ML071840004

06/18/2007 Transcript of Meeting with Union of Concerned Scientists Requesting Action Under 10CFR2.206 Regarding Protection Against Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle Leakage Fast Corrosion Scenario

ML071840004
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/18/2007
From:	Thomas Wengert NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIII-2
To:
Wengert, Thomas J, NRR/DORL, 415-4037
References
FOIA/PA-2007-0299, NRC-1644
Download: ML071840004 (46)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Meeting with Union of Concerned ScientistsDocket Number:(n/a)

Location:Rockville, Maryland Date:Monday, June 18, 2007Work Order No.:NRC-1644Pages 1-44 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 MEETING WITH UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 4 (PETITIONER) REQUESTING ACTION UNDER 10 CFR2.206 5 REGARDING PROTECTION AGAINST CONTROL ROD DRIVE 6 MECHANISM NOZZLE LEAKAGE FAST CORROSION SCENARIO 7+ + + + +8 MONDAY 9 JUNE 18, 2007 10+ + + + +11The meeting was convened at 10:30 a.m. in Room 120-5B4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White 13Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 14 Maryland.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 I-N-D-E-X 1 Introductions and Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . .3 2 Remarks from Petitioner 3By David Lochbaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 4 Questions from the Petition Review Board and 5NRC Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6 Conclusions and Questions from 7Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8

3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 (10:26 a.m.)

2MR. WENGERT: Tom Wengert, the Project 3Manager for Davis-Besse, the Petition Manager for this 4 2.206 petition here at the NRC headquarters.

5CHAIR NIEH: Ho Nieh from NRR Division of 6Policy and Rulemaking. I'm the Petition Review Board 7 Chairman.

8MS. LONGO: Giovanna Longo, Office of the 9 General Counsel, Senior Attorney.

10MR. BURGESS: Bruce Burgess, Region III.

11I'm the Branch Chief of Oversight of Davis-Besse and 12 Perry.13MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, NRR. I'm the 14 2.206 Petition Coordinator.

15MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum, Union of 16 Concerned Scientists, the Petitioner.

17MR. COLLINS: Jay Collins, Technical Lead on 18the Petition Review Board. I work in the Division of 19 Component Integrity.

20MS. EVANS: Michele Evans, NRR. I'm the 21 Division Director, Division of Component Integrity.

22MR. GIBBS: I'm Russell Gibbs, Branch Chief 23in the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, which 24 covers Davis-Besse.

25 4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. HACKWORTH: Sandra Hackworth, Operations 1 Officer, Office of Investigations.

2 MR. MATTHEWS: Tim Matthews, Morgan Lewis.

3 L [MS. DIECKER]: Jane (inaudible) 4[Diecker], Morgan Lewis, summer assistant.

5MR. HAEMER: Robert Haemer, Pillsbury 6 Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

7 MR. HALNON: Greg Halnon, Director of 8 Regulatory Affairs for First Energy.

9MR. JENKINS: I'm David Jenkins, First 10 Energy counsel.

11 MR. SCHMUTZ: Tom Schmutz, Morgan Lewis.

12MS. SHEPHERD: Sandy Shepherd, Clifford &

13 Garde.14MR. SPALDING: Jeff Spalding, Clifford &

15 Garde.16MR. GUNTER: Paul Gunter, Nuclear 17 Information Resource Service.

18MS. ROSENBERG: Stacey Rosenberg, Branch 19Chief, the Special Projects Branch in the Division of 20 Policy and Rulemaking.

21 MS. CHUNG: Yeon Ki Chung (inaudible).

22MS. CRUZ: Holly Cruz, Division of Policy 23 and Rulemaking Project Manager.

24MS. JONES: Heather Jones in NRR in the 25 5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Operating Experience Branch.

1MS. CASEY: Lauren Casey, Operating 2 Experience Branch.

3MS. SHOOP: Undine Shoop, Office of 4 Executive, Director for Operations.

5MR. WENGERT: This is Tom Wengert. We've 6completed introductions at the NRC headquarters.

7Would the Region III please continue with 8 introductions?

9MR. GAVULA: NRC Region III. This is Jim 10 Gavula, Reactor Inspector now at the DRN.

11MR. YULI [ULIE]: Joe Yuli [ULIE], OI Region 12 III.13MR. ZURAWSKI: Paul Zurawski, Region III, 14 Branch 6, Reactor Engineer.

15MR. WENGERT: Is the Resident Inspector from 16 Davis-Besse on the line?

17MR. SMITH: Yes, the Resident Inspector 18 Richard Smith from Davis-Besse online.

19MR. WENGERT: Are there any other parties on 20 the line to introduce themselves?

21PHONE PARTICIPANT: I don't see any other 22 parties on the line.

23MR. WENGERT: Okay. Then I think we can 24begin with the meeting. All right, thanks. First, 25 6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433I'd like to thank everyone for attending this meeting.

1My name is Tom Wengert, and I am the Davis-Besse 2Project Manager. I'm also the Petition Manager for 3this 2.206 petition under consideration. The Petition 4 Review Board Chairman is Ho Nieh.

5As part of the Petition Review Board's or 6PRB's review of the 2.206 petition, Mr. Lochbaum of 7the Union of Concerned Scientists has requested this 8opportunity to address the PRB and provide additional 9information on items number two and number three of 10the petition. This meeting is scheduled to last from 11 10:30 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.

12The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 13Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 14reporter. The supplement, the transcript, excuse me, 15the transcript will become a supplement to the 16petition that was submitted on April 30th, 2007 and 17supplemented on May 10th, 2007 by the Union of 18Concerned Scientists. The transcript will also be 19 made available publically.

20Today's meeting is a Category 3 public 21meeting. The public is invited to observe the 22proceedings. Prior to concluding this meeting, 23members of the public may provide comments regarding 24the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 25 7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 petition process.

1I've prepared an attendance slip that I am 2now circulating. I ask that everyone sign it before 3the conclusion of this meeting. The meeting summary 4that the staff will be issuing will include a listing 5 of all those in attendance and on the phone today.

6I've also distributed a meeting feedback 7form. I encourage you to take the time to fill it out 8so we can learn if there's anything we need to do to 9improve the effectiveness of these meetings. You can 10leave the form on your chair, hand it to me, or mail 11them back to me in the next week or two, and we will 12 get it into our system.

13We already had the introductions. At this 14time, again, Mr. Lochbaum, could you please introduce 15 yourself for the record?

16MR. LOCHBAUM: David Lochbaum, Director of 17the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned 18 Scientists and the Petitioner.

19 MR. WENGERT: Thank you. I'd like to 20emphasize once again that we need to speak clearly and 21 loudly to make sure that the court reporter can 22accurately transcribe this meeting. If you do have 23something that you'd like to say, please first state 24your name for the record. At this time, I'll turn it 25 8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 over to PRB Chairman Ho Nieh.

1CHAIR NIEH: Thank you, Tom. Good morning, 2David. Good morning, guests. Welcome to the public 3meeting today on the 2.206 petition submitting 4regarding a report prepared by consultants to the 5First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, or FENOC, 6related to the 2002 reactor pressure vessel head 7corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 8Station. This report is also referred to as the 9 exponent [Exponent] report.

10 I want to just provide some background on 11the 2.206 process that the NRC has for those members 12of the public here that may not be familiar with it.

132.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 14describes the process that permits anyone to petition 15the NRC to take an enforcement-related action to 16modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or 17take any other appropriate enforcement action to 18resolve a problem. Details of the NRC's 2.206 process 19can be found in NRC's Management Directive 8.11, which 20 is a publically-available document.

21The purpose of today's meeting is to provide 22the Petitioner with an opportunity to give the NRC 23additional information and explanation in support of 24this petition request. The purpose of this meeting is 25 9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433not to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner or 1 the public to debate the merits of the petition 2request. This meeting is not a hearing and no 3decision regarding the merits of the request are going 4 to be made today during this meeting.

5I want to provide some background on the 6petition before we get into Mr. Lochbaum's 7presentation. On April 30th, 2007, David Lochbaum of 8the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Petitioner, 9submitted to the NRC a petition requesting the NRC to 10take actions against the Davis-Besse licensee as a 11result of the conclusions reached in a report prepared 12on the licensee's behalf, that is the exponent 13[Exponent] report. In the April 30 petition request, 14the Union of Concerned Scientists requested the 15following three actions. I'll summarize those 16 briefly.17The first action was to immediately order 18the Davis-Besse reactor shut down and remain shut down 19until the NRC completes an independent review of the 20exponent [Exponent] report. In the second action, if 21the NRC's independent review determines that the small 22leak and fast corrosion rate scenario described in the 23 exponent [Exponent] report is valid, immediately order 24all pressurized water reactors in the United States to 25 10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433be shut down and remain shut down until the NRC 1approved either an enhanced inspection scope and 2frequency or an enhanced leak detection capability 3that would alert control room operators to small 4leakage from one or more control rod drive mechanism 5nozzles so that operators could identify the problem 6prior to any damage progressing to the depths that 7were found at the Davis-Besse head. And the third 8action, if the NRC's independent reviews at FENOC had 9submitted an inaccurate report to the NRC, it was 10requested that the NRC revoke the operating license 11 for FENOC.

12Mr. Lochbaum, did I characterize those 13 requested actions --

14MR. LOCHBAUM: In my presentation, I'll have 15a slight emphasis. It's slightly different, but I'll 16get that in my presentation. It's close enough for 17 the background.

18CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. The NRC has 19 conducted certain petition review activities since the 20receipt of this petition, and I just want to go over 21those briefly again to bring everybody up to speed on 22how we got to where we are here today. The Petition 23Review Board, or PRB, met on May 2nd, 2007 to discuss 24the request for immediate action, which was to 25 11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433immediately order the shut down of the Davis-Besse 1 facility. On May 3rd, 2007, the Petitioner was 2notified by telephone that the Petition Review Board 3denied this request for immediate shut down of Davis-4Besse because the NRC staff had already performed an 5assessment of the exponent [Exponent] report and had 6concluded that the current reactor pressure vessel 7head inspection requirements are adequate to detect 8reactor pressure vessel head degradation issues before 9they result in significant corrosion. The NRC 10provided an acknowledgment letter stating such to the 11 Petitioner on May 18, 2007.

12By letter dated May 10, 2007, the Petitioner 13submitted a supplement to the petition. This 14 supplement questioned whether other failure mechanisms 15could have contributed to the head corrosion or 16whether current inspection programs are inadequate 17because the probability of flawed detection is not 100 18 percent. 19The Petition Review Board again met on May 2016th, 2007 to discuss the second and third items in 21the original petition request and the supplemental 22information supplied on May 10th. The Petition Review 23Board's initial recommendation was to reject the 24second item because the previously-mentioned NRC 25 12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433assessment had determined that it had met one of the 1criterion for rejection described in Management 2Director [Directive] 8.11 because, basically, the NRC 3had already been or this issue had already been 4subject to NRC staff review and evaluation. In 5addition, the NRC staff evaluation of the May 10th 6supplement to the petition request concluded that it 7did not raise any new issues that would cause the NRC 8 to change its assessment of the exponent [Exponent]

9 report. 10The Petition Review Board's initial 11recommendation was to reject the third item for review 12because the petition did not meet all the criteria 13necessary for reviewing petitions under 2.206.

14Specifically, in the request, the Petitioner did not 15present facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the 16requested action, which was to revoke the Davis-Besse 17operating license because of providing inaccurate 18information. The Petitioner was informed of these 19recommended actions by telephone on May 29, 2007. In 20accordance with the NRC's 2.206 process, the 21Petitioner requested to address the PRB concerning its 22initial recommendations for items two and three in the 23 original petition.

24I want to state again that the purpose of 25 13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433this meeting is to provide the Petitioner with an 1opportunity to give the NRC additional information in 2support of the petition request. It's not to provide 3an opportunity for the Petitioner or members of the 4public to question or examine the PRB regarding the 5merits of the petition request. This meeting, again, 6is not a hearing and no decision will be made 7regarding the merits of the petition request.

8Following this meeting, however, the Petition Review 9Board will conduct an internal meeting to make a 10 decision on the actions requested by the petitioner.

11As described in our process, the NRC staff 12may ask clarifying questions in order to understand 13better the Petitioner's presentation and to reach a 14reasoned decision on whether to accept or reject the 15Petitioner's request in the internal meeting that will 16follow. The NRC staff and the licensee, who have also 17been invited to this meeting, will have the 18opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the 19 Petitioner. For clarification purposes, the licensee, 20that is First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, is not 21a part of the decision-making process in the NRC's 222.206 petition review process. We invite the licensee 23here so they are aware of an ongoing request for 24action against their facility, and we also offer them 25 14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433the opportunity to ask any questions of the 1 Petitioner.

2MR. LOCHBAUM: I do have one question about 3 that.4 CHAIR NIEH: Yes, sir.

5MR. LOCHBAUM: That's not exactly what the 6 agenda indicates.

7CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Can we clarify that, 8 Tom, on the agenda?

9MR. WENGERT: What are you specifically 10 referring to, Dave?

11MR. LOCHBAUM: The agenda has five items, 12the first one being the introduction and opening 13remarks, which I assume this is. The second is 14remarks from the Petitioner, which would be me. The 15third one is questions from the Petition Review Board 16and NRC staff, which is you guys and not them. And 17the fifth is conclusions and questions from members of 18the public, which I guess they may be lumped into, but 19it's a little bit different than the way you've 20 characterized it.

21CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Sorry for any confusion 22in the agenda, but in our process we do invite the 23licensee here, and they will be provided that 24opportunity to ask any clarifying questions of the 25 15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433presentation. Oversight on our part regarding the 1 meeting agenda.

2Okay. I do want to take just a brief 3opportunity to introduce the Petition Review Board 4before I turn the floor over to you, David.

5Typically, the Petition Review Board consists of the 6Chairman, which is usually a senior executive manager 7at the NRC. There's a Petition Manager, and there are 8also other members of the Board that are chosen based 9 on the technical area that's under review.

10Again, my name is Ho Nieh. I'm the Petition 11Review Board Chairman. I'm also the Deputy Division 12Director for the Division of Policy and Rulemaking in 13NRR. Tom Wengert is the Petition Manager. Tanya 14Mensah is the 2.206 Coordinator in NRR. And we also 15have technical staff from NRR headquarters and also 16Region III on the Petition Review Board. The Division 17of Component Integrity is represented on the Board by 18Jay Collins, and Region III is represented by Mr.

19Bruce Burgess. The Petition Review Board also obtains 20advice from our Office of General Counsel represented 21by Jenny Longo, and the Office of Enforcement, which 22we are represented by Maria Schwartz, but I didn't see 23 Maria here today.

24Okay. Are there any questions from anyone 25 16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433in the room regarding these introductory remarks or 1information before we get into the main discussion of 2the meeting? Okay. If not, Dave, I'd like to turn it 3over to you for your presentation. Just one quick 4reminder, just for purposes of our transcriber here.

5Before you speak, please identify yourself and your 6 organization. Thank you.

7MR. LOCHBAUM: Good morning. This is David 8Lochbaum with the Union of Concerned Scientists. I 9appreciate this meeting, this opportunity this morning 10to present some of our thoughts on the petition 11process of the petition and why we think it should 12come out slightly different than the PRB is 13 recommending.

14The title of this presentation this morning 15is Nuclear Pinocchio. The second slide explains a 16little bit why. A lot of people associate Pinocchio 17with his penchant for lying, but it's also a fact, at 18least initially, Pinocchio was a marionette whose 19actions were controlled by whoever held the puppet 20strings. This petition is all about who's lying and 21 who's controlling those puppet strings.

22Slide three restates the summary of what we 23ask for in the petition. The only slight difference 24between the way I stated it here and in the petition 25 17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433and how Mr. Nieh characterized it was in items two and 1three we wanted the NRC to determine whether that 2report was valid, the exponent [Exponent] report was 3valid or not. And depending on what the NRC's 4determination was on the validity of that report, take 5two actions. So we did not, in the petition, vote on 6whether we thought the exponent [Exponent] report was 7valid or not. We thought that was the NRC's role, and 8that's why we characterized the petition the way it 9 was structured.

10Slide four summarizes what the PRB's 11responses were. No across the board. Slide five was 12our take on that. We disagreed with all of the PRB 13responses, including the initial one, which is not the 14subject of today's meeting. We think the NRC has the 15 wrong nos on all three of those decisions.

16Slide six addresses a point that I wish I 17hadn't used in the petition. It was the words 18"independent review." I used that in all three of the 19asks in the petition, and I think it caused some 20confusion that was unintended. What I meant by 21independent review was, basically, the NRC to 22determine whether the licensee was complying with the 23requirements of 10 CFR 50.9: completeness and accuracy 24of information. As I stated earlier, we did not vote.

25 18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433For one thing, it didn't matter what our vote on the 1exponent [Exponent] report was. That was the NRC's 2lone call was to whether that was valid or not valid, 3 accurate or not.

4So, basically, what the petition was seeking 5to do was to get the NRC to determine if First Energy 6complied with the requirements of 50.9. So that 7independent review was basically just to see the NRC's 8 call whether that was, conformance was met or not.

9Slide seven, we extracted a portion from the 10NRC's May 14th, 2007 demand for information to the CEO 11of First Energy. That was approximately two weeks 12after our petition was submitted, and the NRC demanded 13some additional information from the company, from the 14licensee, regarding the exponent [Exponent] report.

15We find it incredible or we don't believe that it's 16possible for the NRC to have taken this step without 17either having already determined whether it was 18complete or accurate or at least have that be a step 19in the process to making that determination. In other 20words, the information obtained in response to the 21demand for information will be viewed by the Agency in 22making a determination whether 50.9 was met or not, 23which is basically what we were seeking initially in 24 the petition was items two and three.

25 19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Slide eight provided why we thought the 1words "independent review" wouldn't be confusing, 2although we do admit that it did introduce some 3confusion unknowingly. This is an extract from the 4report the NRC submitted to the United States Congress 5on March 14th, 2005. Then NRC Chairman Diaz was 6responding, on behalf of the Agency, was responding to 7the report done by the National Academy of Sciences, 8which, among other things, recommended an independent 9review of spent fuel storage capabilities at all 10plants in the country. In the NRC's response to 11Congress, the NRC reminded the Congress that the NRC 12is an independent body, can do an independent 13assessment because that's the NRC's job. So we felt, 14since the NRC uses independent reviews quite 15liberally, that it was okay for us to do that, and 16then we were a little bit surprised when that caused 17some confusion. So I apologize for that. That wasn't 18 our intent to confuse the matter, but it did so.

19On slide nine, I reiterate what we were 20trying to do or seeking to do with the whole 21independent review language. We sought to have the 22NRC, which is an independent agency, according to then 23Chairman Diaz, determine if one of its regulations, 24specifically 10 CFR 50.9, had been violated by one of 25 20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 its licensees, in this case First Energy, with the 1submittal of that exponent [Exponent] report. In 2other words, was First Energy lying then, or are they 3 lying now?

4We recognize and we anticipate that at some 5point in this discussion it will be brought up that 6the exponent [Exponent] report was not a First Energy 7product. It was a consultant's report submitted to 8the Agency by First Energy, but it was not a First 9 Energy product. I call your attention to a letter 10dated May 9th, 2005 from Theodore Quay to myself.

11It's in Adams [ADAMS] under ML051470029. I couldn't 12get you a copy of that today because it's not a 13publically-available document, and how I was able to 14obtain the ML number of a not publically-available 15 document --

16CHAIR NIEH: What was the year of that 17 document again, David?

18MR. LOCHBAUM: 2005. May 9th. The reason 19it's not publically-available, it's a response to an 20allegation that we had made earlier that year. We had 21alleged, we had cited the document submitted by the 22Southern California Edison Company (inaudible) where 23they submitted a Westinghouse topical report. The 24second page of the Westinghouse topical report that 25 21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433was enclosed in that letter had a disclaimer saying 1that Westinghouse says this may not be complete, this 2may not be accurate; we make no warranty whatsoever.

3It was the standard disclaimer you see in those kind 4of reports. So the allegation we made was that 5Southern California Edison could not have met its 50.9 6obligations to submit complete and accurate 7information if the second page says we don't stand 8behind this report as being complete or accurate. And 9in the letter I cited, the May 9th, 2005 response, Ted 10Quay, on behalf of the Agency, said the licensee is 11responsible for all materials submitted, even those 12prepared by its contractors and agents and whatsoever.

13So in that case, Southern California was 14 responsible for that Westinghouse topical report being 15complete and accurate. In this case, First Energy is 16responsible for the exponent [Exponent] report being 17complete and accurate because they're the ones that 18submitted it to you guys. I wish I could have 19brought, had a copy of that, but it's not public. I 20 couldn't print it out this morning downstairs.

21So it goes back to what First Energy told 22the NRC a number of times. In this case, it's from 23the October 3rd, 2003 meeting. First Energy in those 24days, when it was trying to get permission to restart 25 22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Davis-Besse, listed all the things they had done wrong 1to allow this condition at Davis-Besse to exist, 2breakdown at the individual management level, which 3allowed the event to occur. And many times, they said 4it was their fault. It was a breakdown of management 5 oversight, it was a breakdown of QA, it was a 6breakdown of corrective actions, it was a breakdown in 7-- since we only have two hours, I can't list all the 8places they said there were breakdowns, but it was 9quite a long list of areas they said they had broken 10 down.11Slide 11, now they're saying, or at least in 12that exponent [Exponent] report, it says on the bottom 13half of that slide, "This event was not only 14unexpected but was not foreseen or predicted by any of 15the extensive prior experience with boric acid 16corrosion or from any of the inspection and analysis 17of CRDM cracking in nuclear plants worldwide from 1994 18 to 2002."

19The second document I provided today is an 20issue brief that I prepared and issued on August 13th, 212001, shortly after the NRC issued the information 22bulletin on CRDM cracking. August 13th, 2001. I call 23your attention to the second page. "What happens when 24CRDM nozzles crack? CRDM nozzle cracking can lead to 25 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433rupture of the nozzle followed by ejection of the CRDM 1control rod or leakage of reactor water under the 2unprotected outer surface of the reactor vessel 3causing its failure." And paragraph two below that 4 goes into more detail about why that can occur.

5I'm a boiling water reactor person. That's 6most of my experience. When this CRDM nozzle cracking 7thing was first identified at county [Oconee], I spent 8a day in the NRC's public document room, and the 9documents referenced in this provided the basis for 10that. It's a 1994 new reg [NUREG], new reg [NUREG] CR 116245 from October of 1994, which provides very clearly 12that it was foreseen, it was predicted, it was not 13 unusual.

14But that's the exponent [Exponent] report.

15Again, you guys, Mr. Collins and others, can go back 16and show that that shouldn't have been a surprise to 17anybody. That was the reason the inspections were 18 being done, but that's neither here nor there.

19Slide 12 is a copy, at least on the color 20version, is a copy of the red photo. It looks more 21dramatic. This was handed by First Energy employees 22to an NRC inspector in April of 2000, who merely filed 23it away. That and six others just like it were filed 24away. No action was taken by the NRC regarding that 25 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433red photo. The plant was allowed to run for 1 approximately two more years.

2Slide 13, this also looks better in color.

3You've caught First Energy red-handed here with this 4exponent [Exponent] report. They basically, the 5response they made to your demand for information, 6they backpedal off that report faster than the 7Indianapolis 500 winner. And, again, that's your call 8as to whether the exponent [Exponent] report is valid 9or not, but First Energy has backed off from it, so I 10think it gives you a clue. It's very clear that that 11exponent [Exponent] report contradicts quite, maybe 12not 180 degrees but about as close to 180 degrees as 13 you'll ever see.

14From what they provided you earlier in the 15root cause report, in the response to the notice of 16violation, the civil penalty, all that stuff, the 17exponent [Exponent] report totally contradicts that.

18You've caught them red-handed by asking them to put it 19 on the docket.

20Slide 14. If we look at fall of 2001, the 21First Energy came in many times and told the NRC it 22could keep Davis-Besse running without the mandated 23inspections, the requested inspections, even though 24the licensee for North Anna and Surry, faced with the 25 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433same information and the same challenge, voluntarily 1shut down their reactors for the requested 2inspections. If I recall correctly, North Anna and 3Surry weren't even scheduled for refueling outages, so 4they did a mid-cycle outage to comply with the NRC's 5bulletin and conduct the inspections that the NRC felt 6were warranted. First Energy could have done that, 7very easily could have done that in fall of 2001, shut 8down their reactor. And even if the exponent 9[Exponent] report is 100-percent right, they would 10have found that damage in fall of 2001 instead of 11February the next year or March of the next year. And 12the response would have been more like South Texas' 13for the bottom-mounted instrumentation damage instead 14of the two-plus year outages they worked out a number 15of collateral damage caused by their management or 16 lack of management.

17Approximately three and a half years later, 18the NRC fined First Energy a record $5.45 million for 19numerous violations, including failing to meet 50.9.

20So this company's used up it's get out of jail free 21cards in terms of providing false information. Just 22a few years ago, they came in and said we've learned 23our lesson, they got things in place to prevent this 24from happening again. And two years later, it happens 25 26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433again. They provide a report to the NRC saying 1they're basically entirely blameless and there was 2nothing they could have done to keep Davis-Besse from 3 running into the damage it did.

4 So today the NRC is on which end of the 5puppet strings? Are you going to dance again as you 6did in fall of 2001 in buying the lies that First 7Energy was telling you? Or is the Agency going to 8protect the public and hold this licensee accountable?

9Slide 15. All we're asking is something 10we've been asking for like 10 years or 30 years, even 11before I came to UCS, is stop doing rearview mirror 12regulating. Stop waiting for events, headlines to 13tell you whether it's a good or bad situation before 14you take action. You were definitely concerned at 15Davis-Besse in fall of 2001 to the point of drafting 16an order, but you lacked absolute proof. So you 17waited until everybody on the planet recognized that 18was a problem before you took action. Now you're 19faced with a similar situation where this licensee is 20clearly not meetings its obligations under the law, 21under the regulation 50.9. Take action now. Don't 22wait for conditions to get so bad that nobody on the 23planet can dispute it except for perhaps a couple of 24 paid consultants.

25 27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433The last slide. You know, it's often said 1that the truth will set you free. If that's true, 2then repeatedly failing to tell the truth should have 3the opposite effect and must cost you that freedom.

4The NRC must not allow First Energy to repeatedly tell 5lie after lie, repeatedly fail to comply with 50.9 6again and again without any sanctions that mean 7anything because it's obviously not having an effect.

8It's not being a deterrent. It's not slowing down or 9stopping this behavior on the part of this licensee.

10Therefore, what we think needs to be done is 11that, if the NRC determines that the exponent 12[Exponent] report is non-valid, which it appears like 13they're on that path to do so, the NRC should revoke 14the license. This licensee has a pattern of failing 15to meet its obligations under the regulation. You 16shouldn't be an accomplice or a facilitator or an 17enabler of that bad performance, that bad behavior.

18I call your attention to the case of Gail C.

19VanCleave, which is my favorite NRC enforcement 20 action. Gail C. VanCleave was a clerk at the 21warehouse at DC Cook. She used her dead mother's 22Social Security number to apply for the job as a clerk 23in the warehouse at DC Cook, got caught, and when the 24NRC Office of Investigations asked her about it, she 25 28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433said she'd do it again if she was a single mother, 1working mother, needed to put money on the table.

2Because she said she'd do it again and she showed no 3contrition and no I've learned my lesson, it will 4never happen again, the NRC banned her from the 5industry for five years, which is essentially a 6lifetime ban because it would be hard to come back in.

7She did it once, she said she'd do it again.

8This company did it more than once, keep saying 9they'll never do it again, so not only the fact they 10repeatedly do it, they're lying to you when they say 11they're not going to do it again. Again and again and 12again this company has a problem meeting its 13obligations under the regulations. The NRC needs to 14make that stop. They've been given many 15opportunities. It doesn't look like another slap on 16the wrist is going to bring about the change in 17behavior that's needed, so maybe you need to revoke 18the license and give that plant to somebody else who 19isn't veracity challenged or truthful challenged.

20There are licensees that can meet their obligation, 21who can learn from their mistakes and take steps to 22prevent it from happening again. This licensee 23doesn't apparently be one of those, but there are some 24 out there who do, are able to do that.

25 29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433So revoke the license. And if you want to 1then issue it to somebody else who is not veracity 2challenged, and that's another case, but this licensee 3is used up. If you determine that exponent [Exponent]

4report is false, this licensee has used up its get out 5of jail free cards and should lose its rights and 6 obligations, privileges to run that reactor.

7That's basically all I wanted to add or 8explain what we thought on the petition. I hope I 9didn't stray across that line in debating the merits 10 of the petition but --

11 CHAIR NIEH: No, I don't think you did.

12MR. LOCHBAUM: I appreciate that. I'd be 13 glad to answer any questions from anybody.

14CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Thank you for your 15presentation. At this time, we'll get into that, NRC 16staff questions for the Petitioner. I do have a few, 17but I'd like to ask the staff that are here on the 18 Petition Review Board to see if they have any 19 questions at this time. Jay?

20MR. COLLINS: Jay Collins. I don't believe 21 I have any further questions.

22MR. WENGERT: Tom Wengert. No, no further 23 questions.

24 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Jenny Longo?

25 30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MS. LONGO: Hi, Mr. Lochbaum. My name is 1Jenny Longo from OGC. My question to you is I just 2want to make sure that I understand your assertions 3about inaccurate statements, which specifically. And 4as I understand it, you've identified what I believe 5are two. The first is FENOC's statement that the 6event was unexpected, not foreseen or predicted by any 7of the extensive prior experience that boric acid 8corrosion or from any of the inspection analysis of 9CRDM cracking in nuclear plants. Am I correct that 10 you're saying that that was an inaccurate statement?

11MR. LOCHBAUM: What I'm saying is that 12contradicts what they said in three or four slides 13later, which they said it was management breakdowns, 14they had opportunities that were missed, and so on.

15What they're saying in that report, the exponent 16[Exponent] report and the quote that you cited is 17different from what they said in 2003 in the NOV 18response and a number of other cases. I'm not saying 19which ones right; that's the NRC's determination. I'm 20just pointing out that the issue is were they lying 21then or are they lying now? Because those two things, 22 both cannot be true.

23 MS. LONGO: And as I understand it, the 24other possibly inaccurate statement, in the spring of 25 31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-44332007 FENOC told NRC that FENOC was entirely blameless 1 in keeping Davis-Besse running without inspection.

2MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. That one you've already 3taken action for with the $5.45 million fine that was 4issued in April of 2005. The NRC has already reached 5 that determination that that was a 50.9 violation.

6 MS. LONGO: Okay, thank you.

7 CHAIR NIEH: Anything else, Jenny? Bruce?

8MR. BURGESS: Just one question, David.

9 Bruce Burgess from Region III. With regard to the 10difference between what they said in 2002 with regard 11to the root cause report and the information contained 12in the exponent [Exponent] report, is it possible that 13one could be oriented towards management control 14systems while the other is a more detailed technical 15 understanding of what actually caused the crack?

16 MR. LOCHBAUM: Exactly.

17 MR. BURGESS: Two separate, if you will --

18MR. LOCHBAUM: When I read the exponent 19[Exponent] report initially, it looked to me -- and, 20again, my vote on the exponent [Exponent] report, 21whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down, doesn't matter.

22That's the NRC's call. But to answer your question, 23when I reviewed the exponent [Exponent] report, it 24looked like it was attempting to serve a different 25 32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433purpose. The original root cause was to identify all 1the problems that the company faced that could have 2prevented that outcome, so it was basically trying to 3look for as long a period of possible because that 4would have provided more and more missed opportunities 5that, had things been different, would have prevented 6 that outcome.

7The exponent [Exponent] report was looking 8in the opposite way. What was the worst case? What 9was the fastest way for this scenario to develop? So 10you're not looking at the number of opportunities, 11missed or not. You're looking at the shortest 12distance. And, basically, that's what it came up with 13was the fastest growth rate, the fastest corrosion 14 rate, and so on.

15Having done that, the company then received 16that. It had an obligation to determine whether that 17changed its earlier view of what happened, when, and 18why. By submitting that to the NRC with no report 19saying we have this under consideration, basically 20that was viewed as what the company's current position 21is. That kind of forced the NRC to issue the demand 22for information saying what's the context behind this 23report? At the end of the day, if you look at how 24fast they backed off of the exponent [Exponent]

25 33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433report, they had plenty of time to do that from 1December of 2006 when they received that report and 2March of 2007 when they provided that report to the 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

4So, yes, there might have been different 5reasons for that, but the company had enough time to 6go through the steps necessary to determine what the 7context was and to provide a complete and accurate 8assessment for the report and what it means to the 9 NRC. They didn't do that.

10MR. BURGESS: Thank you. One final comment.

11 Have you read the DFI response yet?

12 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes, I did.

13 MR. BURGESS: Okay, thank you.

14MR. LOCHBAUM: For a couple of hours last 15 Thursday.16 MR. BURGESS: Thank you.

17CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Thank you, Bruce.

18 Tanya, do you have any questions for the Petitioner?

19 MS. MENSAH: No.

20CHAIR NIEH: Does any of the regional 21participants -- this is Ho Nieh again, PRB Chair. Do 22any of the Region III participants have any questions 23 for Mr. Lochbaum that are on the phone?

24 PHONE PARTICIPANT: None from Region III.

25 34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. I have a few, 1and these are, again, for clarification purposes.

2This is Ho Nieh again, the Petition Review Board 3Chair. I do want to state that I was not the PRB 4Chair when the petition was first received by the NRC.

5There was another management representative that 6served that function, but I'm back in my normal job 7right now, so I'm coming back up to speed on this 8 particular issue and what you've submitted.

9You mentioned that there was some confusion 10with the independent review. Can you just explain 11 that to me again, what the specific confusion was?

12MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. This is Dave Lochbaum 13with UCS. In one of the calls, and I forget the date, 14when the PRB representatives called me to inform me 15 what the PRB's initial decision, preliminary decisions 16were, the statement was, "The NRC has decided not to 17do an independent review. However," and I forget the 18rest of the words, "we've decided that item two 19doesn't meet the criteria for the petition," or so on.

20But in each of the responses, it was the NRC has 21decided not to do an independent review. That 22 response had followed a call about a week earlier 23where the NRC staff called me and asked me what did I 24mean by independent review. And during the course of 25 35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433that discussion, it was if the NRC hired consultants 1to go out there and check the math and do all the 2other things necessary to determine if the exponent 3[Exponent] report is valid, would you consider that an 4independent review? And I said that's among the 5things that would satisfy me in terms of what an 6independent review is, but we weren't asking for that 7 level of effort on the part of the NRC.

8So it looked to me when I got that call that 9that whole, the fact that the NRC wasn't doing an 10independent review, which I'm not sure I agree with, 11but was a factor in the PRB's decisions. And I felt, 12first of all, and, in fact, I think I told the PRB 13that it was clear that I had been suckered, I think 14was the language I used. It looked to me that the PRB 15had relied too heavily on what an independent review 16was and, having decided not to do an independent 17review, that that weighed heavily in the decision not 18to grant the actions requested in the petition. So 19 that was the background, my perception of the 20 background of the independent review confusion.

21CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I just want to make sure 22I understand that because part of this clarification 23process here, I want to ensure that the Petition 24Review Board, when we conclude from this meeting and 25 36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433we have our internal meeting, that we thoroughly 1review what you've given us. And I'm sort of a new 2player in this, so I just want to make sure I 3understand precisely what the nature of your petition 4 is. So thank you for that. Jenny?

5MS. LONGO: If I could make a clarification.

6When you were told that the PRB decided not to or the 7Agency decided not to do an independent review in 8using the word and the understanding we had based on 9conversations with you and then explained why the 10initial recommendations were to not accept number two 11and number three, the decision about not doing an 12independent review and the decisions about the initial 13recommendations didn't have anything to do with each 14other. We just were trying to answer the request you 15 made, which was if you do an independent review.

16 MR. LOCHBAUM: I appreciate that 17clarification, but since the first sentence out of 18both the staff's response for the PRB denials was the 19staff has decided not do an independent review, it 20certainly didn't look like it was separate but equal.

21MS. LONGO: Again, we were trying to answer 22 your complete request.

23 MR. LOCHBAUM: I understand.

24MS. LONGO: And what we were trying to say 25 37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433was we're not going to do the independent review as we 1understood you meant that phrase to mean, but, in any 2case, on the merits of acceptance or rejection, here 3is why we, here's our initial recommendation and here 4is why. So, you know, we apologize for any confusion, 5but we were trying to be complete in our answer to 6 your request.

7MR. LOCHBAUM: I take full responsibility, 8all the blame for the confusion, and I'll continue to 9 do so and not change it a couple of years down the 10 road, like others might.

11CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I think I got it. You 12blurted a little bit for me. Okay. So the issue is 13not so much what an independent review would entail 14but rather what it would result in. Is that kind of 15 where you were headed at?

16MS. LONGO: No, no. I'm just saying that, 17in saying that, in attempting to respond to Mr.

18Lochbaum's requests in explaining the reasons for the 19 initial recommendations, we were trying to give a 20complete answer to his request, which was do a review 21and, if you do a review, you know, then you should do 22certain other things. And we needed to answer both 23 parts of the request. That's all we were doing.

24CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I understand. Thank 25 38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433you. You made another statement regarding the 1licensee FENOC backing off on the exponent [Exponent]

2 report. Can you clarify that for me?

3MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. I think the date is 4June 13th, 2007. The licensee responded to the May 514th, 2007 NRC demand for information with a fairly 6lengthy response. It came in from Mr. Joseph Hagan to 7somebody at the NRC. I reviewed that response, and 8they pretty much distanced themselves from the First 9Energy report. In fact, at one point, I forget the 10 page number --

11CHAIR NIEH: Distanced themselves, just to 12 clarify, from the exponent [Exponent] report?

13MR. LOCHBAUM: From the exponent [Exponent]

14 report.15 CHAIR NIEH: Okay.

16Mr. LOCHBAUM: At one point, First Energy 17says that, "While we respect," I don't have this 18exactly right because I'm not reading, "While we 19respect the technical sophistication employed by 20exponent [Exponent], we think the better approach 21would have been to rely on the physical data that 22would better match the conditions." That's basically 23a eulogy for the exponent [Exponent] reports. You 24couldn't have buried a report more eloquently than in 25 39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433that sentence. And the rest of the response is also 1pretty much backing off of what the exponent 2[Exponent] report says. That's their opinion; that's 3not ours. It also did that, although this petition 4didn't deal with the Mattson report, but they also, 5they distanced themselves even further from the 6Mattson report, but that's not part of this petition.

7CHAIR NIEH: Okay. What was that? The 8 Manson report?

9 MR. LOCHBAUM: Mattson report.

10 CHAIR NIEH: Mattson report. Okay.

11MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. Even though it's not 12part of this petition, it does speak to the behavior 13of this licensee. When the NRC heard about the 14reports and asked for a copy, the only thing they were 15provided was the exponent [Exponent] report. Then the 16resident inspector at Davis-Besse queried the company 17as to why the insurance company keeps referring to a 18751-page report and you only provided us a 661-page 19report. At that time, sometime in May, First Energy 20said, "Well, there is a second report dealing with 21that subject that we provided." So this licensee 22 doesn't, isn't forthcoming. It's like going to a 23dentist and extracting teeth to get information from 24them. Although that Mattson report is not part of 25 40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433this petition and I'm not attempting to add it to this 1petition, I think what they've done with the exponent 2[Exponent] report is enough, more than enough.

3CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Those are all the 4questions I had. Tom, where are we at in the agenda?

5MR. WENGERT: Well, I think if there are any 6other questions or comments from the members of the 7 public, I think that we can --

8CHAIR NIEH: Yes, I think we're at the point 9in the agenda right now where we would invite members 10of the public to ask any questions they have of the 11NRC regarding the process. And I think we had also 12stated that there was an opportunity for the licensee 13to query Mr. Lochbaum on the issues presented in the 14petition. So at this time, I'm looking over to our 15participants from First Energy. Do you have any 16 questions for Mr. Lochbaum?

17 MR. HALNON: No, we don't have any 18 questions.

19CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. Now I'm going 20to just open it up to the rest of the room. Are there 21any questions from any of our other guests here today 22for the NRC about our petition process and what we're 23 doing here today?

24MR. SPALDING: I have a question. Jeff 25 41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Spalding from Clifford & Garde. I'm curious. Is the 1NRC, as part of a petition review, doing any sort of 2evaluation of the exponent [Exponent] report, or is an 3independent review denial of whatever the independent 4review status is mean that there is no evaluation 5being done by the NRC? So my question, is there any 6evaluation being undertaken by the Agency as to the 7 validity of the exponent [Exponent] report?

8CHAIR NIEH: As I understand it, and I'm 9going to look at our representatives from the Division 10 of Component Integrity to supplement this response, 11but as I understand it the NRC has looked at the 12exponent [Exponent] report and evaluated the content 13of the report. It looks like they did have some 14questions that they had passed along to First Energy 15and the demand for information, and they had 16responded. I haven't read their response in that June 1713th letter that Mr. Lochbaum had mentioned, but the 18answer is, as I understand it, is he asked that the 19 NRC is looking at, has looked at the report.

20MR. COLLINS: This is Jay Collins, Division 21of Component Integrity. The exponent [Exponent]

22 report provides a couple of items. One is the 23calculation model, which shows that accelerated 24corrosion/erosion rates can happen and talks about 25 42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433certain conditions which are necessary for those to 1occur. And then it takes and applies those to the 2specifics of some previous items from the Davis-Besse 3experience and tries to show that these events could 4have occurred at Davis-Besse, providing a cracking and 5leakage time line going up to that process. The 6overall report, as far as doing a complete independent 7review, in our classification of an independent 8review, we tried to look at whether or not we would 9fully endorse the report or we would fully reject the 10 report. There was a significant use of resources.

11What we did on initially obtaining the 12report was we performed an assessment. We looked at 13the necessary conditions. So we accepted the exponent 14[Exponent] report's ideals [ideas] without question at 15that point and just looked at the conditions necessary 16to cause that accelerated corrosion and erosion rates.

17We found that that took a process of about five years 18of cracking to develop through these nozzles to cover 19the extent necessary for the conditions. We looked at 20our inspection program and verified that our 21inspection program would be able to identify this 22cracking going forward, and we have an assessment, 23which is publically available. I'm sorry I don't have 24the Adams [ADAMS] number for that, but it was May 4th 25 43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433when it was published. And we could get you 1 additional information on it.

2That's the type of assessment that we've 3done on the report. So we've identified that the 4exponent [Exponent] report itself is not a safety 5 issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

6However, the calculation aspect is something that 7we're still looking into, and we're still doing 8research in this area as far as upper heads, and 9that's still being looked into. Did that kind of give 10you an assessment for what we're looking at as far as 11this area? Why we had maybe the confusion on what we 12 wanted to say as far an independent report.

13MR. SPALDING: In assessing the 14calculations, I realized it's a broad question, but is 15there any sort of time frame that you have on that, 16 how long that process takes?

17MR. COLLINS: As far as -- it depends upon 18who we would necessarily need to get involved. What 19we were looking at was, since it was not an immediate 20safety concern, since we were addressing it through 21our current regulatory requirements for inspections, 22it would not have as high a priority. And, therefore, 23it was looking to take at least a couple of years.

24This is, once again, initial assessments and just 25 44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 looking at various impacts of the items.

1 MS. EVANS: To clarify, though, we're not 2specifically doing any additional review of the 3exponent [Exponent] report. We've got our own recent 4program ongoing that does include this kind of 5information data. So what he's referring to is not a 6direct response to the exponent [Exponent] report.

7Oh, I'm Michele Evans, Director of Division of 8 Component Integrity.

9CHAIR NIEH: Thank you. Did that help, 10 Jeff?11 MR. SPALDING: I think so.

12CHAIR NIEH: Are there any other questions 13from any other members of the public that are here for 14the NRC? Going once, going twice. Okay. With that, 15I would like to conclude this meeting, and we'll 16secure the telephone connection. Headquarters 17operations officers, if you're able to do that with 18us. Thank you, our Region III participants. Mr.

19Lochbaum, thank you for taking the time out of your 20schedule to come and provide us with the information.

21That will help us do a thorough and complete review of 22your petition. And thank you to all the other guests 23that have joined us here today at the NRC. Meeting 24 over. Thank you.

25 45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433(Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 1 concluded at 11:19 a.m.)

2 3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15