Power and Light/Turkey Point 23 Nuclear Powerplant. And I -- in my copies that I got 24 off -- from ADAMS, which is the NRC database of 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 34 publicly-available documents, I see no -- no text 1
within those documents that provide an opportunity for 2
hearing within that notice of violation.
3
- Now, maybe the licensee was given 4
additional documents that aren't publicly -- made 5
publicly available. I don't know. But I would like --
6 so, you know, I object to the licensee's suggestion to 7
the PRB that there was another alternative method to 8
resolve these issues. There isn't.
9 Whether I filed this petition on behalf of 10 myself and the public, because we need a forum to have 11 these issues resolved, and we have -- we were not made 12 aware of any other forum through our discovery efforts.
13 MS. LONGO: This is Jenny Longo from the 14 Office of General Counsel. There is no kind of secret 15 documents or secret agreements about hearings. When we 16 issue a proposed notice of violation -- or notice of 17 violation, proposed imposition of civil penalty, the 18 licensee, under our rules, has an obligation and an 19 opportunity to respond to that notice of violation.
20 The licensee has a choice of paying the 21 penalty basically or requesting -- or denying the 22 violation. If they deny the violation, say, "Oh, 23 nothing happened, we disagree," then the NRC may 24 proceed to issue an order imposing a civil penalty. At 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 35 that point, the licensee and any intervenors with a --
1 who can demonstrate standing may request an opportunity 2
for a hearing on the record before the ASLBP. And that 3
is simply a matter of procedure. There is no secret 4
agreements or anything like that going on.
5 MR. NIEH: And I don't -- I am not -- this 6
is Ho Nieh, the Petition Review Board Chair -- maybe 7
the region can help with where we are in that process.
8 I don't think we are quite at that point yet, to my 9
understanding.
10 MR. MUNDAY: No. We are in the process of 11
-- the licensee is putting together a response. They 12 have forwarded some information. That information is 13 either still being gathered or has been provided to 14 them. After they receive that, they intend to file a 15 formal response to the NOV.
16 MR. NIEH: Okay. Thank you, Joel. This 17 is Ho Nieh again.
18 Again, Mr. Saporito, I do want to stress 19 again that the Petition Review Board is going to take 20 the information in your letter, plus the information 21 that you have elaborated on today, and take that into 22 consideration as we revisit our initial recommendations 23 that were communicated to you from the petition manager 24 a few weeks ago.
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 36 So as far -- you know, the licensee's 1
statement is just the licensee's statement. You know, 2
my interest is in looking at the information that you 3
provided us, with the clarifications today, to see if 4
there are any changes that need to be made to our 5
initial recommendation.
6 And the process that -- or our support 7
from the General Counsel's office -- Jenny provided --
8 of course, that opportunity is available should it 9
proceed to that point.
10 MR. SAPORITO: All right. This is Thomas 11 Saporito, the Petitioner, again here. I just -- in 12 closing, I would like to take an opportunity to thank 13 the NRC participants and the members of the NRC PRB for 14 providing myself and the public a forum by which we can 15 address issues such as this. I think this is 16 meaningful for future development of the nuclear power 17 program in this country.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. NIEH: Okay. Thank you. This is Ho 20 Nieh of the Petition Review Board. Thank you again, 21 Mr. Saporito. I do appreciate you taking the time to 22 help the Petition Review Board better understand your 23 petition.
24 As I mentioned earlier, we -- the PRB is 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 37 going to have a followup internal meeting to make a 1
final recommendation on whether to accept or reject the 2
petition you submitted to us, and the results of that 3
meeting will be communicated to you in an 4
acknowledgement letter.
5 So with nothing else no other 6
questions, I would like to conclude the teleconference.
7 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. Can I ask just one 8
quick thing? This is Thomas Saporito. Just real 9
quickly, with respect to your last comment, am I to 10 understand in reading the directive, the 8.11, that 11 when FP&L provides their -- the licensee provides their 12 response to the NRC, that I'll be provided copies of 13 those documents, is that correct?
14 MR. NIEH: I don't think the license --
15 the process that Jenny was referring to, when the 16 licensee responds to the NRC's notice of violation, 17 that is separate from the Management Directive 8.11 18 process. We are -- as far as Management Directive 8.11 19 goes, that deals with you and your petition that you 20 submitted to the NRC. the inspection report with the 21 notice of violation, and the OI investigation, that is 22 a separate process.
23 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. But since the notice 24 of violation is in the context within 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 38 then any responses from the licensee should be germane 1
to that petition, and I should be provided those 2
documents by the government.
3 MR. NIEH: Okay. Now I better understand 4
your question. Yes. Our process does add you to the 5
service list for distribution for correspondence 6
regarding the Turkey Point Station. So, yes, we are 7
going to take the appropriate action to get you on 8
distribution, so you receive those documents that are 9
germane to your issue at Turkey Point. Right, you're 10 correct.
11 MR. SAPORITO: All right.
12 MR. NIEH: Okay.
13 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you, sir. Thank you 14 very much.
15 MR. NIEH: You're welcome.
16 Okay. With that, thank you for your 17 participation, everybody.
18 (Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the proceedings in the 19 foregoing matter were concluded.)
20 21 22 23 24 25
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13