ML023160406

Transcript of 10/16/2002 Public Meeting Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant

ML023160406
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/16/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-III
To:
References
Download: ML023160406 (83)

Text

1 1

2 3

4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY 5 PUBLIC MEETING 6

Meeting held on Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 7 7:00 p.m. at the Oak Harbor High School, Oak Harbor, Ohio, taken by me, Marlene S. Rogers-Lewis, Stenotype 8 Reporter, and Notary Public, in and for the State of Ohio.

9 10 11 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:

12 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 John Grobe, Chairman, MC 0350 Panel 14 William Dean, Vice Chairman, MC 0350 Panel 15 Jon Hopkins, License & Project Manager 16 Anthony Mendiola, Section Chief PDIII-2, NRR 17 Christopher (Scott) Thomas, Senior Resident Inspector - Davis-Besse 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

2 1 MR. GROBE: Good evening. Why 2 don't I begin by asking if we have anybody here this 3 evening that this is the first meeting that they've 4 been to?

5 THEREUPON, a response was given by a show of 6 hands.

7 MR. GROBE: All right, great. My 8 name is Jack Grobe. I'm with the Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission in the Region 3 office, which is in 10 Chicago, Illinois. Region 3 has the responsibility 11 for overseeing the safety of nuclear plants in the 12 Midwest, including Davis-Besse.

13 I'm the Chairman of the Davis-Besse Oversight 14 Panel. That panel has been established to provide a 15 broad spectrum of NRC resources bringing that broad 16 spectrum to focus on the problems that have been 17 occurring at Davis-Besse.

18 Let me introduce the folks that are up here 19 this evening, and then I'll talk a little bit about 20 what's happened so far today, then we'll open it for 21 questions.

22 On my immediate right is Bill Dean. Bill's 23 the Deputy Director of the Division of Engineering in 24 our offices and headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

25 And on his right is Jon Hopkins. Jon's the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

3 1 License & Project Manager in headquarters for the 2 Davis-Besse facility.

3 On my immediate left is Tony Mendiola. Tony 4 is the Supervisor for the project's organization 5 headquarters for a variety of activities including 6 Davis-Besse.

7 And on my far left is a very important 8 person, Scott Thomas. Scott is the Senior Resident 9 Inspector. He works for the Region 3 office of the 10 NRC, but he lives in the community here and works at 11 the Davis-Besse plant every day. We have two 12 Resident Inspectors; Scott's the Senior, and then 13 another fellow, Doug Simpkins, who lives right here 14 in Oak Harbor is the resident inspector.

15 The -- over the past several months, we've 16 been conducting monthly meetings with the Utility, 17 FirstEnergy. These have been public meetings. We 18 conduct them during business hours, during the 19 afternoon, here at the high school, and whenever we 20 do that, we also have a meeting in the evening for 21 those members of the public who are not able to 22 attend an afternoon meeting because we all have to 23 work, right, so we open this up in the evening to 24 share with you what's going on at the plant, and then 25 give an opportunity for you to ask questions or MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

4 1 provide whatever comments you might have.

2 Today was a little bit more unusual because 3 we had -- this is our third public meeting today.

4 We started this morning with what we call an exit 5 meeting, and that's the meeting that occurs at the 6 end of an inspection. This was actually two special 7 inspections. It's a special kind of inspection that 8 we do. It's not part of our routine inspection 9 program. It's a response to an event type of 10 inspection. It's the lowest level of event response 11 inspection. We call it a special inspection team.

12 An individual named Tom Kozak who lead that 13 inspection team presented the results of his 14 inspection. He was focused in two areas. The first 15 area was the off site release of radioactive 16 materials that occurred earlier this year. There 17 were a number of workers at Davis-Besse who became 18 contaminated with radioactive materials during the 19 course of their work and weren't completely 20 decontaminated before they left the site, and that 21 was discovered when those workers attempted to get 22 into other nuclear plants at other locations around 23 the country. Very slight contamination, but, 24 nonetheless, that was something that concerned us.

25 In addition, those workers were exposed to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

5 1 unusual types of radioactive materials at the nuclear 2 plant, Davis-Besse. When I say, unusual, they're 3 types of radioactive materials that emit different 4 kinds of radiation than what you would normally see 5 in a nuclear plant. This radioactive materials 6 actually comes from the fuel itself and it's what's 7 referred to as transuranic isotopes. They're heavy 8 radioact -- heavy isotopes, and they emit the type of 9 radiation that's called an alpha particle. Alpha 10 particles are not dangerous as long as the material 11 is outside the body, because the heavy alpha 12 particles can't penetrate clothing, they can't 13 penetrate your skin, so there is no health risk as 14 long as the materials is outside your body. If you 15 inhale them into your lungs, they are very, very 16 light particles that can become airborne and you 17 inhale them, they can do damage because then the 18 alpha particles would be exposing tissues -- live 19 tissues, so they can be hazardous. These workers 20 who were exposed to alpha particles and -- I'm sorry, 21 radioactive materials that emit alpha particles, and 22 they inhaled some of that material, so there was a 23 number of issues that we wanted to follow up on.

24 There were three violations that Tom 25 presented this morning. One of them concerned how MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

6 1 the Licensee prepared for and conducted that work 2 specifically focusing on the radiological controls, 3 how they controlled -- prepared for and controlled 4 the work.

5 The second violation concerned deficiencies 6 in the way the Licensee evaluated the exposures that 7 those individuals received, and the third concern --

8 or violation concerned the failure of the Licensee to 9 control radioactive materials, and the fact that they 10 let it get off site. Those three violations were 11 the result of Tom's inspection and would be evaluated 12 in the regional office and in headquarters for the 13 significance of the violations, and I expect that 14 report will be issued in 45 days.

15 The second meeting we had this afternoon was 16 one of our routine meetings with FirstEnergy 17 Corporation discussing the progress that they're 18 making at Davis-Besse. The Licensee went through a 19 number of issues. They're ongoing at the plant. I 20 guess the -- I'll just highlight a couple of those 21 that have been of higher significance.

22 Back in June, the Licensee identified that 23 there was some boric acid that had been discovered on 24 the bottom of the reactor head -- the bottom head of 25 the reactor. The reactor itself is shaped like a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

7 1 cylinder and has a semicircular top and a 2 semicircular bottom, and they discovered some 3 material on the bottom of the head. In looking at 4 the sides of the reactor, it appeared that it had 5 washed down the reactor, and that's how it got to the 6 bottom head of the reactor.

7 The Licensee went further and did some 8 analysis, took some scrapings of material and did 9 some analysis of material and identified some 10 discrepancies between the material that was on the 11 side of reactors -- the reactor and the material that 12 was on the bottom of the head. This caused concern 13 on their part as to where -- whether that material 14 actually did wash down the reactor or if it had come 15 from somewhere else, so that was recorded recently in 16 the newspapers and had gotten some attention. The 17 Licensee is continuing to evaluate that issue and try 18 to identify whether there is a concern with another 19 source of leakage or whether this is just an anomaly 20 in the chemical constituents that are in the boric 21 acid.

22 Licensee also went through a presentation of 23 a number of their areas. It appears that they're 24 making good progress in some areas. They discussed 25 issues that they're taking in the area of management MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

8 1 performance and also activities that they're -- that 2 they have underway to improve the -- what we call the 3 safety culture of the plant, and there were a number 4 of questions that were asked about that.

5 (To the Panel) Any other highlights from this 6 afternoon that I should mention?

7 MR. DEAN: No.

8 MR. GROBE: Okay. With that 9 said, let me tell you a little bit about information 10 that's available to you. We're now publishing a 11 monthly newsletter that we should have had copies 12 for, but we ran out this afternoon, copies for you 13 tonight. If you desire one, let me introduce Vika 14 Mitlyng -- Viktoria Mitlyng. Stand up, Viktoria.

15 MS. MITLYNG: (Indicating).

16 MR. GROBE: She's one of our 17 Public Affairs officers in Region 3, and she'd be 18 glad to get you one if you're interested or if you 19 have access to a computer, you can get to our web 20 site. It's www.nrc.gov -- G-O-V, and the monthly 21 newsletter is posted there as well as a wealth of 22 other information on Davis-Besse and what's been 23 going on at the site.

24 The one other item that I'd like to bring to 25 your attention is a single page feedback form. You MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

9 1 don't even have to pay 34 cents to send it back to 2 us.

3 MR. DEAN: 37 cents.

4 MR. MENDIOLA: 37 cents.

5 MR. GROBE: 37 cents -- sorry 6 about that.

7 MR. DEAN: Postage went up.

8 MR. GROBE: That's right. It's 9 postage paid, but please take a few minutes, pick up 10 one of these, fill it out, fold it up, and send it 11 back to us with your thoughts on the conduct of this 12 meeting and how we can improve. We're always 13 looking for ways to improve in our performance as far 14 as making our activities publicly accessible.

15 What I'd like to do now is provide an 16 opportunity for folks to ask questions or provide 17 comments to us, and I'd like to do this in somewhat 18 of an orderly fashion. If you could limit your 19 questions or comments to three to five minutes, we'd 20 appreciate that, but I'd like to start with anybody 21 who is from the immediate vicinity of the plant, 22 local residents, give them an opportunity to come 23 forward first.

24 Is there anybody in the audience who has a 25 question? Please come up to the microphone, and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

10 1 state your name so that our Court Reporter can get it 2 recorded.

3 MR. DOUGLAS: My name is James 4 Douglas. I believe you -- you have met me before.

5 I'm an engineer, chemical engineer, and I live on 6 Duff-Washa Road.

7 MR. GROBE: Great.

8 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay? I'm very 9 concerned about what I have heard about the 10 engineering at Davis-Besse. I'm sorry the 11 Davis-Besse people are not here 'cause I'll save my 12 tongue-lashing for them when they're here.

13 MR. GROBE: Thank you.

14 MR. DOUGLAS: You guys don't deserve 15 it. Okay, enough said on that.

16 What I'm concerned about here is, have you 17 considered even a decent preventive maintenance 18 program so that this cannot happen again?

19 How about -- how about photographic 20 preventive maintenance program?

21 MR. GROBE: Yeah.

22 MR. DOUGLAS: Have you considered 23 this?

24 MR. GROBE: The -- actually the 25 adequate maintenance of all of the important systems MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

11 1 is a requirement. It's more than a consideration.

2 We have a requirement in the Code of Federal 3 Regulations that requires Licensees to have adequate 4 maintenance programs, and part of that would be 5 dealing with these kinds of issues, and, obviously, 6 FirstEnergy did not appropriately deal with the --

7 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, you're kind of 8 beating around the bush a little bit and --

9 MR. GROBE: I thought you were --

10 MR. DOUGLAS: I really don't want 11 that.

12 MR. GROBE: I thought you were 13 going to save your tongue-lashing for FirstEnergy?

14 (Laughter).

15 MR. DOUGLAS: You guys are pretty --

16 pretty experienced at it. What I'm looking for is 17 the pictures that they stuck in the paper of the 18 head --

19 MR. GROBE: Uh huh.

20 MR. DOUGLAS: -- show very obviously 21 the great degree of degradation of that head, and a 22 decent preventive maintenance program of pictures 23 available to your inspectors after their annual 24 shutdown will tell them exactly what they have to do 25 to have a good sound head to start the -- start the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

12 1 process back up again.

2 MR. GROBE: Absolutely.

3 MR. DOUGLAS: This is what I'm 4 after, a decent preventive maintenance program, and 5 so far I've heard nothing, and I think that you guys 6 should realize you have a strong moral obligation to 7 the public for our safety to get a program like this 8 established.

9 MR. GROBE: You're -- you're 10 absolutely correct that the issues that occurred at 11 Davis-Besse should not have occurred, and they should 12 have been discovered through our inspection programs.

13 MR. DOUGLAS: It's an absolute 14 disgrace that it did occur engineeringly, an absolute 15 disgrace.

16 MR. DEAN: Mr. Douglas?

17 MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, I have one more 18 question -- go ahead.

19 MR. DEAN: Let me help answer 20 your question, at least vessel head specific 21 inspection activities.

22 MR. DOUGLAS: Yeah.

23 MR. DEAN: What has transpired 24 over the last couple of years as issues related to 25 this phenomena of cracking of the nozzles has been MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

13 1 more prevalent and more known to the NRC, and as we 2 learn each time a plant shuts down and they do an 3 inspection we learn more. There were some bulletins 4 that we issued over the last year. Bulletins are a 5 device or a communication tool that the NRC uses to 6 transmit information to the industry to tell them 7 these are things because of the urgent nature of the 8 issue that we want you to respond to us on, okay, and 9 there's been several bulletins that have been issued 10 by the NRC over the last two years dealing directly 11 with the degradation mechanisms and cracking 12 phenomena that have occurred.

13 MR. DOUGLAS: I fully understand the 14 mechanics of what you're talking about, okay?

15 MR. DEAN: Okay. But what I 16 wanted to share with you is that as a result of those 17 bulletins, we have required Licensees to not only do 18 visual inspections, bare metal visual inspections of 19 the reactor vessel heads, but we're also requiring 20 them now to do non-destructive examinations, which 21 include techniques like using ultrasonic mechanisms 22 or any current testing or liquid dye tenetrant test 23 of those penetrations of those nozzles to get even a 24 better understanding of what is actually existing as 25 opposed to just even doing a bare visual -- so it MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

14 1 goes beyond taking photographs, so we have reacted to 2 that issue to require much more stringent inspections 3 by Licensees.

4 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, the pictures 5 that were in the paper show a definite iron oxide 6 degradation and contamination of the boric oxide, 7 very obvious. This to me is the simplest, least 8 expensive, and surest way of finding, do you have a 9 stress crack in the well.

10 MR. GROBE: And as you --

11 MR. DOUGLAS: I do not know why you 12 can't insist on an absolute binding photographic 13 preventive maintenance procedure. It's simple.

14 It's inexpensive, and it will do the job.

15 MR. GROBE: As Bill just 16 mentioned, we've gone beyond that. What you 17 observed in that photograph that was in the newspaper 18 was after a crack had gone through the wall and was 19 leaking.

20 MR. DOUGLAS: That's right, and I 21 believe you have holes in the walls now to take 22 pictures and that's what they're for.

23 MR. GROBE: What we have done is 24 gone beyond that, and we're now expecting Licensees 25 to use non-destructive examination to see cracks MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

15 1 before they go through the wall, before there is any 2 leakage. The techniques that Bill was referring to 3 are techniques that are used to look inside the metal 4 to see when a crack is beginning, not once it goes 5 through, so we have gone beyond -- you're absolutely 6 correct. The problems at Davis-Besse are easily 7 seen, and they were known to the Company and should 8 have been addressed.

9 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, every time 10 they -- and the last question that I have is every 11 time they get into more inspection of the head and 12 more information is released, it gets to be worse and 13 worse, and the last one said something about a 14 paper-thin piece of stainless steel retaining 2000 15 pounds.

16 MR. GROBE: Uh huh.

17 MR. DOUGLAS: And the nozzle wiggles 18 with very little weld left in it.

19 Now, when are we going to hear the full 20 details of the inspection and the conclusions that 21 you guys have come to, and how -- definitely, 22 concretely how are we going to prevent this? I 23 don't want a reactor in my living room. Okay?

24 MR. GROBE: The -- your reading 25 about the thin clad material that was left after the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

16 1 carbon steel had corroded away has been known, and 2 has been publicly available since last March.

3 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, you have said 4 that you have gone to much more than even 5 photographic procedures, fine. That's great.

6 All right, what I am getting at is you have 7 gone to -- you haven't got it down to a concrete hard 8 regulatory rule if you got color dis -- degradation, 9 you don't start up, fellows, until you repair the 10 vessel. That's it.

11 MR. GROBE: I think actually those 12 requirements already exist, and they existed at 13 Davis-Besse, and they failed -- they failed to 14 implement those requirements as you've --

15 MR. DOUGLAS: And who makes all 16 these additional tests, you guys or them?

17 MR. GROBE: Well, we do 18 inspections, but they're required to do these 19 examinations, and they are required to fix these 20 problems before they restart.

21 MR. DOUGLAS: And where they 22 deliberately ignored all the evidence in the past, 23 you expect them to come up and say, well, we're in 24 bad shape, we got to go down and spend 50 million 25 dollars on a weld job?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

17 1 MR. GROBE: I'm not going to speak 2 for the Company, but I would imagine if you ask them 3 that question, they would have much rather fixed it 4 at the time, which would have not cost them much 5 money than doing what they're doing now. The fact 6 of the matter is they didn't follow the requirements, 7 and they didn't do the right things, and that's what 8 caused them to have --

9 MR. DOUGLAS: Will we hear the full 10 extent of the degradation of the head?

11 MR. GROBE: Sure. I'd be glad to 12 talk to you after the meeting and tell you it's 13 available on the web site. It's been publicly 14 available.

15 MR. DOUGLAS: You've already done 16 this?

17 MR. GROBE: Yes.

18 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. But I do -- I 19 certainly do request of you that you consider the 20 photographic procedure and be sure that it gets stuck 21 in the paper publicly, so that we can have some kind 22 of confidence that this place isn't going to go to --

23 you know where again.

24 MR. GROBE: Right. We can do 25 that.

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

18 1 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay?

2 MR. GROBE: Okay. Thank you, sir.

3 (Applause).

4 MR. WHITCOMB: Good evening, 5 gentlemen. My name is Howard Whitcomb, and I don't 6 think I could have asked for a better set-up, man.

7 Thank you, Mr. Douglas.

8 The recent findings of the NRC's Lessons 9 Learned Task Force clearly demonstrate that the 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission can either -- either 11 can no longer function and safely execute its 12 responsibilities as an enforcement agency on behalf 13 of the public or it refuses to do so. The findings 14 of the Task Force attempt to provide a rationale that 15 the NRC's actions over the last decade rise to the 16 level of excusable neglect. Nothing could be 17 further from the truth. A more apparent conclusion 18 is that the task force has deliberately ignored the 19 realities of the relationship which has existed 20 between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 21 FirstEnergy Management over the last 15 years.

22 There have been numerous warning signs that the 23 Davis-Besse nuclear plant was in trouble. The NRC 24 deliberately ignored them. The relevant facts and 25 impressions follow. I invite you to challenge or MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

19 1 take issue with them if they do not represent the 2 truth.

3 FACT: On June 12th, Mr. Howell, the 4 team leader of the NRC's Lessons Learned Task Force 5 stated that as part of their review, the team would 6 review the allegation history pertaining to the 7 Davis-Besse facility and determine if the NRC had 8 appropriately dispositioned said allegations.

9 On October 10th, The Blade reported that 10 quote, Managers of the NRC's Midwest regional office 11 allowed themselves to become too distracted by 12 activities at other plants to diagnose Davis-Besse's 13 far-reaching problems.

14 IMPRESSION: There are only three possible 15 outcomes regarding the Lessons Learned Task Force 16 review of the allegation history at Davis-Besse.

17 Either, 18 1. The Lessons Learned Task Force did not 19 conduct a review.

20 2. The Lessons Learned Task Force members 21 were not qualified or competent enough to determine 22 whether the disposition of the past allegations had 23 been performed in accordance with Federal law, or 24 3. The Lessons Learned Task Force after its 25 review deliberately ignored the allegation history MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

20 1 and the NCR's prior dispositions at the Davis-Besse 2 Nuclear Plant.

3 Unfortunately, there are too many facts that 4 exist which point to the probability that this third 5 action is what the NRC has chosen to take.

6 FACT: On September 30th, The New York 7 Times published an article about the issuance of a 8 certain 1987 Preventive Maintenance Program 9 Assessment Report on June 20th, 1988. The 10 significance of this 1987 Preventive Maintenance 11 Program Report is that it contained very specific 12 information regarding the existence of a serious 13 cultural attitude which fostered an adverse 14 environment unsupportive of nuclear safety values.

15 In 1987, the PM Program Assessment Report was 16 issued by myself to the Vice President-Nuclear and to 17 the Plant Manager.

18 Subsequent to the issues -- issuance of the 19 1987 Preventive Maintenance Program Report, Toledo 20 Edison Management told the NRC during a maintenance 21 team inspection in September 1988 that the report was 22 currently in draft form. This was not the truth.

23 Toledo Edison Management did not accurately convey 24 the truth regarding the issuance of the report and 25 the events leading up to the authors' final days at MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

21 1 the facility. The NRC relied upon these statements 2 as evidenced by its comments as contained in its own 3 Inspection Report issued on December 16th, 1988. The 4 NRC was subsequently notified of the material false 5 statement in a number of allegations when the 6 material false statement was discovered on or about 7 December 1992.

8 FACT: There were at least nine 9 separate allegations alleging specific improprieties 10 by Davis-Besse personnel during the period of time 11 from January 1993 to present.

12 In a letter issued by you, Mr. Grobe, on 13 November 3rd, 1997, you attempted to close a certain 14 allegation which you claim had been previously 15 investigated on several occasions and adequately 16 dispositioned by your staff dating all the way back 17 to January of 1993. This was attempted despite the 18 objection of the originator of the allegation.

19 You made a similar report in a subsequent 20 letter on February 16th, 1999.

21 IMPRESSION: The conclusions of the NRC staff 22 were obviously incorrect, particularly in light of 23 the recent discovery of the unprecedented degradation 24 of the reactor vessel head at Davis-Besse and the 25 resulting root cause findings. Furthermore, it is MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

22 1 inconceivable that a thorough review of the 2 allegation history at Davis-Besse could possibly 3 overlook the significant dispositional error on the 4 part of the NRC. The failure of the Lessons Learned 5 Task Force to identify and address this very obvious 6 error supports the premise that it was deliberately 7 ignored.

8 On July 16th in a handout distributed by 9 FirstEnergy at a scheduled meeting, the graphic 10 depicting an organizational chart of the Restart 11 Overview Panel indicates Lou Storz as a member of 12 that panel.

13 On September 18th, Mr. Eshelman further 14 touted Mr. Storz's significant participation and 15 stated that that's a panel made up of essentially 16 very highly experienced individuals as well as 17 community leaders. . . Lou Storz is on it.

18 FACT: The NRC had knowledge of the 19 history of Lou Storz at the Davis-Besse facility and 20 the reprimand it issued for his distracting and 21 disruptive behavior in the control room on New Years 22 Eve 1986.

23 IMPRESSION: The failure of the NRC to 24 forthrightly challenge the participation of Lou Storz 25 on the current Restart Overview Panel is very MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

23 1 alarming and supports the premise that the NRC has 2 deliberately chosen to ignore Mr. Storz's problematic 3 history contrary to the preservation of the 4 fundamental principles of reactor safety 5 responsibilities. Lou Storz's behavior in the 6 control room on New Year's Eve illustrates that he is 7 clearly capable of placing reactor safety issues in a 8 subservient role when production demands dictate.

9 In conclusion, the NRC is fully aware of the 10 problematic history at Davis-Besse over the last 15 11 years. It cannot now feign ignorance of the 12 problems or blame events at other facilities as the 13 basis for why aggressive action was not focused at 14 Davis-Besse. The warning signs were either apparent 15 or were presented to the staff through the 16 established process. What the NRC's Lessons Learned 17 Task Force failed to identify is that the established 18 process failed to intervene and prevent the current 19 management and material problems at Davis-Besse.

20 What has again been demonstrated is that when the 21 process fails, reactor safety is compromised.

22 Over the last several months, FirstEnergy has 23 continued to conduct its affairs as it always has and 24 the NRC has passively watched it occur. Davis-Besse 25 management continues to violate quality assurance MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

24 1 requirements and generally accepted maintenance 2 practices. The O350 Panel has passively watched as 3 FirstEnergy conducts its business as normal. The 4 superficial findings of the NRC's Lessons Learned 5 Task Force clearly indicates that it is time for 6 change, the actions or lack thereof, of the 0350 7 Panel repeatedly demonstrate that FirstEnergy 8 Management will continue to receive disparate and 9 preferential treatment in comparison to the rest of 10 the industry. FirstEnergy's deleterious actions 11 over the last 15 years clearly deserve more, not 12 less, critical treatment, particularly since 13 FirstEnergy has conceded that at times they have 14 placed production demands over reactor safety.

15 Unfortunately, it's very obvious that the NRC 16 has accepted, even embraced, FirstEnergy's method of 17 doing business without reservation. The 18 effectiveness of the 0350 Panel is highly suspect.

19 Mr. Grobe, as Chairman, you have very obvious 20 conflict of interest. It is time for change. I 21 demand that you remove yourself from the 0350 Panel.

22 It is time to disband the 0350 Panel and insert an 23 independent review team as envisioned and demanded by 24 the 2-206 petition. As a resident of this 25 community, I hold the public health, safety and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

25 1 welfare above all else. It is time for change. It 2 is time that the legislative branch of the Federal 3 Government investigate the continued and sustained 4 ability of the NRC to fulfill and execute its 5 responsibilities in an independent and unbiased 6 manner, and without alternative motive other than 7 ensuring the public health, safety and welfare. It 8 is clearly time for change. It is impossible to 9 succeed without it. Thank you.

10 (Applause).

11 MR. GROBE: Let me respond in 12 several ways. First, if you have questions or 13 comments regarding the Lessons Learned Task Force 14 report, the Lessons Learned Task Force will be here 15 on November 6th and conduct a public meeting to 16 discuss the results of their report, and it would be 17 very appropriate for you to raise your questions to 18 them.

19 Secondly, if you have questions or concerns 20 regarding any member of the NRC, including myself, we 21 have an Office of the Inspector General, who does 22 investigations of the NRC staff, and you're more than 23 welcome to contact them and provide whatever 24 allegations you have to them, and they will be 25 investigated.

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

26 1 Are there any other comments or questions?

2 (Indicating).

3 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir.

4 MR. DUSSEL: Yes, my name is Tim 5 Dussel, and I'm just a resident of the area, and I'm 6 not a public speaker. I'm very nervous about even 7 standing up here.

8 In the last few months I've read different 9 articles in The Blade, Plain Dealer and some of the 10 instances that have gone on here, and I cannot 11 believe what I have read and seen. You people sit 12 up there very educated, very proper, and look down at 13 us. Yeah, go ahead and smirk, that's okay.

14 MR. GROBE: No, I was just -- I 15 don't --

16 MR. DUSSEL: I would like to have 17 you read -- you know, I've looked at the Internet and 18 I'm not real Internet literate, but I've seen your 19 web site. I've read your meetings, and you can read 20 by the hour. It's the same thing as coming to the 21 meetings. You stand up there, and you talk, and you 22 talk, and you talk and say nothing. There's 23 questions that should be answered, and there is no 24 answers being given. What happened to all of the 25 upper management that was either supposedly fired or MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

27 1 moved from Davis-Besse?

2 MR. GROBE: What happened to the 3 individuals?

4 MR. DUSSEL: Yes.

5 MR. GROBE: I don't know.

6 MR. DUSSEL: Are they moved to 7 other nuclear power plants so they can try to blow 8 them up so you people are not watching what they are 9 doing? You guys are so busy supposedly is the reason 10 you didn't inspect this place. Why weren't these 11 people -- these people should be jailed.

12 (Applause).

13 MR. GROBE: I don't have an answer 14 for you, but let me tell you what's going on, okay?

15 The -- and, first off, I wasn't smirking. I 16 don't like this arrangement. I don't want to sit up 17 here on the stage because I -- I feel uncomfortable 18 because I am up higher than you are. If you were 19 here this afternoon, you would have seen that we 20 stood down right where you were. I was here last 21 month as you guys sat here and I heard how --

22 FirstEnergy sat here and talked about how they 23 changed light fixtures.

24 MR. GROBE: Can I answer your 25 question?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

28 1 MR. DUSSEL: Yes, go ahead, please.

2 MR. GROBE: This is a wonderful 3 facility, and it's the only one we have available.

4 I don't want you to feel like we're looking down on 5 you or anything like that because that's not the 6 case.

7 Secondly, you asked about the employees; we 8 don't track employees. I'm not aware of any of the 9 individuals that left FirstEnergy being employed at 10 another nuclear plant, but they could be.

11 The last comment I'd like to provide in 12 response to your first question is that we do have an 13 ongoing investigation. Deliberate violations of 14 regulations are criminal actions, and we have an 15 ongoing investigation into that to determine whether 16 or not these violations were simply oversights, or, 17 if, in fact, they were deliberate violations for some 18 ulterior motive, and if they were, those will be 19 turned over to the Department of Justice and whatever 20 action Department of Justice finds is appropriate, 21 they will take, so you say we're doing nothing, and I 22 appreciate that some of these things take time, and 23 it doesn't appear that anything is happening, but 24 there are several investigators. In fact, they're 25 working today on site that are looking into this, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

29 1 that aspect of your question. Is there another 2 question I can answer?

3 MR. DUSSEL: Well, yes, you know, 4 like this has went on for years -- years and years 5 and the same way, you say there is all these 6 investigations going on, but they are going forward 7 right now putting this thing -- excuse me, putting 8 this thing back together and who -- God only knows 9 what they're doing. I read an article somewhere to 10 the fact that the lid that they've got doesn't even 11 have the same seal on it as the lid that they've 12 taken off.

13 MR. GROBE: Well, I'm not sure --

14 that's not correct information.

15 MR. DUSSEL: Okay.

16 MR. GROBE: The head that they 17 purchased from the Midland -- the consumer's power 18 company in Michigan is identical to the head that was 19 removed from Davis-Besse and has the same type of 20 seal.

21 MR. DUSSEL: The other question I 22 have is we're sitting here talking about the reactor 23 and of the -- all the nightmares we hear on the 24 reactor. I mean, if you would take and look on the 25 Toledo Blade web site and go backwards and read --

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

30 1 which I will give you. I'd like to have you read 2 these backwards 'cause you tell me -- would you mind 3 handing that to them, sir? I would like to have you 4 read them backwards to the people for me, and you 5 tell me what kind of decision the public should make 6 of what is going on here. You tell me that it 7 wouldn't scare you to death. You say you are 8 nervous sitting up there in front of us. You can't 9 believe how nervous I am of Davis-Besse sitting down 10 away from me.

11 (Applause).

12 MR. DUSSEL: That's not nervous, 13 that's down right fear.

14 MR. GROBE: I'm not sure what your 15 question was. I understand --

16 MR. DUSSEL: Would you mind reading 17 them articles backwards to the people? That's just 18 out of The Blade. That's not the Cleveland Plain 19 Dealer. These articles here are articles that the 20 common person can read, and this is the information 21 that we are getting. I've been to your web site and 22 all there is -- there's no answers. There's no 23 nothing. It's just a bunch of talk. These are the 24 articles that the people are reading and that's the 25 reason people are scared. You can go backwards on MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

31 1 your -- on those articles, and you'll make one 2 statement that this was safe, we don't believe this 3 was going to happen. You go two articles farther 4 up -- oh, we just discovered this. That reactor has 5 been a complete nightmare. There is so many other 6 things that hasn't been answered on this. The 7 containment room, the filters that was filled with 8 all the rust and so hap, how is the electronics and 9 stuff on all this stuff in the containment room?

10 None of that kind of stuff is talked about. I sat 11 here at the last meeting, and I heard them talk about 12 how they're cutting a hole in the containment 13 building and how they're going to put this cement 14 back together and it's going to be just as good as 15 new. I'm not an engineer here, but I have worked 16 around concrete, and I have done construction work.

17 There is no way that you're going to cut a hole in 18 that, glue a patch back on it and tell me that that's 19 just as strong as it was when it was originally 20 built.

21 MR. GROBE: In fact, it is, and 22 we've had inspectors that witness the welding. We've 23 had inspectors --

24 MR. DUSSEL: We've had inspectors 25 witness all this stuff? We've had inspectors MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

32 1 wondering if there was a crack in the reactor when 2 there was a hole ate through it. You know the 3 inspectors -- your word is not too good.

4 MR. GROBE: I'm not sure I'm going 5 to be able to answer any of your questions, because 6 I'm not sure that you're giving me a chance to answer 7 any.

8 MR. DUSSEL: Okay.

9 MR. GROBE: But which of the 10 questions that I haven't been able to answer because 11 you have interrupted me would you like me to start 12 with?

13 MR. DUSSEL: I would like you to 14 answer the question on the containment building 15 itself, the electronics and stuff inside.

16 MR. GROBE: Okay. The -- the 17 activities that FirstEnergy have undertaken go far 18 beyond just the rad monitor that you're referring to.

19 That radiation monitor has been examined, but all the 20 equipment inside containment has also been examined.

21 I've had inspectors that have observing what the 22 Licensee is doing. We've also conducted independent 23 inspections. The reports of those inspections are 24 available on that web site, and you can read them.

25 I would suggest that you take some time and read some MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

33 1 of the reports, and I would call your attention to 2 several that would be helpful. One is from May.

3 It's the Augmented Inspect Routine report. That was 4 our original findings of the inspection that occurred 5 in March and April. The Augmented Inspection Team 6 follow-up report, which was issued maybe about three 7 weeks ago, the Containment Health Inspection report.

8 These reports will provide you a comprehensive 9 understanding of what's been going on at the plant 10 and what the NRC has been doing to inspect those 11 activities and what our findings are, and they'll 12 give you information far beyond what you could read 13 in the newspaper. If you're looking for 14 information, the web site is an excellent place to 15 go. If there's -- if you're not comfortable with 16 the web site, we'll be glad to send you copies of all 17 of these reports, so that you can have a more 18 comprehensive understanding of what's going on than 19 what you might read in The Toledo Blade.

20 MR. DUSSEL: Well, I would like to 21 thank The Toledo Blade and the Cleveland Plain Dealer 22 because that has basically been about the only place 23 that you can really get any information where they 24 actually say anything, and as far as the inspectors, 25 you can sit and tell me how you're having this MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

34 1 inspected and that inspected, your past practices 2 pretty well show what's going on. Thank you.

3 (Applause).

4 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir.

5 MR. FOWLER: John Fowler is my 6 name. I'm an Oak Harbor resident.

7 A couple of things have surfaced this evening 8 that leave me kind of wondering about the program and 9 its totality. The inability to track people that may 10 have purposely ignored safety requirements, is there 11 some sort of a personnel reliability program like we 12 have in the Defense Department --

13 MR. GROBE: No, you misunderstood 14 what I said. We don't track where people work. If 15 one of those individuals that was involved was -- is 16 found to have deliberately violated our requirements 17 we have an enforcement policy that deals with that on 18 two levels. The first is the actions that we would 19 take, which we refer to as civil enforcement. Those 20 would be orders, and it's not uncommon that we issue 21 orders prohibiting people from involvement in nuclear 22 activities, and those people are tracked. More 23 significantly, if they are found to have deliberately 24 violated our requirements, the Department of Justice 25 has the authority to prosecute them, and there is MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

35 1 criminal sanctions which include jail time and fines, 2 so I don't want you to get any impression that 3 deliberate violators of requirements are running 4 willy-nilly around the industry, and we can't find 5 them. That's not what I mean. What I was saying is 6 we don't track where everybody works with the 7 exception of licensed operators. We know where 8 they're working because we license them, but all of 9 the other workers of nuclear plants are free to go 10 work wherever they want. If they are deliberate 11 violators of requirements, then there are sanctions 12 that are levied against them.

13 MR. FOWLER: If these violations 14 were not deliberate and these individuals have moved 15 on, it would appear they could be working in the 16 nuclear power industry presently while your 17 investigation is yet ongoing. They have not been 18 temporarily decertified until the investigation is 19 complete as would be done in the Defense Department.

20 MR. GROBE: That's correct.

21 MR. FOWLER: So they're on the 22 loose out there?

23 MR. GROBE: Yes. We generally 24 have a principal in the United States that you're 25 innocent until proven guilty, so, yes, they are out MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

36 1 there. There is an investigation ongoing. I don't 2 want to leave the impression that there is any 3 conclusions that people deliberately violated 4 requirements, but if they did, it will be a result of 5 the investigation, and we'll provide the evidence for 6 that.

7 MR. FOWLER: Or even if it was 8 inadvertent through sheer incompetence as opposed to 9 deliberate intent?

10 MR. GROBE: If the violations were 11 associated with incompetence, I would expect that any 12 future employer would find that out.

13 MR. FOWLER: Has Davis-Besse been 14 assessed any civil penalties to date regarding this 15 reactor head incident?

16 MR. GROBE: No.

17 MR. FOWLER: And several years ago, 18 there was an issue where above ground casts were 19 approved by the NRC for storage at Davis-Besse.

20 Initially, I guess there were some local 21 protests. I was relatively new to the area at the 22 time, and there were some concerns, and they said, 23 well, if the stainless steel liners for the casts 24 are -- and correct me if I'm wrong, five-eights of an 25 inch thick, no problem, they're good to go, they're MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

37 1 blessed by the NRC, but the as delivered cast, if I 2 recall correctly, only had liner thicknesses of about 3 a half an inch, and then miraculously, oh, they're 4 good to go, too, go ahead and put them into 5 operation.

6 What are you doing presently to ensure to us 7 that the casts are safe at this point?

8 MR. GROBE: You're not going to be 9 real happy with this answer. I have no knowledge of 10 the specific activities with respect to dry casts at 11 Davis-Besse. Those are not the activities we're 12 looking into. I can get you in touch with the 13 people that can answer that question.

14 MR. FOWLER: Well, I think from a 15 community standpoint we've already found there is 16 some problems with the NRC's activities with the 17 reactor. Tell us about the casts. Are we safe in 18 your opinion or --

19 MR. HOPKINS: Yes, in my opinion, 20 the casts are safe. I have some knowledge of dry 21 casts. I don't recall the Besse specifically, but 22 if it's a manufacturer, I believe, that, yes, indeed, 23 the manufacturer had approval to make these casts and 24 the thickness was five-eights inches, as I recall, 25 and they were delivered with like one-half an inch, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

38 1 as you stated, and re-doing engineering calculations 2 to go back over that, the one-half inch was found to 3 be acceptable, and we find them acceptable today.

4 There is no danger from the casts at all, but it is 5 true that some casts were manufactured, it didn't 6 exactly meet what they were supposed to originally, 7 but they are safe and that they are manufactured, 8 they have a sufficient safety margin to perform their 9 job.

10 MR. FOWLER: It's just from a local 11 community standpoint and being in the downward hazard 12 zone as we are, it wasn't explained early on when 13 they said, okay, thicknesses of half an inch to an 14 inch or inch great. It was five-eights is okay.

15 Half an inch shows up -- and, oh, half an inch is 16 okay, and in the rule making process of the Federal 17 Government there is always a strong bit of influence 18 by the industry as well as legislatures.

19 Do you generally being seasoned inspectors 20 and employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 21 do you feel additional legislation is needed?

22 Do you need additional inspectors to be more 23 efficient on site?

24 Is the program adequately funded and 25 regulated?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

39 1 MR. GROBE: You're asking huge 2 questions. Let me --

3 MR. FOWLER: Something you may not 4 be able to answer, I understand, because it's a 5 public forum and being recorded.

6 MR. GROBE: Well, certainly we 7 could do more inspections if we had more inspectors.

8 We have two inspectors that are on site all the time.

9 That's their full-time job. Scott's the Senior 10 Resident Inspector at Davis-Besse. You might, in 11 any given year, have about 15 inspections that are 12 performed that range from one week in duration to 13 three or four weeks in duration, and inspectors that 14 come out of the regional office that travel to all 15 the plants in the Midwest, but if we had more 16 inspectors, we could certainly do more inspections.

17 The -- I don't believe there is any further 18 legislation that's necessary. There is no question 19 that this issue should have been detected by the 20 Company and certainly could have been detected by us.

21 There was sufficient information there had we looked 22 at it; we would have come to the conclusion that 23 something inappropriate was going on. The fact of 24 the matter is, we didn't come to that conclusion and 25 that's why we have the Lessons Learned Task Force to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

40 1 find out why that happened and whether or not we need 2 to change our inspection program, what actions might 3 be appropriate, and that report -- the executive 4 summary of that report was made public through a 5 press release and the entire report is available on 6 the web site, and, like I said earlier, those folks 7 will be out here November 6th to discuss with you the 8 results of their evaluation of our performance, so 9 nobody has taken this lightly. I understand your 10 concern. We're looking at ourselves as hard as 11 Davis-Besse is looking at themselves. We will learn 12 and improve as a result of the Lessons Learned Task 13 Force's activities and the actions we're going to 14 take following that, and Davis-Besse is certainly 15 learned a lot of things, and they are improving.

16 I'm not sure what else I can say to you on that 17 subject.

18 MR. FOWLER: Lastly, what about 19 liability insurance on the part of FirstEnergy, what 20 sort of -- and how is that even calculated?

21 Are there any requirements for an operating 22 company such as FirstEnergy to maintain a certain 23 amount of insurance?

24 MR. GROBE: Are you familiar with 25 the Price-Anderson Act?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

41 1 MR. FOWLER: No, no, I'm not.

2 MR. GROBE: Do we have anybody 3 here that's an expert on Price-Anderson?

4 (No response).

5 MR. GROBE: There's a liability 6 fund that was established under the Price-Anderson 7 Act, and I have a very simplistic understanding of 8 it, but if you have more questions, we can certainly 9 get somebody in touch with you, but the way it works 10 is that every Utility contributes to that fund, and 11 that fund is available if there is a nuclear accident 12 to deal with liability concerns, and that's about the 13 extent of my knowledge. I don't get into the 14 financial side of the business.

15 MR. FOWLER: Would you have some 16 way to find out how much money is in that fund? I'm 17 just kind of wondering.

18 MR. GROBE: I don't know.

19 MR. FOWLER: After the events of 20 9/11, the airline industry basically said, hey, we're 21 out of money, and the Federal Government said, gee 22 whiz, the taxpayers will take care of it, and you're 23 good to go, and I'd hate to see FirstEnergy get off 24 the hook if something does happen.

25 MR. HOPKINS: As Jack said, there is MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

42 1 a law that requires insurance for all nuclear power 2 plant operators called the Price-Anderson Act, and 3 Davis-Besse pays a certain amount each year to belong 4 to that, to be covered by the law, and we checked 5 that they said -- checks in to be members of the law 6 and everything else, and the coverage under 7 Price-Anderson, I'm not sure of the exact amount, but 8 I believe it's around one hundred million dollars 9 that's available to pay in the case of a nuclear 10 accident, I think it is.

11 MR. FOWLER: Total?

12 MR. HOPKINS: Total.

13 MR. FOWLER: But we already know 14 from 9/11 that we place the dollar value of human 15 life at 1.8 million dollars --

16 MR. HOPKINS: Well --

17 MR. FOWLER: -- plus the clean up 18 cost for all this valuable farmland in Ottawa County, 19 one hundred million dollars would be a drop in the 20 bucket, gentlemen.

21 MR. HOPKINS: There has been much 22 discussion over is that an appropriate amount or not.

23 That is above me as far as what the Act covers, but 24 that is what the Act covers, and, again, I believe 25 that's an approximate amount. I'm not positive on MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

43 1 the total amount, but that rings true to me as to how 2 much that is.

3 MR. FOWLER: So as a rhetorical 4 question my earlier question may then be correct, 5 perhaps some additional legislation should be 6 considered by our elected representatives to better 7 protect us in the event of this hundred million 8 dollar check which seems like it has fallen short to 9 me. Thank you.

10 (Applause).

11 MR. ARNOLD: Paul Gunther of the 12 Nuclear Information and Resource Service was 13 dismayed --

14 MR. DEAN: Would you please state 15 your name first for our Reporter. Thank you.

16 MR. ARNOLD: Sam Arnold. Paul 17 Gunther of the Nuclear Information and Resource 18 Service was dismayed the Task Force didn't focus 19 attention on Samuel Collins because he overlooked his 20 own staff recommendation to shutdown Davis-Besse by 21 December 31st.

22 My question is why Mr. Collins' actions were 23 not investigated and what were his reasons for 24 overruling his own staff?

25 MR. GROBE: The -- first I want to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

44 1 thank you for coming forward. The Lessons Learned 2 Task Force conducted a review of NRC activities and 3 one of the activities they reviewed was the decision 4 that was made last fall. Sam Collins was part of 5 that decision-making process. We have a group of 6 people that investigate us if we do something wrong, 7 and they are called the Office of the Inspector 8 General. They report to Congress, and the Office of 9 the Inspector General is conducting an investigation 10 of the NRC staff activities that led up to the 11 decision that allowed Davis-Besse to operate for an 12 additional month and a half last year, so it is under 13 investigation. The Lessons Learned Task Force 14 report was provided to them and that's something that 15 they are considering as part of their investigation, 16 so the answer to your question is, it is under 17 investigation.

18 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. My last 19 question is --

20 MR. DEAN: Yeah, the other thing, 21 Sam, I wanted to mention was that, I think it's a 22 misrepresentation to say that Mr. Collins overruled 23 the staff. The decision that was made by the Agency 24 was an agency decision that was made with full 25 consideration of all of the individuals that had MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

45 1 knowledge of what was going on, the technical issue, 2 a very complex technical issue, and there was a large 3 number of staff and managers involved in the decision 4 that made a recommendation to Mr. Collins. He did 5 not overrule his staff.

6 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. The reason one 7 of the inspections was not made was lack of equipment 8 and personnel.

9 Why was there a lack of this -- of these 10 things?

11 MR. GROBE: The reason that we 12 didn't find this problem that occurred over the last 13 four years, I don't want to give you a misimpression, 14 it wasn't the lack of personnel. It was the fact 15 that we didn't choose that activity to look at. The 16 Utility has upwards of a thousand people working at 17 the plant every day. We certainly don't have enough 18 people, and I don't think you would want to pay 19 enough to have so we would have enough people to be 20 able to watch everything that's going on, so we have 21 to choose what activities we're going to look at.

22 We choose the activities based on what we think are 23 the most important things that are going on.

24 Prior to Davis-Besse, no corrosion like what 25 occurred at Davis-Besse had ever occurred before in MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

46 1 the nuclear industry, so we didn't understand that 2 that type of thing could occur. Had we understood 3 that, we may have spent more time looking at 4 activities regarding the reactor head. We didn't do 5 that. It's -- as I said earlier in response to 6 another gentleman's comment, if we had more 7 inspectors, we could do more inspections. We may or 8 may not have chosen that specific activity to look at 9 and part of the Lessons Learned Task Force is to --

10 part of their charter was to look at how we do our 11 inspections, how we choose which activities we look 12 at and provide us their thoughts on how we can 13 improve in that area. Okay? Thank you.

14 (Applause).

15 MR. GROBE: Other questions or 16 comments?

17 MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum with the 18 Union of Concerned Scientists.

19 Jack, I don't want to take issue or debate 20 the point, but I guess I would disagree with your 21 conclusion that the Agency is not taking this issue 22 lightly. The first time I met Mr. Dean was when he 23 was on the EDO Staff back when the Commission was 24 holding hearings on the problems at Millstone. The 25 first time I met you was prior to a series of MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

47 1 Commission meetings on how D.C. Cook was going to be 2 restarted. There hasn't been any Commission 3 interest or hearings into Davis-Besse.

4 Kind of curious as to what's distracting 5 those five that are keeping them from looking into 6 what's going on at Davis-Besse?

7 MR. GROBE: There certainly has 8 been a lot of interest among the commissioners.

9 There hasn't been a Commission meeting, and you would 10 have to ask the question of the Chairman why the 11 Commission has chosen to not have a meeting on 12 Davis-Besse yet. I don't have that answer. I have 13 been responding to questions from the Commission and 14 staff on a fairly regular basis. There is no lack 15 of interest on the part of the Commissioners.

16 MR. LOCHBAUM: I guess from an 17 observation point they held a lot of meetings on 18 Millstone, held a lot of meetings on D.C. Cook, held 19 zero meetings on Davis-Besse. I think that's 20 consistent with what we saw in the Lessons Learned 21 Task Force where the Agency just didn't give 22 Davis-Besse a lot of attention and still does not 23 give Davis-Besse a lot of attention.

24 MR. GROBE: Well, again, I don't 25 want to speculate on what might be the reason that MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

48 1 they haven't had a meeting, a formal Commission 2 meeting. As you recall, we had two meetings, two 3 Commission meetings, on D.C. Cook. I don't know why 4 they haven't chosen to schedule a meeting on 5 Davis-Besse. Again, I'm not the right person to ask 6 that question to.

7 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yeah, I was just 8 pointing it out --

9 MR. GROBE: I don't think it's a 10 lack of interest because I have been responding to a 11 lot of questions.

12 MR. LOCHBAUM: Well, I think you 13 probably responded to a lot of questions on D.C. Cook 14 as well and still had Commission meetings where the 15 public could understand what the Commission was 16 doing.

17 MR. GROBE: David, you're asking 18 the wrong guy.

19 MR. LOCHBAUM: The other guys aren't 20 here.

21 MR. GROBE: Well, I'm sorry, I 22 can't speak for --

23 MR. LOCHBAUM: I can't find these 24 people, so you're the only people that show up, so 25 I'm sorry that you have to take the question, but if MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

49 1 I can find any of the other ones, I would ask them, 2 too.

3 As far as another point, it's the Lessons 4 Learned Task Force, I know it's not directly related 5 to the 0350 Panel, but in some ways it is. I looked 6 at this Lessons Learned Task Force report, which is 7 very thorough and very come complete and it's much 8 better than the Lessons Learned Task Force report 9 from 2000 on Indian Point, which in itself was better 10 than the Lessons Learned Task Force in 1997 at 11 Millstone, which was better than the Lessons Learned 12 Task Force report on South Texas, so this Agency is 13 getting very, very good at the Lessons Learned Task 14 Force production, not so good at fixing the things 15 that these Lessons Learned Task Force reports 16 document. I think the goal should be not to become 17 the best Agency in the world at producing a Lessons 18 Learned Task Force report, but reducing the frequency 19 from two years to let's start with four years at 20 least at the front end. How that relates to you 21 guys is that you're looking at 0350, you're looking 22 at how the Company fixes things. Part of what the 23 task that you have is they're not going to be able to 24 fix everything. They're going to defer some thing 25 until after restart, and you're going to audit that MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

50 1 to ensure that they make the right calls and what 2 they do now and what they defer. The question from 3 the Lessons Learned Task Force point of view is who's 4 looking at those 50 odd recommendations to ensure 5 that the ones that need to be done that affect the 6 work that you're doing are done before Davis-Besse 7 restarts?

8 MR. GROBE: I can -- I don't know 9 exactly who's on the Senior Management Team that's 10 looking at it, but it's being chaired by Carl 11 Paperiello. Carl is one of the Deputy Executive 12 Directors, and there's a number of other Senior 13 Managers that are on the group that has 30 days from 14 the date the Lessons Learned Task Force report to 15 develop the action plan to address the 16 recommendations, so I would expect mid November or so 17 would be the -- will be when they publish their 18 action plan for the Agency.

19 MR. LOCHBAUM: So there won't be any 20 changes before this action plan gets developed in mid 21 November then?

22 MR. GROBE: Well, that's -- I 23 think -- I think you know that's a little bit of an 24 exaggeration. There's been a lot of activity, and 25 Bill just described a little bit of it with respect MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

51 1 to two bulletins that have been issued since 2 Davis-Besse and there's been three or four --

3 MR. LOCHBAUM: No, that's on things 4 that you're asking the industry to do differently.

5 The Lessons Learned Task Force report was mainly 6 focused on how the Agency does things differently.

7 Earlier today in response to Amy Ryder's 8 question about what the NRC is doing, you said your 9 inspections -- your inspectors are going to go in, 10 look at the plant, and if it's not ready to restart, 11 the inspection reports are going to require that 12 those things get fixed, but your inspectors are going 13 to be using the same inspection procedures they used 14 last year.

15 MR. GROBE: No.

16 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yeah, you are.

17 MR. GROBE: The inspections that 18 are done under 0350 are very unique and specialized 19 inspections. Each one has a specifically tailored 20 inspection plan for the specific activities that 21 we're inspecting. It's -- it's not like a routine 22 inspection program at all. Our routine inspection 23 program might generate 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> of inspection a 24 year, something on that order. We've probably 25 already expended in excess of that in the last few MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

52 1 months at Davis-Besse. This panel approves each 2 inspection plan for each inspection that goes on at 3 Davis-Besse today, so it's a very different and 4 unique program specifically tailored for problems at 5 Davis-Besse. It's not part of the routine 6 inspection program at all.

7 MR. LOCHBAUM: I guess the 8 question -- the follow-up question is why don't you 9 use it all the time then? If this is foolproof why 10 didn't you use it to avoid these situations rather 11 than those inspection procedures that don't seem to 12 work very well?

13 MR. GROBE: Well, as I'm sure you 14 can appreciate this is very resource intense and very 15 costly for us. As several people have asked about 16 resources, we don't have enough resources to do this 17 kind of inspection at every plant every day so we 18 have to try to create a routine inspection program as 19 best we can to cover all the bases and obviously we 20 missed this one.

21 MR. LOCHBAUM: Speaking of resources, 22 I had a meeting with Commissioner Merrifield 23 recently. He invited me into his office.

24 MR. GROBE: I thought you 25 couldn't find them. Come on, Dave.

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

53 1 MR. DEAN: Yeah, why didn't you 2 ask him that question?

3 MR. LOCHBAUM: I did ask him that 4 questions. He said it would be in the Lessons 5 Learned Task Force report, so I guess he lied to me.

6 I asked him the question about resources because we 7 said you thought you didn't have enough resources and 8 if you had more resources that would help you out.

9 His answer was you have -- NRR has too many 10 resources. You don't need more resources, so we're 11 trying to help you out and get you more people to do 12 those inspections you like and you got the people at 13 the top saying there's probably too many of you, so 14 who is right in that situation?

15 MR. GROBE: Well, my answer is 16 always the Commissioner is right.

17 MR. LOCHBAUM: It was a trick 18 question with a transcript, yes, and, lastly, if I 19 understood some of the comments this evening, one of 20 the NRC's goals, one of the NRC's only four goals is 21 to improve public confidence, and, I guess, for the 22 record, we'd like to add that the Union of Concerned 23 Scientists has lost confidence in this Agency. As I 24 heard some of the other people kind of express today, 25 the decision that was made by whoever last year, and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

54 1 I think it was Sam Collins, but whoever, was the 2 worst decision I've ever seen you guys make -- ever.

3 I don't see any excuse for what you did, and I -- I 4 had a lot of confidence prior to that -- that 5 decision. In the last year, it's gone, and I don't 6 know what you can to restore that, but something 7 needs to happen because these people deserve it.

8 Whether -- my group doesn't matter or not, but the 9 people living near the plant need to have confidence 10 in you as the regulator. Thanks.

11 (Applause).

12 MR. GROBE: Any other questions?

13 Oh, excellent.

14 MS. SHAW: Hi, I'm Lori Shaw, and 15 I'm the coach of the Circuit Breakers, the young 16 gentleman who came down here, and they have sort of 17 brought me in to all this. My question is, I heard 18 you say about the welding that that was safe when the 19 other gentleman -- and my question is, if the kids 20 come back to me and ask, well, why is that safe, how 21 did you decide that was safe? Has that been tested?

22 Has that repair ever been done in another nuclear 23 facility, and has there been any long-term follow-up 24 with repairing a hole of the same magnitude with a 25 plug?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

55 1 MR. GROBE: Yes, yes, no, yes, 2 and no. You asked a lot of questions. Let me 3 answer the last one first.

4 It is not uncommon to have to cut holes in 5 containments, and it's been done at a number of 6 plants. The containment has two access ports; one's 7 a personal access port which is the size of a person, 8 and the other one is called the equipment hatch, and 9 it's about 20 feet in diameter roughly. There are 10 times during the course of a plant's life when they 11 may have to move a piece of equipment into 12 containment that's bigger than that. This has 13 occurred at a number of plants where they have to 14 replace steam generators, and they cut a hole inside 15 containment and move it in and then weld it up, and, 16 specifically, about your questions on welding, 17 welding is a very common process. Through the 18 process of welding, it's not like gluing something 19 together where -- it's a different kind of material 20 between two pieces of material to glue it together 21 with adhesive. Welding is actually creating the 22 same kind of metal, so, in essence, you have a single 23 piece of metal when you're done. Each welding 24 procedure is developed specific for that welding job 25 and these are tested and reviewed and approved. The MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

56 1 process that the welders go through is tested and 2 reviewed and approved, and then after the weld is 3 done, the weld is examined using what I refer to as 4 non-destructive examination techniques. Essentially 5 for this weld, it was like an x-ray. It's called a 6 radiograph, and they actually look at the weld, the 7 entire weld, using x-rays to make sure that the metal 8 is good metal that they've put in, so the answer to 9 your question is it's a carefully controlled process.

10 It's reviewed and approved ahead of time. It results 11 in a single piece of metal and it's radiographed to 12 make sure it was done correctly, and I have 13 inspectors that witnessed the radiography as well as 14 reviewed the results of the radiography. These are 15 people that are experts in doing that kind of thing.

16 MS. SHAW: Were the repairs done 17 from damage similar as --

18 MR. GROBE: I'm sorry?

19 MS. SHAW: Were the hole plugs 20 used in cases of damage similar to this that there 21 was leaks and a hole and welding was used in that 22 same case scenario?

23 MR. GROBE: Are you now talking 24 about the reactor head?

25 MS. SHAW: Yes.

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

57 1 MR. GROBE: That sort of damage 2 has never occurred before. The Company originally 3 was thinking about repairing the hole in the head 4 instead of replacing the head, and that's a fairly 5 complicated weld, and they decided not to do that.

6 They decided to purchase a new one.

7 MS. SHAW: Okay.

8 MR. GROBE: There is one more 9 thing, these guys are whispering in my ear while I 10 was talking. After the -- all of the work is done 11 at Davis-Besse just prior to restart, there's a 12 special test that's called Integrated Leak Rate Test 13 where they pressurize containment. They actually 14 pump it up in inside and look for leaks, so that's an 15 additional barrier margin of safety test that 16 provides additional confidence that the containment 17 is in good shape.

18 MS. SHAW: Thank you.

19 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir.

20 MR. YOUNG: Richard Young. Good 21 evening. We have the question of whether Mr.

22 Strasma's comment earlier on the civil portion of the 23 penalty phase will be awaiting all the violations to 24 all be added up before an assessment is granted?

25 MR. GROBE: The -- I'll talk a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

58 1 little bit about our enforcement policy, and then 2 I'll turn it over to Bill and he can talk about our 3 normal routine oversight process. They're only very 4 unusual circumstances when we use civil penalties, 5 monetary fines. If a company is involved in 6 discrimination or willful violations, or if there's a 7 very significant event, like a significant 8 overexposure, something like that, those activities 9 are handled under our traditional enforcement or if 10 there is deliberate violations, under our traditional 11 enforcement policy which can result in fines. Other 12 types of violations, normal violations, aren't 13 handled under that enforcement policy, and Bill's an 14 expert in that. I'll let him answer that.

15 MR. DEAN: And if you have our 16 monthly newsletter, there's actually a pretty good --

17 is that what you're referring to, our monthly 18 newsletter?

19 MR. YOUNG: Well, because of the 20 recent developments of the radiation findings that --

21 I know it's a different characterization, a different 22 problem entirely, but I didn't know if you intended 23 to do the NCV notice at the end of the month.

24 MR. GROBE: Okay.

25 MR. DEAN: Yeah. If you get our MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

59 1 monthly newsletter and Vika will --

2 MR. YOUNG: I haven't got the 3 latest one.

4 MR. DEAN: Okay, it has a 5 description there, matter of fact, about of our 6 enforcement policy, which will probably do better 7 than what Jack and I are trying to do here tonight, 8 but with respect to -- you're talking about the 9 radiological issue?

10 MR. YOUNG: Yes.

11 MR. DEAN: First of all, when we 12 have an inspection finding, we look to characterize 13 the inspection finding in terms of its significance.

14 In the case of a radiological event, we will be 15 looking at exposure, did somebody receive exposure in 16 excess of limits? If that were the case that 17 results in the termination of a particular 18 significance which then derives the Agency's 19 response, additional inspection, perhaps confirmatory 20 action letters, orders, violations will be issued.

21 We reserve the right for civil penalties for, as Jack 22 said, significant -- if there was a significant 23 overexposure of an individual, so if that happens to 24 be the case, this would maybe be something that we 25 would consider not only for a violation, but may also MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

60 1 consider for civil penalty, if we do have a 2 significant overexposure. That would be an example 3 of where we would consider civil penalties.

4 MR. YOUNG: Okay. And my last 5 question I have is a violation being the 6 non-tolerance portion of the earlier violations, is 7 that an automatic category one or again category is 8 only for willful?

9 MR. DEAN: You mean severity 10 level one?

11 MR. YOUNG: Severity level, I'm 12 sorry, yes.

13 MR. DEAN: If you're talking 14 about our prior enforcement policy --

15 MR. YOUNG: Of penalties, yes.

16 MR. GROBE: You've got a good tag 17 team here because I'm pretty much an expert in our 18 routine enforcement policy. If you have a 19 deliberate violation, which I think was your 20 question, there's a number of different 21 considerations that go into the categorization of 22 that violation. If it's a very low level 23 individual, there may not be any fines, but there may 24 be just action against that individual. At the other 25 end of the spectrum, if it's a very high level MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

61 1 individual that was involved in that, there would not 2 only be action against the individual, but there 3 would likely be fines and possibly orders against the 4 company, so there's a number of factors. The 5 egregiousness of the violation, and I know it's 6 difficult to think of different levels of 7 egregiousness of willful violation, but one category 8 of a willful violation is what we call careless 9 disregard. If the individual was trained well to do 10 their job and all of the information was there before 11 them and they just didn't do it, we call that 12 careless disregard, and that's a willful violation.

13 That's the lowest level of types of willful 14 violations and it goes up through a deliberate 15 violation, which would be somebody did something for 16 personal gain or for corporate profit where they 17 deliberately, cognitively made a decision to violate 18 requirements, so there is different levels of 19 willfulness, and there is also different levels of 20 individual as far as their responsibility in the 21 organization and all of those factors go into 22 consideration of how you apply the enforcement 23 sanctions.

24 MR. YOUNG: And NCV notice is only 25 after everything's done in totality, right? There's MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

62 1 no piecemeal in NCV letter -- not NCV. What's your 2 regulatory violation letter called?

3 MR. GROBE: It won't be until 4 after the investigation is complete --

5 MR. YOUNG: Okay.

6 MR. GROBE: -- that a decision is 7 made on what sort of sanctions might be associated 8 with the violations of Davis-Besse.

9 MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much.

10 MR. GROBE: Okay? Other 11 questions?

12 MS. BARBOUR: Hi. My name is Emily 13 Barbour, and I got here late, so you may have 14 addressed this earlier, and I'm sorry if you have 15 did.

16 Since I have been here I have heard a lot of 17 talk about -- earlier a woman asked a question about 18 safety, and what safe meant, and it was responded to 19 with a lot of comments on how common processes were 20 or how controlled the process was, and that doesn't 21 necessarily mean safe to me, so I was wondering what 22 safe actually means in terms of a nuclear power 23 plant, and I was also wondering what guarantees you 24 can give to the people here that the nuclear power 25 plant will be safe, not just that the processes MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

63 1 involved will be done to the best that they can be, 2 but that actually there is no threat anymore nor ever 3 will be?

4 MR. GROBE: That's a pretty high 5 standard. I think the question had to do with 6 welding, is that the earlier --

7 MS. BARBOUR: Yeah, that was the 8 earlier question.

9 MR. GROBE: You don't want me to 10 go into that, do you?

11 MS. BARBOUR: Okay.

12 MR. GROBE: Yes?

13 MS. BARBOUR: I was just wondering 14 what safe means in -- I mean, nuclear power is a big 15 complex process, so --

16 MR. GROBE: I'm going to answer 17 this with a couple generalities and then some 18 specific technical information, and you can tell me 19 when to stop. Each of us define safe differently in 20 day to day life. You know, we all drive down the 21 street and there's a risk associated with that. We 22 all do things day in and day out which have risks 23 associated with them, and we make those judgments all 24 the time. Some of us talk on a cell phone when we 25 drive. Well, that's more risky than two hands on the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

64 1 wheel, and we make that judgment that we feel that 2 that's safe, and somebody else may feel that that's 3 unsafe. Someone else may feel that you talking on 4 the cell phone makes me unsafe, so, I mean, each of 5 us define safe differently. Within the context of 6 nuclear power we talk about safety in terms of core 7 damage frequency, and let me tell you what that 8 means. It's the probability of an accident 9 occurring that could damage the reactor core, and 10 that doesn't mean release radioactive materials 11 because there is many barriers to releasing 12 radioactive materials. The first barrier is the 13 nuclear fuel itself, so we talk about safety in terms 14 of what is the probability that the first barrier to 15 the release of radioactive materials could be 16 damaged, and generally we're talking about 17 probabilities in the range of 1 in 100,000 to 1 in a 18 million per year, so that means if a reactor operates 19 for a whole year, the risk of having that first 20 barrier breached is on the order of 1 in a million.

21 That's how we talk about safety. A normal operating 22 reactor in the United States has a core damage 23 probability of somewhere between 10 to the minus five 24 which is one in 100,000 to 10 to the minus 6th which 25 is one in a million, and some violations increase MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

65 1 that risk and as the risk increases our response to 2 the violation increases, so we're right now trying to 3 determine what this risk significance is or was of 4 what happened at Davis-Besse, and that's a very 5 complicated problem because it's a very unusual 6 situation to have a roughly six inch diameter hole 7 99% of the way through the reactor head, so it's a 8 very difficult thing to do, but we're in the process 9 of trying to calculate what that risk significance 10 was.

11 Now, like I said, I first answered your 12 question -- was kind of general; second answer was 13 very technical. I'm not sure I'm answering your 14 question fully, but if -- do you have additional 15 questions? Have I hit it -- the mark?

16 MS. BARBOUR: All right. You're 17 doing an all right job.

18 MR. GROBE: Okay. Okay. Do you 19 have other questions?

20 MS. BARBOUR: Not at the moment.

21 MR. GROBE: Okay. Thanks.

22 MS. LUEKE: Hello, Donna Lueke.

23 I had a couple of questions about what 24 happens to the information from these public 25 meetings?

MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

66 1 MR. GROBE: What happens to the 2 transcript?

3 MS. LUEKE: Yeah.

4 MR. GROBE: It takes us about 5 three or four weeks, but -- in about three or four 6 weeks it will show up on our web site, so it will be 7 available for anybody who's interested that wasn't 8 able to attend the meeting, they can review the 9 transcript.

10 MS. LUEKE: I guess last time we 11 checked was about a month ago, but at that time the 12 notes from August were still not on the web site.

13 MR. GROBE: Well, I'm certain they 14 are now.

15 MS. LUEKE: Okay.

16 MR. GROBE: Our last meetings --

17 this is October, our last meetings in September, the 18 afternoon meeting is up on the web site. The 19 evening meeting was supposed to go up today.

20 MS. LUEKE: Okay.

21 MR. GROBE: So it takes us about a 22 month and -- you know, most of it is the skin wearing 23 off the fingertips of the transcriber to put it on 24 paper.

25 MS. LUEKE: Who reviews those MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

67 1 minutes?

2 MR. GROBE: We review them to make 3 sure that they are reasonably accurate before we put 4 them up on the web site, and then whoever wants to 5 review them, reviews them.

6 MS. LUEKE: As far as the content 7 of those, do you come to some sort of report about 8 that or just read them over or --

9 MR. GROBE: We're making --

10 MS. LUEKE: What happens with the 11 information that we discuss here is what I want to 12 know.

13 MR. GROBE: We're making the 14 transcripts available as a service to the public --

15 MS. LUEKE: Uh huh.

16 MR. GROBE: -- for those people 17 that aren't able to come to the meetings. There was 18 a lot of concern, for example, whether we should 19 conduct all these meetings -- the afternoon meetings 20 in the evening and decided that that wasn't the best 21 way to proceed from a business prospective, but there 22 were people that wanted to see what was going on in 23 the afternoon, so we decided to transcribe all of the 24 meetings so that somebody who's interested in the 25 contents of the afternoon meetings but couldn't MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

68 1 attend could actually find out, so the slides from 2 those meetings are available on the web site. That's 3 generally before the meeting happens, and the 4 transcripts are available about three or four weeks 5 after the meeting happens.

6 MS. LUEKE: Okay. I just wondered 7 because it took so long to get those minutes up and 8 then also I filled out the comment card from last 9 time and asked for someone to contact me and that 10 never happened, and I went on the web site, and, you 11 know, that -- there wasn't a response there, either, 12 so my personal experience as just a local citizen has 13 been that --

14 MR. GROBE: It hasn't been that 15 good, it sounds.

16 MS. LUEKE: No.

17 MR. GROBE: Well, talk to 18 Viktoria.

19 MS. LUEKE: Okay.

20 MR. GROBE: And any one us will 21 call you with whatever questions you have. I don't 22 believe -- somehow we didn't get that comment card, 23 and they might be in somebody's office and just 24 didn't get to us yet, and I apologize for that.

25 MS. LUEKE: 'cause I think that MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

69 1 from what I've seen, you are fairly good at 2 communicating with what happens in the meetings with 3 FirstEnergy. We're getting that information, that's 4 being delivered, and your web site seems and your 5 newsletter -- so those kinds of -- the information 6 flow to the community seems to be reasonably good; 7 however, I'm not sure about the feedback from the 8 community to you, how that's happening, and if it's 9 being taken in in any way.

10 MR. GROBE: Oh, absolutely.

11 We're getting tremendous feedback, and we have gotten 12 tremendous feedback tonight from the community. I 13 have seen a lot of the feedback forms that people 14 send in, so I know that they are eventually getting 15 to my desk. I don't know why yours got misplaced.

16 MS. LUEKE: Well, I'm not too 17 concerned about that one thing, but I guess most of 18 your time is spent talking with the Licensees, right?

19 MR. GROBE: (Nod indicating).

20 MS. LUEKE: And amongst each other 21 with your own management teams and inspectors and 22 all.

23 MR. GROBE: Uh huh.

24 MS. LUEKE: Is -- outside of the 25 problem-solving area, is there any regular system MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

70 1 where people like citizens groups or the Union of 2 Concerned Scientists or Ohio Citizens Actions or news 3 media or those kind of forces are a part of your 4 decision-making is what concerns me --

5 MR. GROBE: Sure.

6 MS. LUEKE: -- because otherwise 7 the loop is too closed just between the -- and 8 naturally if you're spending all your time with the 9 people that are, you know, operating the power 10 plants, those are the people that you're going to 11 listen to.

12 MR. GROBE: Sure.

13 MS. LUEKE: So I just think that 14 there's a structural problem with the communications 15 as I've seen it.

16 MR. GROBE: Let me just tell you 17 what we do have, and it seems to work pretty good, 18 but we could always improve it. You talk about the 19 Union of Concerned Scientists, we're talking to Dave 20 Lochbaum all the time. I mean, he's very actively 21 engaged with us both electronically as well as 22 face-to-face, I receive E-mails from David all the 23 time, so there is a lot of interface between us and 24 the national level of public interest groups. All 25 of our routine inspection reports for every reactor MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

71 1 is available on the web site.

2 In addition to that, for each reactor there's 3 a specific spot on the NRC web site that gives you 4 information regarding the current performance 5 indicators for that plant, the current inspection 6 findings and then you can delve into that, if you can 7 click onto various windows and it will get you back 8 into various documents as well as you can search --

9 we have an electronic database for all of our 10 documents. It's called ADAMS, Agency Document 11 Management System, ADAMS -- I think that's what it 12 is, and you can search and find all the inspection 13 reports for whatever plants you're interested in.

14 In addition to that, we conduct -- I'll say 15 routine public meetings on each plant. For a very 16 good performing plant that has no events, no problem, 17 that routine public meeting might only be once a 18 year, and we might get three or four people that come 19 to those types of meetings. Obviously, for a plant 20 like Davis-Besse we're conducting multiple public 21 meetings per month, and we're getting a lot of 22 interest and a lot of feedback, so depending on where 23 the plant is, we provide what we hope is good access 24 to the public to what we're doing, and if it's not 25 enough, you know, we're willing to do more, but MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

72 1 that's why we're here. We're trying to do that, to 2 provide the public access to us and to what we're 3 doing.

4 MS. LUEKE: I guess it still 5 concerns me because there aren't many Mr. Lochbaum's 6 out there. Not too many of us have that kind of an 7 understanding, and I have devoted a lot of effort to 8 try and understand what's happening to us around here 9 since -- but like with most of the residents around 10 here, it only came to my attention when there was a 11 problem.

12 I guess I'd submit that there -- just as 13 there was a root cause, you found one of the root 14 causes of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse problems to be 15 their corporate culture, and the problems of 16 communication that were caused by that -- that's 17 correct, right? One of the root causes was --

18 MR. GROBE: Yes.

19 MS. LUEKE: I'd submit that maybe 20 that there is a similar root cause in the NRC 21 structure because you spend the majority of your time 22 amongst each other and with the Licensees of the 23 plant, and I guess -- and I am sure that at times it 24 seems like you're under assault from all those other 25 factors from the citizens groups and for those of us MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

73 1 that are upset so that your contact with the public 2 maybe is too limited to crisis situations. In order 3 for you to have a -- a meeting once a year, the three 4 or four people, I don't think is enough to balance 5 the natural prejudice that you're going to have by 6 spending all your time, and I'm just throwing that 7 out there. I don't have an answer for it.

8 MR. GROBE: Well, let me -- I 9 think your comment is very good, and let me respond 10 to it a little bit and see if anybody else has any 11 comments. We refer to that as a loss of 12 objectivity.

13 MS. LUEKE: Yeah.

14 MR. GROBE: And we specifically --

15 MS. LUEKE: That's what I've 16 heard.

17 MR. GROBE: It's something that's 18 of great concern to us. For example, once upon a 19 time many years ago I was a Resident Inspector, and 20 for the Resident Inspector Program, we're very 21 concerned about that because they're literally 22 working at the plant every day.

23 MS. LUEKE: Yeah.

24 MR. GROBE: So we have specific 25 procedures in place that we move Resident Inspectors MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

74 1 every -- not more than seven years and oftentimes 2 it's much more frequent than that, but we don't allow 3 an individual to stay at one plant longer than seven 4 years. Most of the Resident Inspectors move much 5 more often than that. That's because of that exact 6 concern.

7 In addition to that, in each of our 8 performance appraisals, our objectivity is evaluated 9 every year by our supervisor, and so this is not an 10 issue that's lost from us. I can understand your 11 perception that maybe there was a loss of objectivity 12 and the decision that was made, but, you know, that 13 that's something that was evaluated by Lessons 14 Learned Task Force and will be evaluated to much 15 greater detail by the Office of the Inspector 16 General. Vika, did you have something?

17 MS. MITLYNG: Yeah, I want to --

18 MR. GROBE: Come to the 19 microphone, please.

20 MS. MITLYNG: I'm the Public Affairs 21 Officer --

22 MR. GROBE: You got to get closer, 23 Vika.

24 MS. MITLYNG: I'm the Public Affairs 25 Officer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

75 1 think that your comments are really important. The 2 Public Affairs Office is the interface, supposed to 3 be the interface, between you and these factors, the 4 staff, the management of the Commission, and I 5 personally sit in my office eight, nine, ten hours a 6 day. I talk to the media. I talk to citizens, 7 local citizens, who call me and say, hey, you know, 8 we're thinking of buying a condo near Davis-Besse, 9 should I? And I try to provide as much information 10 as I have, and I'm not a nuclear scientist. I'm not 11 an engineer. I'm a Reporter, and so I really try to 12 understand the issues that the Commission deal with 13 and bring them to people who have interests, and we 14 have put together the monthly newsletter where we try 15 as much as we can to describe what we are doing to 16 address the concerns of people who live in this area 17 which are very understandable to me. I have two 18 kids myself and I, you know, I really know where 19 you're coming from, so if you have any suggestions or 20 questions, any of you out here, please call the 21 Public Affairs office in Region 3. You can talk to 22 me any time. Take down my number, it's 23 630-829-9662. My colleague is Jan Strasma. His 24 number is 829-9663, and we will try to answer 25 whatever questions and provide you with information MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

76 1 that you need.

2 MS. LUEKE: Thank you. I think 3 that was very helpful to me because I know that for 4 myself and for many of the people that have come here 5 to make comments that it takes a certain leap to get 6 here because to become even informed about all this 7 is quite complicated and takes a commitment of time 8 and most of us have other -- other things that we do, 9 and also because our neighbors, our friends work at 10 Davis-Besse, and it's an important part of the area, 11 and so for us to ask these difficult questions, I 12 think for every person that asks a tough question, I 13 think you have to realize that there are an awful lot 14 of people that aren't asking questions. I'm sure 15 Communications 101, that's a known thing, but I think 16 in this case, it's even more so because people are 17 afraid, and they'd much rather believe that 18 everything is okay, and that's why it's been so hard 19 to lose faith in those that we thought were 20 protecting us, and I just have one more question, if 21 I may.

22 MR. GROBE: Sure.

23 MS. LUEKE: When I was here a 24 couple months ago, we were talking and -- about how 25 bad this was, and we still don't know how bad this MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

77 1 was. I'm assuming there are still things to be found 2 out, but at that time you said that this wasn't 3 really that bad as far as nuclear power plant 4 occurrences were concerned, that there were worse out 5 there, and with the facts that have come up since 6 that time in the last few months, have you changed 7 your perception of how bad it was here, and how 8 serious this case is?

9 MR. GROBE: I really can't recall 10 what you're talking about, but it could have been the 11 context of the fact that we described multiple 12 barriers to release and even this one barrier wasn't 13 breached, it was very seriously degraded. Was that 14 maybe the context of the prior conversation?

15 MS. LUEKE: That's why I wished I 16 had the --

17 MR. GROBE: Yeah.

18 MS. LUEKE: -- meetings' notes, 19 but I don't know for sure.

20 MR. GROBE: Let me just start off 21 with a different kind of comment on a different tack.

22 As David has indicated he's known me for 23 quite a few years. It's very difficult for me to be 24 associated with an organization that people don't 25 trust. I have been working in this business for a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

78 1 long time. I think I do a good job of it, and I 2 think you should be able to trust us. I think the 3 work that we're doing at Davis-Besse deserves your 4 trust under this 0350 Panel, and I think if the plant 5 is returned to operation, it will only be returned to 6 operation if it's safe. The situation occurred at 7 Davis-Besse, the specific situation of the reactor 8 head was a symptom of a much broader problem at 9 Davis-Besse. The Company described it as a focus on 10 production over safety, and it had ramifications in 11 many areas of the plant. The Company's found a 12 number of problems with a variety of systems at the 13 plant that they were not aware of, so I'm not sure 14 if -- you asked a question; is this problem bigger 15 than with we originally thought? Yes. The head 16 itself was a significant issue because a very great 17 amount of margin -- whenever you design a piece of 18 equipment, when an engineer designs it, he says I 19 need this much, so I'm going to design it to have 20 this much -- excuse me, this much, and that way I 21 have all this design margin. Well, all of that 22 margin was eaten up literally in the corrosion and 23 that's very significant. An accident didn't occur, 24 so that's the good news. The bad news is the 25 situation existed, and the Company is getting their MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

79 1 arms around the full significance of this as far as 2 other problems and other areas of the plant. If you 3 have the opportunity to review the slides or 4 transcripts of the afternoon meetings, or if you can 5 come to one of them, I think they're upwards of 6 24,000 specific work activities that they have to 7 accomplish to fix the problems that they've 8 identified prior to restart, so that just gives you a 9 sense of the number of issues. Many of those 10 problems are very small problems, so there's a bunch 11 of them, so that I think just to give you a context 12 of the number of things that they're finding that 13 aren't what they expected to find.

14 MS. LUEKE: That's not very 15 comforting, I'm sure you know.

16 MR. GROBE: Well, it's not very 17 comforting looking back. I guess the -- somebody 18 earlier, the young lady in the back row asked what 19 safe was. Well, there wasn't an accident, that's 20 the good news. The risk of plant is much higher 21 than what it should have been. We haven't finished 22 calculating that. I'm not sure we're going to be 23 able to precisely calculate what the risk was by the 24 time we get done, but we're going to be able to get a 25 context of what the increased risk was, so the plant MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

80 1 was less safe than what it should have been. Was it 2 unsafe? Well, there wasn't an accident, so -- it's 3 difficult to, you know, put that all into context.

4 It certainly is not acceptable, performance of the 5 plant was not acceptable.

6 MS. LUEKE: Okay. Thank you.

7 MR. GROBE: Uh huh.

8 (Brief pause).

9 MR. GROBE: Well, it looks like we 10 have run out of energy.

11 I certainly appreciate all the comments that 12 we've received tonight, and I encourage you to come 13 again. If you can come in the afternoon, you can 14 hear FirstEnergy give their presentation. If you 15 can't come, that information is available on the web 16 site. Avail yourself of that, call Vika at any time 17 or her counterpart, Jan Strasma, and if she can't 18 answer your question, she'll certainly get to me and 19 between the two of us, we should be able to answer 20 any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

21 Oh, fill out the feedback forms, please. Thank you.

22 THEREUPON, the hearing was adjourned.

23 24 25 MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

81 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF OHIO )

) ss.

3 COUNTY OF HURON )

4 I, Marlene S. Rogers-Lewis, Stenotype Reporter 5 and Notary Public, within and for the State aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby 6 certify that the foregoing, consisting of 80 pages, was taken by me in stenotype and was reduced to 7 writing by me by means of Computer-Aided Transcription; that the foregoing is a true and 8 complete transcript of the proceedings held in that room on the 16th day of October, 2002 before the 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I also further certify that I was present in 10 the room during all of the proceedings.

11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 12 and seal of office at Wakeman, Ohio this day of

, 2002.

13 14 15 Marlene S. Rogers-Lewis Notary Public 16 3922 Court Road Wakeman, OH 44889 17 My commission expires 4/29/04 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900