ML030440294

(7 Pm) Transcript of Public Meeting Davis-Besse Oversight Panel Activities

ML030440294
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	01/14/2003
From:	NRC/RGN-III
To:
References
Download: ML030440294 (106)

Text

1 1

2 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5

Meeting held on Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 6 7:00 p.m. at Camp Perry, Clubhouse #600, Port Clinton, Ohio, taken by me, Marlene S. Rogers-Lewis, 7 Stenotype Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio.

8 9

10 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

2 1 MR. GROBE: Good evening.

2 THE AUDIENCE: Good evening.

3 MR. GROBE: Why dont we get 4 started, its 7:00. My name is Jack Grobe. Im 5 the NRCs Chairman of the Oversight Panel for the 6 Davis-Besse facility. If you cant hear me, just 7 raise your hand or something. Well try to make 8 sure we use these microphones correctly.

9 The purpose of our meeting tonight is to give 10 members of the public an opportunity to understand 11 what we did this afternoon. We had about a three 12 hour meeting with the Utility, and then took some 13 questions and answers, provided some answers this 14 afternoon, and in a few minutes Im going to ask Tony 15 Mendiola to summarize this afternoons meeting.

16 Before I do that, I would like to introduce 17 the NRC staff that are here today. Bill Dean is the 18 Deputy Director of the Division of Engineering in our 19 headquarters offices in the Washington, D.C. area, 20 and hes also the Vice Chairman of this panel.

21 MR. DEAN: (Indicating).

22 MR. GROBE: Tony Mendiola is the 23 Supervisor of the licensing activities in 24 headquarters.

25 MR. MENDIOLA: (Indicating).

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

3 1 MR. GROBE: And Jon Hopkins on his 2 left is the licensing Project Manager for 3 Davis-Besse.

4 MR. HOPKINS: (Indicating).

5 MR. GROBE: On the other end of 6 the table up there is Scott Thomas.

7 MR. THOMAS: (Indicating).

8 MR. GROBE: Hes the Senior 9 Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse facility. He 10 reports to the Region III office in Chicago. He and 11 the fellow on his right, Doug Simpkins --

12 MR. SIMPKINS: (Indicating).

13 MR. GROBE: -- who is the Resident 14 Inspector report to the site everyday and perform 15 inspections for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 16 Davis-Besse.

17 Also tonight, we have Jay Collins. Jay, 18 raise your hand.

19 MR. COLLINS: (Indicating).

20 MR. GROBE: Jays an engineer who 21 is actually assigned to headquarters, but hes been 22 working with us for about four months now --

23 MR. COLLINS: (Nod indicating yes).

24 MR. GROBE: -- in various 25 capacities both in the Region III office and most MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

4 1 recently for the last couple months hes been 2 assigned full-time at Davis-Besse. We also have 3 some of the support staff from Region III -- Jan 4 Strasma in the pink shirt back there.

5 MR. STRASMA: (Indicating).

6 MR. GROBE: He is -- actually, Im 7 sorry, Jan, its a red shirt. He is our Public 8 Affairs Officer in Region III.

9 (Laughter).

10 MR. GROBE: And next to him is 11 Roland Lickus in the pink glasses, and Roland is our 12 State and Government Affairs liaison in the Region 13 III office.

14 The wonderful person out in the lobby is 15 Nancy Keller. Nancy is the Resident Office 16 Assistant. Shes our administrative support. She 17 does an excellent job supporting these meetings, and 18 thats it from the NRC, I think.

19 The -- this meeting is being transcribed as 20 are all of our meetings regarding Davis-Besse. In 21 about three weeks after each meeting the 22 transcription is available on our website. Theres 23 a wealth of information available on our website 24 regarding Davis-Besse and all of the slides and all 25 of the transcripts from all of the public meetings, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

5 1 as well as a whole variety of photographs of 2 equipment at the plant, as well as documents that we 3 issue regarding our oversight at Davis-Besse are all 4 there for you folks to observe.

5 At this time, I think Id like to ask Tony 6 Mendiola to summarize this afternoons meetings and 7 then well get into questions and answers.

8 MR. MENDIOLA: Thanks, Jack. I 9 apologize for speaking up here. Its the only place 10 I can have all my notes scattered out to try to 11 capture a three and a half hour meeting that we had 12 this afternoon.

13 The licensee came in with a very aggressive 14 agenda to discuss the status of their restart 15 activities and other activities at the plant, and we 16 were unable to go through the entire agenda. Ill 17 try to capture the items that we did go through as 18 shortly as I can, try to keep it from being a three 19 and a half hour briefing here. Just make sure 20 everybody has the information, theres still copies 21 out front, of course, we have the NRC Update, looks 22 vaguely like this document which basically captures 23 all the NRC activities associated with Davis-Besse 24 for the month of January 2003, and then there should 25 be a copy of the licensees presentation out in the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

6 1 lobby as well. If theres extra copies out there, 2 you can probably refer to them. If you have any 3 questions about this presentation Im about to make 4 or if you have any additional questions, you can see 5 me during a break or maybe after the meeting.

6 Basically, after we opened the meeting, we 7 have our intros and updates and then the NRC begins 8 the meeting by recapping what has happened since the 9 last time we met. Last meeting that was held here 10 for the 0350 Panel, first meeting here at Camp Perry, 11 was held in mid December, very similar in structure 12 to these -- this meeting today and this meeting this 13 evening, a meeting with the licensee held in the 14 afternoon and a meeting with the public held in the 15 evening. Besides that meeting as well, which we 16 recapped, there was a special meeting held later in 17 the month of December in Region III where we 18 discussed with the licensee various design questions 19 and various system health status questions and got an 20 update on those programs at the -- at Davis-Besse.

21 At that point, we then branched off and 22 talked about the NRCs restart checklist. This is 23 basically an administrative document which we try to 24 capture in one document all the various issues and 25 statuses of various programs associated with the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

7 1 restart of Davis-Besse.

2 We discussed the status of the inspections, 3 the status of the various inspection reports which 4 were issued after the inspections are completed. We 5 highlighted the various areas that are still in 6 progress and discussed the continuing NRC inspections 7 that we had faced in front of us between now and 8 restart of the plant.

9 Additionally, we also discussed the upcoming 10 meeting that is going to be held on January 30th in 11 the regional office in Chicago where well have a 12 further discussion on the safety culture and programs 13 at Davis-Besse. After bringing those updates to the 14 table, we then proceeded -- well, FirstEnergy then 15 proceeded with their agenda. They had three main 16 points they wanted to make.

17 One, the first point was to demonstrate that 18 they were ready to make progress to support restart.

19 Second point was that theyre ready for fuel 20 reload, and the third point was to discuss their 21 progress in working with human performance and safety 22 culture in a safety conscious work environment, and 23 all that information is captured in the slides that 24 the licensee presented, and, like I said, I think 25 there are copies out in the lobby. Basically, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

8 1 though, they started, go first into the progress 2 toward restart. They first discussed briefly the 3 physical plant changes, the actual modifications 4 being made to the plant. They focused on three 5 primary areas, areas that weve discussed in the 6 past; the emergency sump work, the seal cavity work 7 and the reactor coolant pump refurbishment. There 8 was a discussion of the status of all three of those 9 projects, as well as pictures, and, like I said, 10 youll find those in the slides that they provided.

11 We then discussed, if you will, the 12 non-physical plant work, the restart status of their 13 programs and other issues. Restart status work 14 discussion was centered primarily on the charts you 15 can see on the far wall there taped to the mirrors.

16 That basically had to do with the corrective actions 17 the plant is working and numbers and work off rate 18 that they associated with those various programs.

19 Then there was discussion of the corrective action 20 program, the fact, of course, that its been 21 undergoing an assessment and improvement and that new 22 improved program, if you will, will be implemented in 23 the near future with the goal and date of 24 implementing that enhanced program of next month, 25 February 2003.

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

9 1 At that point, we then heard -- I think its 2 the first time weve heard about the reactor coolant 3 system integrity management program, basically a 4 program that the plant has undertaken to increase the 5 overall awareness, if you will, throughout the entire 6 staff of reactor coolant system leakage, making sure 7 everybody understood all the limits and boundaries, 8 and, if you will, work toward early detection and 9 corrective action and as basically the program could 10 be set up, if you will, to correct the deficiencies 11 that were found in the past.

12 After discussing their progress toward 13 restart, they then moved onto the second item of 14 their desired outcomes which was basically to 15 demonstrate that they were moving toward fuel reload, 16 basically moving to what we call Mode 6. The first 17 part of their presentation discussed personnel 18 readiness, a frame in mind, if you will, the 19 operations department and the operators, individual 20 briefings, and, if you will, coaching and counseling 21 that they have been receiving to make sure that 22 theres a personnel readiness factor involved here.

23 Then moved forward to basically a variety of programs 24 and reviews associated with evaluating the condition 25 reports and the corrective actions associated with MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

10 1 restart. All those had to deal -- Im sorry, all 2 those had to do with refueling. They discussed the 3 restart station review board, basically a review 4 board thats set up to review the items prior to 5 refueling and restart, an independent operations 6 department review and they introduced a mode, a 7 restraint manager, an individual who would be 8 responsible for evaluating these condition reports 9 and corrective actions to make sure that theyre they have 10 appropriately binned those that have to be completed 11 before the plant can be refueled and those that can 12 be appropriately binned for restart, and then 13 basically they discussed how they would complete, if 14 you will, a final review of all the items prior to 15 refueling and restart and then to make sure all these 16 processes would be in place throughout restart of the 17 plant.

18 At that point, we found ourselves in a 19 deficit of time. We skipped over a variety, the 20 rest of the presentation of the licensees associated 21 with fuel reload which is -- we were going to discuss 22 fuel reliability and integrity assurance and moved 23 onto a discussion of the human performance safety 24 culture safety conscious work environment issues.

25 There was an introduction of Dr. Haber. Dr. Haber MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

11 1 is a contractor provided -- I mean, hired by 2 Davis-Besse. In order to -- her role and function at 3 this point will be to implement the new safety 4 methodology of the plant. There was a presentation 5 made to discuss, if you will, the FirstEnergy model 6 of safety culture which has three principal elements, 7 policy commitment, manager commitment and individual 8 commitment. Policy commitment is basically to make 9 sure that all the plant paperwork, if you will, will 10 support the safety culture, all the procedures are in 11 place, all the documents indicate, if you will, the 12 appropriate safety culture environment. Managers 13 commitment to make sure the managers understand the 14 safety conscious work environment program, and then 15 ultimately individual commitment to make sure that 16 everyone, the entire staff at the site, understands 17 commitments to be made and involving the FirstEnergy 18 model on safety culture, and there was a lot of 19 graphical and other descriptive texts that were in 20 the slides, and, like I said, I invite you to read 21 those rather than summarize them all here.

22 They did, however, spend some time discussing 23 the safety conscious work environment pillars.

24 Basically, its a five piece item. Theres a base, 25 they actually had a -- it was here earlier, and I MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

12 1 dont see it now, but they actually had a graphic, 2 that had, if you will, a basement or a base level of 3 basics principles, basic standard work principles 4 that you would expect to see at any working 5 environment, and then on top of those were four 6 pillars which were made to support the rest of the 7 safety conscious work environment to visualize, if 8 you will, the support of the safety conscious work 9 environment at the site.

10 The first pillar was Management Support and 11 Worker Confidence. Basically to summarize that 12 presentation was to provide confidence in the 13 managers care and provide confidence, if you will, 14 to the workers that the managers care about safety 15 and safety conscious work environment at the plant.

16 The second pillar was to ensure the 17 corrective action program. Oh, Im sorry, the second 18 pillar was the Corrective Action Program, basically 19 to provide the employees the feelings that their 20 items were being resolved, and --

21 THEREUPON, a note was passed to Mr. Mendiola.

22 MR. MENDIOLA: Oh, thank you, if you 23 do happen to have the licensees handout, the slide 24 that Im referring to here is slide number 57, which 25 is on Page 29. Anyway, like I say, the second pillar MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

13 1 was the Corrective Action Program.

2 The third pillar basically was the Employee 3 Concerns Program. An important piece of this, of 4 course, to ensure that theres the confidentiality is 5 used to resolve issues the employee brings up --

6 actually, not only that, but is effective in 7 resolving those issues to provide, if you will, a 8 trust in the program, that the employee has a trust 9 in the program, that the Employee Concerns Program is 10 working and is effective at Davis-Besse.

11 And the fourth and last pillar is basically 12 the Safety Conscious Work Environment Review Team.

13 This team is chartered to review those pending 14 actions and seeks to avoid the perceptions of 15 discrimination within the program and basically seeks 16 to oversee the contractor efforts associated with the 17 program. Basically, the program is then summed up 18 as these four pillars, and the basic principles is 19 seek to create a safety conscious work environment 20 program at Davis-Besse.

21 At that point we were well over three hours.

22 We then proceeded to skip the rest of the 23 presentations, the licensees presentations, which 24 was to provide a schedule update and move right 25 basically to closure and then we can -- then we MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

14 1 finished.

2 MR. GROBE: Okay, thanks, Tony.

3 MR. MENDIOLA: Sure.

4 MR. GROBE: Tony briefly mentioned 5 that were going to have a meeting in Chicago on 6 January 30th. There are times when its more 7 effective for us and for the Utility to meet in 8 Chicago, there have been very few of those, but when 9 we do that we make sure that we provide an 10 opportunity for those folks in headquarters through a 11 video link to observe the meeting and participate in 12 the meeting, and then also we provide a very high 13 quality telephone conferencing link where you can 14 join the meeting, listen in, and then participate at 15 the end over a telephone line, and those that have 16 done that in the past have told me thats very 17 effective, so we will be having a meeting on January 18 30th in Region III, and you can join that meeting 19 over the telephone, its a toll free number. The 20 focus of that meeting is going to get into a lot more 21 detail on how the company is going to assess the 22 safety culture of the organization to ensure that the 23 types of deficiencies and decision making that have 24 occurred in the past that resulted in the shutdown 25 dont reoccur, and thats something that is very MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

15 1 important to the NRC to ensure that theres lasting 2 correction of the issues at Davis-Besse, so that will 3 be our first public meeting to get into a lot of 4 detail on the question of safety culture.

5 Tony mentioned that out in the lobby there 6 are copies of the Utilitys slides. There should 7 also be copies of our monthly public newsletter. If 8 you didnt get a copy and youd like one, we can send 9 you one, or thats always posted on our website, so 10 thats available there, too, and, finally, theres an 11 important document out there which is our feedback 12 form, and its important to us because were always 13 looking to improve these meetings, and if you would 14 pick up one of those and provide us your feedback.

15 Its on a single sheet of paper. You just fold it 16 up, drop it in the mailbox, and it comes to us, and 17 then we can get your insights as to how we can better 18 improve the meetings and make changes as necessary.

19 I dont believe there is any other 20 introductory information. At this point, what I 21 would like to do is lay out a little bit of structure 22 for how were going to proceed tonight. We would 23 like to try to limit comments to the three to five 24 minute range to allow anybody that wants to make a 25 comment to have that opportunity, and Id like to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

16 1 start with any public officials or representatives of 2 public officials that are here tonight and ask them 3 to come forward if they have any questions or 4 comments. When you do come forward, please, there 5 should be a sheet of paper and a pen -- there is, 6 sign your name and introduce yourself, and then go 7 forward.

8 MS. ROZAK: Is this working? Yes, 9 it is. My name is Dianne Rozak, and Im a Township 10 Trustee in Danbury Township and that is here in 11 Ottawa County. I am President of the Board of 12 Township Trustees, and we are the eastern-most 13 political subdivision here in Ottawa County. I am 14 here this evening to represent our Board of Trustees.

15 We are well aware of the critical role that 16 Davis-Besse does play in the economy of Ottawa 17 County. Davis-Besse is not just a major employer.

18 They are responsible for greatly assisting our 19 Countys major source of revenue, and that is the 20 tourism industry. If youre not a resident of this 21 County, I would like to ask that when you leave here 22 this evening please take a look at the businesses 23 that youll see when youre driving home. Allow me 24 to give you a little bit of a heads up at what youre 25 not going to find. Nowhere will you see a General MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

17 1 Motors or a Ford Plant. You wont see heavy 2 industry, large factories, five story office 3 buildings or business complexes. You also wont see 4 many sidewalks, and I can almost guarantee you are 5 not going to find anybody driving a Mercedes unless 6 they are lost. The traffic lights that you tally up 7 around here you can probably count them on one hand.

8 Youre not going to find a Mortons Steakhouse, but 9 youll see a Ponderosa, and we dont have a Neiman 10 Marcus department store or a Saks Fifth Avenue. Out 11 here, we have Wal-Mart. Were rural America, but 12 what we do have is Lake Erie, and it is a tremendous 13 natural resource and, because of that, our survival 14 here is dependent upon catering to hundreds of 15 thousands of tourists that visit us each summer. We 16 do that with family owned businesses such as motels, 17 restaurants, gift shops and a variety of other small 18 retail outlets. Did you know that on any given day 19 here in Ottawa County between Memorial Day and Labor 20 Day that there are at least a quarter of a million 21 people visiting? Our entire permanent population 22 here is only 40,000 people. Did you know that last 23 summer over 22,000 people climbed the 77 steps to the 24 top of the Marblehead Lighthouse? Now, that number 25 is extremely important because it represents less MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

18 1 than 20% of the tourists that actually visited that 2 State park. Those were just the folks that wanted 3 to climb up to the top to view the expanse of our 4 great lake. Whats really significant about all of 5 this is the fact that we here in the tourism industry 6 have less than six months to earn our living. We 7 are a fair weather County, and we have fair weather 8 visitors. People do not come here to spend their 9 money when its snowing, when its raining or when 10 its cold.

11 What is Davis-Besses role in all of this?

12 My friends and neighbors who are employed at 13 Davis-Besse can tell you as well as I can. These 14 commendable employees who respect their employer and 15 deeply care about their work not only need their 16 jobs, they want their jobs. They want to continue 17 to provide safe and reliable service to this County 18 in order to keep our fragile economy going in the 19 right direction. Quite simply, its just a matter 20 of balance. Without Davis-Besse our Countys 21 resources will slowly drain away. All we are asking 22 is, please, dont let that happen to us. Thank you 23 very much.

24 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

25 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

19 1 for your comments. I appreciate the perspective you 2 brought. We dont often hear those kind of comments.

3 Our focus is safety, and thats our only focus. As 4 Davis-Besse presented this afternoon, they continue 5 to make progress, and there is still a lot of work to 6 be done, and well continue to provide oversight and 7 make sure that work is done correctly. Thank you 8 very much.

9 MR. ARNDT: Good evening. My name 10 is Steve Arndt. Im the President of the Board of 11 Ottawa County Commissioners.

12 During quite a number of these past months, 13 weve heard quite a bit of testimony from the 14 industry of the depth with which they have gone 15 through the facility of the physical plant. They 16 have invested millions of dollars in this outage, and 17 Im entering my 23rd year as a public official and 18 one thing that has always stuck out in my mind first 19 and foremost are my responsibilities, and that is the 20 health, safety and welfare of the general public.

21 One of the questions that I have from some of the 22 residents that are not as familiar with the nuclear 23 power plant is, the plant has been taken down to 24 levels that very few other plants have the 25 opportunity to take a look at what else might go MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

20 1 wrong, and my question to you, to the NRC, is there 2 anything left in that physical plant that has not 3 undergone inspections or review that has the safety 4 aspect that the general public should be concerned 5 about?

6 MR. GROBE: Thats an excellent 7 question, Steve. There has been a tremendous amount 8 of self-evaluation at the facility. I think Id 9 point to one area of continuing evaluation where 10 discovery is not yet complete the company continues 11 to pursue. Even though they have been at this for 12 quite awhile, there are aspects of the plant that 13 havent been evaluated and those are the ones that 14 are viewed as either effective or they have been 15 sampled. In the area of design quality, there was a 16 sampling that the Utility did of those design 17 activities that contribute to the functionality of 18 the important systems, safety systems and they chose 19 the five most important of the many safety systems at 20 the plant and did detailed design reviews of those 21 systems, identified some problems that they didnt 22 expect to find and appropriately responded to those.

23 They are looking more broadly now in some technical 24 areas, and in depth they have chosen an additional 10 25 systems, so when they complete all of their reviews MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

21 1 they will have evaluated in detail the design of 15 2 systems, so I think thats the one area that theyre 3 still evaluating as far as what they call discovery 4 phase to make sure that they found all the problems 5 that are important. Otherwise discovery activities 6 by and large are complete and one of the slides -- I 7 dont know which slide number in their package is a 8 brief summary page that shows where they stand in 9 discovery in all of the various areas that they are 10 looking, and they are essentially complete with that 11 one exception. Is that responsive to your question?

12 MR. ARNDT: Yes. There is one 13 other follow-up question aside from the physical 14 plant. The second question I have is one that I 15 certainly also recognize that the industry has spent 16 a great deal of amount of time, money and commitment 17 and that is to developing a plant for the safety 18 conscious work force. My question to you is, while 19 I recognize that there is not a perfect means or a 20 standard, a national standard in which to grade that 21 change, there certainly are indicators as to whether 22 or not that plant is starting to be effective. I 23 sense it is in the community from the employees and 24 from the community, but from the NRCs standpoint, 25 have you seen indicators that the plant is starting MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

22 1 to have a change in that safety culture?

2 MR. GROBE: I dont think -- and, 3 Bill, Ill ask you to supplement this answer, I dont 4 think there is any question that we have seen a 5 change in the senior management and the management 6 team at Davis-Besse, and based on the depth of the 7 work that we have been evaluating through our 8 inspection work, we see good results from the 9 self-evaluations that have been going on. One of 10 the difficulties with concepts like safety culture is 11 very difficult to measure, and the company announced 12 today in some detail their plans on how they are 13 going to measure safety culture, and thats the focus 14 of the meeting on the 30th, and well get into more 15 detail on that. I look forward to that because its 16 very important that they have a way of assessing the 17 way in which people make decisions, the way in which 18 they question themselves day in and day out on the 19 quality of their work, and this isnt corporate at 20 management level or at plant management level, its 21 down at the working level day in and day out, at the 22 first line supervisor and craft, so the company is 23 not going to be satisfied, and I have confidence with 24 the progress they make at restart. We have to have 25 confidence that they have taken adequate actions MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

23 1 prior to restart in the area of reestablishing safety 2 culture. Lew Myers has made it clear that he plans 3 on continuing these types of assessments and for 4 several years after restart to ensure that they 5 continue to make progress and are not susceptible to 6 falling back into habits that got them in this 7 situation theyre in today, so we look forward to 8 more detail on the 30th, exactly how theyre going to 9 do that -- and youre correct, there are no --

10 theres no cookbook on how to do this. Its a 11 difficult issue and there are no regulations in this 12 area, but safety culture is something that underpins 13 everything at the plant, every decision an individual 14 makes as hes doing his work is driven by his safety 15 focus, so its a very important issue in an industry 16 like nuclear power where potential consequences of 17 unsafe acts are very significant. Bill?

18 MR. DEAN: Yeah, the only other 19 thing I would add and maybe I would point you towards 20 the information if you happen to have the licensees 21 presentation of today on Page 26, and there is a 22 couple of slides there, one that describes the 23 methods that they intend to utilize to try and 24 ascertain whether the licensee has, indeed, 25 established an appropriate safety culture, and they MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

24 1 talk about multiple methods in order to do this and 2 looking to see whether all these methods are they 3 giving positive indications of that, you know, do 4 each of these methods give position indications that 5 the licensee is making progress in this area, and 6 then they talk about what are the safety culture --

7 whats the safety culture framework made out of and 8 really theres three things; one is policy level 9 commitment, not only comes down to procedures, 10 programs, processes, do they have an organizational 11 framework in place that we can assess and being 12 something that would be effective, then you look at 13 manager commitment, whats the commitment of 14 managers, and thats probably something that Jack and 15 I and the Oversight Panel can get some insights from, 16 from meetings like this, from our interactions with 17 the licensee, how do they treat issues, and Jack has 18 outlined a number of decisions that this organization 19 has made to either make improvements to existing 20 safety equipment, to enhance the margin, making 21 decisions that take a conservative safety first 22 approach, those are the types of indications that we 23 look for from a management commitment, and then you 24 talk about individual commitment, and thats probably 25 the most difficult aspect for us as inspectors to get MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

25 1 our arms around, and thats going to be a lot of the 2 focus of our meeting on the 30th to discuss with the 3 licensee how do they intend to measure performance at 4 the individual first line supervisor level, and then 5 how do we as the NRC do some independent verification 6 of that, and thats going to be our challenge in that 7 area.

8 MR. GROBE: Did we address your 9 question, Steve?

10 MR. ARNDT: Yes, you did. Final 11 comments, one is directed both towards the management 12 of Davis-Besse as well as the NRC, but I certainly 13 want to extend the appreciation as a local elected 14 official that I have seen demonstrated both by the 15 industry as well as by the NRC on a professional 16 manner and the depth in which that they are taking a 17 look at all facets, whether its the safety work 18 force culture or whether its the integrity of the 19 facility. I do believe that everyone has kept 20 emotionals in check. We have some fantastic people 21 from the NRC and both yourself, Bill Dean and Scott 22 Thomas and Christine Lipa, very much have been 23 impressed with the professionalism of how the NRC has 24 conducted themselves, as well as I am impressed with 25 the commitment from the Davis-Besse management team MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

26 1 as well as from the staff, and, as a local official, 2 I dont think we can ask for much more than that 3 dedication and professionalism. Thank you.

4 MR. GROBE: Thank you.

5 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

6 MR. WITT: Good evening. My 7 name is Jere Witt. I am the County Administrator for 8 Ottawa County, and Im also a member of the restart 9 oversight panel which has given me the unique 10 opportunity over the past six months to be involved 11 in determining whether Davis-Besse should be restart 12 and is ready for restart. Safety has always been my 13 focus in this issue and will continue to be my focus 14 for the residents of Ottawa County. I believe the 15 new head modifications made allow appropriate 16 inspection of the head and ensure this type of 17 incident does not happen again. I also believe that 18 the unique improvements made, such as the emergency 19 sump pump, the leak detection systems and so forth 20 demonstrates commitment of Davis-Besse to safety. I 21 have reviewed the nuclear safety policy signed by 22 FENOC President Bob Saunders. This policy not only 23 states that employees are expected to raise safety 24 concerns, but you are a valued nuclear professional 25 if you do. I observed the past six months of the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

27 1 major emphasis by the new management team on safety.

2 Praise is being provided to everyone, programs have 3 been put in place to ensure safety issues are 4 addressed. All of the systems are in place to 5 operate Davis-Besse in the future, and Im confident 6 that FENOC and the NRC will continue to monitor these 7 systems into the future to protect the residents of 8 Ottawa County.

9 I would also request and urge FENOC to 10 continue the system of the restart overview panel 11 because its a good one that can help to prevent 12 these types of problems in the future. To the 13 employees, you have worked long and hard, and its 14 time to finish the job. We look forward in Ottawa 15 County to many years of a safe operation of 16 Davis-Besse. Thank you.

17 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

18 MR. MOORE: Good evening. I am 19 Jim Moore. I am a Carroll Township Trustee. That 20 is the Township which the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 21 Plant is located in. I am here not only as a 22 Trustee, but a resident, and I hope there isnt too 23 many more political subdivision people here. As a 24 resident and a business owner, we have been in 25 business for 80 years in Carroll Township.

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

28 1 I have a letter here that we would like to 2 address to the NRC, and it is from the Trustees, and 3 I will read it.

4 We, the Trustees of Carroll Township, wish to 5 voice our support for the restart of Davis-Besse 6 Nuclear Power Plant which is located in our Township.

7 We know there are people who would say that the only 8 reason we want this to happen is because of the 9 negative impact that closing the plant would have on 10 our local economy. This is not true. We realize 11 the importance of the plant to our well-being 12 financially, but in no way would we place this factor 13 above the safety and well-being of our residents, 14 friends and families. We feel that with the repairs 15 and improvements that have been made and are being 16 made to the plant, it should operate more safely in 17 the future than ever before. With all the 18 improvements being made, they will set the standard 19 for all other nuclear power plants. It is our 20 feeling that if Davis-Besse meets all safety and 21 operational standards required, that the plant shall 22 be allowed to restart. We believe in our neighbors 23 and our friends who work at the plant. We know they 24 also want only the safest plant for everyone.

25 This is signed Sincerely Yours, Jim Moore, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

29 1 Rich Tallman and John Verb. Do you have any 2 questions?

3 MR. GROBE: No. Thank you very 4 much.

5 MR. MOORE: Thank you.

6 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

7 MR. SMITH: Good evening. Im 8 not quite as prepared as these previous gentlemen and 9 woman. My name is Kelly Smith. I am a member of 10 the Benton-Carroll-Salem Board of Education. I also 11 run and operate a small business in the area. I 12 have been complaining about your electric rate for 13 the past 10 years ever since we moved out of Oak 14 Harbor, but thats not why Im here tonight, and Im 15 not here as a board member, Im here really as a 16 concerned environmentalist, and I think some of the 17 people purporting to be environmentalists dont get 18 the real message. You know, energy is energy. I 19 dont care if youre talking coal, gas, oil or 20 nuclear. Were just dealing in the production of 21 energy that we all consume. We all consume immense 22 quantities. Every time we take nuclear off line we 23 increase our consumption of gas and oil and they are 24 very valuable fuels. I think we have a big gas 25 plant being put up in Fremont, the Calpine Plant, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

30 1 that is going to burn natural gas and produce 2 electricity. Now, when we take natural gas to 3 produce electricity, we get about 30 to 40 percent of 4 the value of that gas as energy, is that right, the 5 engineers here that know the Carnot Cycle? You lose 6 a lot of energy, and its a much more valuable fuel 7 to heat homes, run industrial processes than it is to 8 make electricity, so when we take nuclear out of the 9 equation were doing the environment a lot of damage.

10 A second point I want to make is we cant let 11 bad science make the decision as to whether or not 12 this plant restarts. A good example of bad science, 13 recently we had something called the Great Lakes 14 initiative from the EPA. We were informed that its 15 not safe to eat fish out of the Great Lakes or to eat 16 certain ocean fish. This was an effort based on bad 17 science. An effort to avoid three, four, five 18 cancer deaths per hundred thousand and we scared 19 people in to eating less healthy foods and create 10 20 to 12 heart disease deaths per hundred thousand, so 21 dont let bad science make the decision on whether 22 this reactor opens or not, runs again.

23 Another point Id like to make, I know our 24 Congressional Representative, Marcy Kaptur, has 25 advocated shutting down the reactor. If she would MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

31 1 introduce a bill to have all the Federal office 2 buildings, all the Congressional office buildings set 3 their thermostats to 76 to 78 degrees during the air 4 conditioning season, she would come with more 5 credibility in my mind to take a generating power off 6 line.

7 And, lastly, I have lived here about 20 8 years, and Im aware of four or five fatalities in 9 the energy production business. There were two 10 people killed by coal carrying trains and I think 11 three people have died in explosions at the oil 12 refineries in Toledo. Theres nothing without risk.

13 Davis-Besse has had none of that, so get the plant 14 open and get our jobs done.

15 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

16 MR. GROBE: Thank you. Are there 17 any other local officials present here tonight that 18 want to -- that can come --

19 MR. OPFER: (Indicating).

20 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir.

21 MR. OPFER: Thank you, Mr. Grobe, 22 and members of the panel. My name is Darrell Opfer.

23 I am currently Director of the Ottawa County 24 Improvement Corporation, the Economic Development 25 Agency in Ottawa County, former County Commissioner MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

32 1 for 10 years, former State Representative, worked on 2 the deregulation issue before the State, member of 3 the Utility Radiological Safety Board for a number of 4 years while I was County Commissioner, and I come 5 before you tonight to read a couple of e-mails that I 6 have received from some of the members of the 7 business community of Ottawa County, and theyre both 8 very short. The first is from a gentleman by the 9 name of Larry Durivage, who is a long, long time 10 resident and business person in Ottawa County getting 11 ready to retire and turn his activities and business 12 over to the next generation.

13 He says, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 needs to look at all the good things that Toledo 15 Edison has done and continues to do for our 16 community. I believe that most of the people that 17 live in the shadow of the power plant dont lose much 18 sleep because its there. I have heard that there 19 are a number of people out of this area who have 20 demonstrated against the power plant. The NRC 21 should not use this as a reason to delay the start up 22 of the plant. If the people from this area are not 23 as opposed to Davis-Besse and the safety issues are 24 dealt with, then there shouldnt be anymore delays 25 that run up the cost and eventually will be paid for MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

33 1 by the consumers.

2 A second e-mail that I received is from a 3 gentleman who moved himself, his family and a couple 4 of employees into the County very recently. His 5 name is Grant McCullum, hes President of MDC 6 Publishing and he says, 7 I moved my family and business to Ottawa 8 County in the spring of 2001. I was aware of the 9 nuclear power plant just west of our location prior 10 to our move to this area. With the decades of 11 relative reliability of nuclear power plants across 12 the country, it is my and my employees opinion that 13 Davis-Besse is an asset to our community, not only as 14 a reliable power source, but one that does not 15 contaminate our atmosphere. Signed, Grant McCullum, 16 MDC Publishing.

17 In many respects this gentleman is somewhat 18 unusual because unlike Larry Durivage and a number of 19 us that have grown up in the area who know folks, who 20 have relatives who work at the Davis-Besse plant, who 21 know about the redundant features of the plants 22 equipment, and so on, this is someone who moved from 23 several counties away, knowing full well and probably 24 not knowing as much about the plant or its activities 25 as those of us who have grown up here.

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

34 1 There are two concerns that I have with 2 regard to the restart; one is with regard to the --

3 as you mentioned, Jack, the newness of the 4 discussions about things like the safety culture, and 5 so on. Although Im not an engineer or a scientist, 6 I believe that most of those things are well 7 recognized. You can measure the hard work thats 8 being done by the management and by the employees at 9 the plant. My concern is that with such a nebulous 10 thing as safety culture, that we may be long debating 11 how many more management folks to dismiss or how many 12 more, Im sorry, someone has to say, while the plant 13 is ready to operate because of the hard work of the 14 workers and the management, so my concern is how long 15 that particular discussion is going to go on and what 16 can happen as a result in the future.

17 The second concern that I have is with regard 18 to the State of Ohio. As Ive heard, the Governor 19 is interested in the restart activities. It is my 20 hope that the Governor and his folks would work 21 closely with the NRC and the restart panel so that 22 they know what is going on currently at Davis-Besse 23 and so we dont have to procrastinate or wait once 24 the plant is ready to go on line again.

25 One of the things I, too, would like to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

35 1 commend you and the NRC for, and Toledo Edison and 2 FirstEnergy, is recognizing and inviting the local 3 officials to a number of meetings to participate in 4 the restart activities and would hope that both the 5 management and the NRC also would consider in the 6 future granting a larger role to local officials who 7 with my experience of 10 years know something about 8 the local plant, certainly have contacts with the 9 work force, with the management, and that would be my 10 recommendations.

11 I appreciate your being here again. I 12 thought about bringing some local realtors to point 13 out to you all the condominiums and nice homes that 14 we have in the area, but thought that might be a bit 15 much, so thank you very much.

16 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

17 MR. GROBE: Thank you. Let me 18 provide a little bit of information on some of the 19 issues that you raise because I think they are very 20 good issues.

21 First off, the Governor has expressed the 22 interest of having a briefing of whats going on with 23 respect to the restart of Davis-Besse and his focus 24 is to make sure the citizens of Ohio are safe, very 25 appropriate for him to do so and we are in rescheduling the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

36 1 briefing presently.

2 The question that you asked about safety 3 culture, I want to make sure that were clear on 4 whats going on these days. The Utility has 5 undertaken a very broad spectrum of activities to 6 improve the safety culture of the plant and thats 7 been on going for months, everything from sit down 8 and chat type meetings with the site Vice President, 9 to training, to all sorts of varied activities, and 10 they still are proceeding with a very aggressive 11 action plan to continue to improve in that area.

12 The question is more one of how you know you have it.

13 Safety culture was a very important contributor to 14 what happened at Davis-Besse. By and large, the 15 programs and processes were robust. The company has 16 re-evaluated many of those programs and processes and 17 identified areas where they can further improve them, 18 but had they been properly implemented they would 19 have not allowed what happened to happen, so there 20 was the root -- the root problem were decisions made, 21 priorities set, the way in which people focused on 22 issues and those are much more difficult issues to 23 solve. As I said, the company has been attacking 24 those issues over the last many months, and they are 25 now getting ready to figure out how to measure their MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

37 1 improvements and will continue, as I mentioned, 2 measuring them on into the future to ensure the 3 actions taken have the results they want to achieve, 4 so its -- there are no regulations in this area, 5 so -- and, quite frankly, I dont believe that any 6 other nuclear plant in the United States has 7 undertaken this type of initiative with the exception 8 of probably one on the East Coast did it a few years 9 ago, but its an important thing for them to do.

10 They need to demonstrate to us that they have the 11 right stuff, and they need to demonstrate to you 12 folks that they have the right stuff before the plant 13 restarts, so -- Bill, did you have any other thoughts 14 on that?

15 MR. DEAN: (Nod indicating no).

16 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much 17 for your comments.

18 MR. OPFER: Thank you.

19 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

20 MR. GROBE: Are there other public 21 officials present this evening that want to speak?

22 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE).

23 Well, I want to express my gratitude to those 24 that did come this evening. Its more attention 25 than weve had in the past from local officials. I MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

38 1 respect you for the contributions that you make.

2 Many of these positions are unpaid and youre here to 3 serve the public and your engagement in this process 4 is very important.

5 In addition to that, local officials play 6 very important roles in the safety of nuclear power 7 plants. The effectiveness of the emergency planning 8 organization would not occur without strong support 9 from local officials, so Im grateful to hear that 10 kind of support exists in Ottawa County.

11 Why dont we move on to questions and 12 comments from members of the public? Again, we want 13 to try to limit things to three to five minutes so we 14 can move on, so please come forward, state your name, 15 sign in and ask your questions and provide your 16 comments.

17 MS. LUEKE: Hi. My name is Donna 18 Lueke, and I have a couple questions and some 19 comments. Its really good to hear the safety focus 20 that everybody is taking. I think its alarming to 21 know that it didnt exist before or it was imperfect 22 before, and to that end, I have some questions and 23 comments.

24 One of the things that I noticed in the 25 safety culture slide was that there were new safety MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

39 1 competencies in the employee appraisal process 2 listed. Will the NRC have access to those? Will 3 you be able to see how the new safety culture is 4 evaluating employees?

5 MR. GROBE: Thats an excellent 6 question, Donna. One of the difficulties with this 7 area is the very fine line between assessing safety 8 culture and getting involved in company management.

9 The NRC has no business being involved in appraising 10 people or managing the organization. Thats the 11 responsibility of the Utility. On the 30th, were 12 going to get a presentation from the Utility on how 13 theyre going to assess safety culture. I dont 14 remember which slide it is in there, but theres a 15 slide that gives some broad concepts of what theyre 16 doing. Its got some fancy words associated with 17 it, but what theyre going to be doing is looking at 18 things that are objective that you can measure, like 19 performance, similar to what youre talking about.

20 Things that are somewhat more subjective, like 21 interviews and discussions with groups of people and 22 specific activities that have occurred that 23 demonstrate safety culture, and theyre going to be 24 looking at a number of different areas and then 25 comparing those to each other to see if theres a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

40 1 clear indicator of --

2 MR. MENDIOLA: Jack, Page 51.

3 MR. GROBE: Page 51, Tony tells 4 me.

5 MR. MENDIOLA: Slide 51.

6 MR. GROBE: -- to see if theres a 7 clear indicator on order of a trend that is 8 discernible, and it would not be appropriate for the 9 NRC to get involved in the performance appraisals of 10 individual employees. I think the answer -- this 11 seems like its breaking up. Can you folks hear me?

12 Okay, good. It wouldnt be appropriate for the NRC 13 to get involved in those kinds of things, but we will 14 be involved in seeing how the company is going to 15 assess safety culture and receiving that feedback on 16 a regular basis.

17 One of the things that the company stated 18 today is that the assessments that are going to be 19 done are going to be done completely independent of 20 anybody that reports to the plant. The folks that 21 are going to be doing these assessments are going to 22 report to the Vice President of Human Resources in 23 the Corporate Office in Akron, and those reports are 24 going to be made public at the same time theyre 25 provided to the site, so there wont be any MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

41 1 opportunity or influence in the outcome of the 2 assessments before theyre shared with us, so I think 3 thats an important aspect of the approach theyre 4 taking.

5 MS. LUEKE: That sounds like an 6 excellent plan. Whether you see the individual 7 employee appraisal forms or not, but will the format 8 be available to you, do you know?

9 MR. GROBE: I honestly dont know 10 that level of detail, Donna, but we can get that for 11 you if you like.

12 MS. LUEKE: Okay. The reason Im 13 asking is because in my experience with management --

14 I dont have any experience with nuclear power 15 plants, but I do with managing, and in order for a 16 change, a see change to take place like FirstEnergy 17 is talking about where safety becomes No. 1, in order 18 for that big of a change to take place, I believe it 19 has to take place in the persons appraisal, their 20 job description, their bonus structure and how 21 theyre being promoted, and I feel it has to go all 22 the way from the janitor to the Vice President and if 23 thats a missing link, if theres not a motivation 24 day-to-day and year-to-year set in place in the 25 structure, I feel that its doomed to be a situation MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

42 1 of meetings that happen and then even though it does 2 sound like theres good follow through happening, but 3 I think its a very important part that you may add 4 to your agenda.

5 MR. GROBE: I think most, if not 6 all, of those aspects are already captured in their 7 plan and its described in the pages that surround 8 the one youre looking at, but I would be glad to 9 discuss this in more detail with you later tonight.

10 Did you have any other questions?

11 MS. LUEKE: Yes. One was about 12 the incident that happened in 1985, and I have a copy 13 of the report to Congress from the NRC, and there is 14 a phrase there that says -- and Im just going to 15 take an excerpt -- that the underlying cause with the 16 licensees lack of attention to detail in the care of 17 plant equipment and how they related to the equipment 18 in a superficial manner, and, therefore, the root 19 causes were not being corrected. This sounds quite 20 familiar, and so have you explored in the history to 21 see what was done last time because it happened 22 again, and, therefore, there was, I assume, I know 23 there was a large fine, but I dont know what 24 procedures were put in place to correct those things 25 last time, and if they werent followed through on, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

43 1 how this happened again.

2 MR. GROBE: Those are excellent 3 questions. I havent personally gone back and read 4 all those reports, but the company has gone back that 5 far and said, how do we find ourselves in this 6 situation again, and that formed some of the basis 7 for their root cause assessments. Those have all 8 been made, submitted to the NRC on the docket and 9 made publicly available. There are six separate root 10 cause assessments in different areas, different 11 aspects of the plant operation. They will be 12 publicly available shortly. The -- thats one of 13 the focuses of this current management team, is to 14 make sure this doesnt occur, and its one of the 15 reasons that they have evaluated not only whats 16 going on at Davis-Besse, but whats going on at the 17 Corporate Office. The Board of Directors has a 18 nuclear subcommittee. Theres a new Vice-President 19 of Oversight in the Corporate Office that used to be 20 a plant function, so there are many more barriers 21 that theyre putting in place to try to make sure 22 that if things do start to atrophy at some time in 23 the future that that atrophication is identified and 24 addressed before it becomes a significant problem, so 25 those are good points, and I think they have been MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

44 1 captured, but its -- youve got to keep your eye on 2 the ball. Using the softball for instance, right, 3 Bill?

4 MR. DEAN: (Nod indicating yes).

5 MS. LUEKE: And just one more 6 question and then a comment. Since the NRC 7 themselves are having some internal difficulties and 8 the Inspector Generals report and the Chairman are 9 not agreeing and such things are happening, have you 10 revisited the possibility of an independent review 11 like was petitioned previously and rejected since 12 there has to be some sort of impediment to your 13 activity at this point?

14 MR. GROBE: I think there were two 15 questions there, and let me answer them both. The 16 first question deals with the well publicized 17 dialogue thats going on between the Inspector 18 General and the Chairman and what Congress is going 19 to do with that, that all deals with things that 20 happened more than a year ago, and it deals with 21 things that happened in headquarters, decision making 22 that happened in headquarters. This panel is by and 23 large isolated from that. Were doing our 24 activities independent of those kinds of things that 25 are going on in the political environment and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

45 1 otherwise. The Commission did do a very substantive 2 self-assessment of how we missed what happened at 3 Davis-Besse, and I think theres on the order of 50 4 recommendations that came out of that 5 self-assessment. Its called the Lessons Learned 6 Task Force. That was presented to the Commission 7 today at a public meeting in Washington, and it was 8 dialogue on the -- both the Lessons Learned report as 9 well as the corrective actions on what the staff 10 plans on doing with those, so those will help us 11 improve, but this panels activities are very clearly 12 and narrowly focused on recovery of Davis-Besse and 13 making sure that they do everything they need to do 14 to operate this plant safely if we get to the point 15 that they request to restart the plant.

16 MS. LUEKE: So as long as you all 17 dont read the paper youre okay?

18 MR. GROBE: We read the paper, 19 but, truly, those dont have a safety impact on what 20 were doing here. There was another imbedded 21 question --

22 MS. LUEKE: About the possible 23 review of an independent board.

24 MR. GROBE: Oh, yes, thank you.

25 The response we provided to that was that we felt we MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

46 1 had the capability and confidence to do this work 2 without an outside assistance, and I believe that 3 that continues to be our view, that we have the right 4 competency to do the kind of work were doing. In 5 other places where that kind of an independent review 6 is done, particularly Millstone, we didnt have 7 enough resources or specific competence in the areas 8 we needed to look at to do that on our own so we had 9 the company hire some independent evaluation, and we 10 provided some oversight of that, so I think our 11 conclusion still remains that we have what we need to 12 do the job right and where we dont we have been 13 procuring some expertise, and we did that in our 14 human factors analysis area and we may do that in the 15 safety culture area, too. We may go out and get 16 some independent expertise, but I believe that we 17 still feel that were capable of handling it without 18 an independent oversight panel.

19 MS. LUEKE: And I just do want to 20 read a statement and that is, in my opinion, how to 21 know when a safety culture has been achieved; when 22 those with FirstEnergy and Davis-Besse in addition to 23 saying, what can I do to get this plant opened soon 24 and how can I save my job and how can we make the 25 most out of the return on investment; when they start MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

47 1 asking regularly, what can I do to help make this 2 reactor and this company and this community more 3 safe, and how can we best make restitution for the 4 losses that have experienced because of our last --

5 past mistakes and policies, and when NRC people 6 instead of asking, how can I convince my boss or the 7 public or the media or Congress that I did not know 8 that this would result in what it resulted in, if 9 they begin asking regularly and putting those 10 questions aside, what can I do to assure that neither 11 FirstEnergy nor the NRC make another dangerous 12 oversight either here or at other plants, and not 13 just kidding this time, and what is the best thing I 14 can do for the safety of the employees and the 15 public, and when citizens and public officials at all 16 levels in addition to saying we desperately need 17 Davis-Besse jobs also say, what can I do to hold 18 FirstEnergy and the NRC accountable for their actions 19 and inactions, and how can we convince them that the 20 safety of our people and lands and lakes must come 21 first, so -- thank you.

22 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

23 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

24 MR. GROBE: We ran a little bit 25 over the three to five minutes on that one, so if we MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

48 1 can please try to stay focused on that kind of time 2 frame, I would appreciate it. Good evening, Howard.

3 MR. WHITCOMB: Good evening. My 4 name is Howard Whitcomb. I, too, would like to thank 5 our local politicians with their vigorous comments 6 tonight. I think as a society we only grow through 7 the expression of diverse perspectives. After 8 hearing Mr. Mendiolas briefing of what happened this 9 afternoon, and I was unable to be here, but it sounds 10 like I might have missed quite a bit, it sure sounds 11 like FirstEnergy has taken some positive measures to 12 address the lack of safety culture. Having said 13 that, I would await the results.

14 The lack of appropriate safety culture at all 15 levels within the NRC is a primary contributor to the 16 reported root cause related to the degraded safety 17 culture at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant and other 18 nuclear facilities throughout the country. To date, 19 both the NRC and FirstEnergy have failed to convey 20 credible demonstrative evidence that the degraded 21 safety cultures in both organizations have improved 22 to a level whereby continued safe operation of the 23 Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant is assured. Consider the 24 following:

25 No. 1. Consider the findings contained in a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

49 1 recent report from the Office of Inspectors General 2 that nearly half of the NRCs staff that responded to 3 a survey in 2002 reported they are currently 4 reluctant to raise safety issues to their own NRC 5 management.

6 No. 2. Consider the recent revelation that a 7 similar survey conducted in 1998 indicated the 8 significant lack of safety consciousness at 9 percentage levels very similar to that reported at 10 the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant July 2002.

11 No. 3. Consider that the complement of 12 personnel who comprise both the current 350 Panel and 13 the Lessons Learned Task Force were drawn from the 14 same poisoned well.

15 No. 4. Consider the failure of the Chairman 16 of the 0350 Panel to articulate specific quantitative 17 as well as qualitative improvements regarding the 18 Davis-Besse safety culture coupled with recent 19 statements that quote, "I dont know how to measure 20 safety culture," unquote.

21 No. 5. Consider the failure of the Lessons 22 Learned Task Force to forthrightly address and 23 identify the degraded safety culture within the NRC 24 and any of its fifty-one recommendations to the 25 commissioners. The lack of thorough review and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

50 1 analysis of the NRCs actions in response to 2 allegations raised at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant, 3 as well as other nuclear sites over the last decade, 4 coupled with the knowledge of seriously flawed safety 5 culture within the NRCs own ranks, strongly suggests 6 that the completed effort of the Lessons Learned Task 7 Force fulfills a self-serving agenda and, therefore, 8 deserves deliberate public rejection.

9 No. 6. Consider the failure of any 10 organization within the NRC, including the 350 Panel 11 members, to disclose to the public at any time since 12 March 2002 the identified serious safety culture 13 problems within the NRCs own ranks.

14 No. 7. Consider that the two key 15 individuals, that is the President of FirstEnergy and 16 the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, who 17 placed power production over the publics safety and 18 unilaterally made the decision allowing the continued 19 operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant from 20 November 2001 to mid-February 2002, are still 21 employed by their respective employers.

22 No. 8. Consider that the NRC recently failed 23 to levy any fines against FirstEnergy for a serious 24 loss of radioactive material control at the 25 Davis-Besse facility last year. It appears that the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

51 1 once pronounced "zero tolerance" policy concept no 2 longer applies to the safeguard protection of the 3 public from radioactive waste generated at nuclear 4 facilities. Be mindful that several other states 5 were contaminated in this instance and that the loss 6 of radioactive material generally presents an impact 7 on homeland security.

8 No. 9. Consider the noticeable absence of 9 both the NRCs Executive Director for Operations and 10 the Region III Administrator at any of these public 11 proceedings since May 2002.

12 No. 10. Consider the incredible outrage 13 expressed by the current chairman of the NRC in 14 response to the recent report and findings of the 15 Office of Inspectors General.

16 No. 11. Consider the recent comments of 17 FirstEnergys Chief Executive Officer to Davis-Besse 18 employees, as well as to this community, that 19 Davis-Besse will not become a "black hole" is a 20 subtle but clear message to all of us that we better 21 watch our step or some of us will face the loss of 22 jobs while others will suffer economic harm. Such 23 an approach is intimidating, undermines the premise 24 of a healthy safety culture and promotes a "profits 25 over safety" attitude.

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

52 1 At this time, I extend a cordial invitation 2 to the NRC commissioners --

3 THEREUPON, Mr. Grobe attempted to fix the 4 interference of the microphone.

5 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

6 MR. WHITCOMB: At this time, I 7 extend a cordial invitation to the NRC 8 commissioners --

9 THEREUPON, Mr. Grobe attempted to reattach 10 the microphone.

11 MR. GROBE: Howard takes his 12 glasses off, I need my on.

13 MR. WHITCOMB: At this time, I 14 extend a cordial invitation to the NRC commissioners 15 and the members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 16 Safeguards to attend the next scheduled public 17 meeting here in Ottawa County and observe firsthand 18 the concerns which have been expressed by the public.

19 The evident lack of safety consciousness demonstrated 20 by the highest management levels within the NRC 21 demands that specific safeguards be immediately 22 instituted whereby the publics trust in the NRCs 23 ability to regulate an obviously flawed agency is 24 re-established. There is no more important issue 25 within the nuclear industry today. It is time for MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

53 1 the ACRS to ask the difficult questions, insist on an 2 appropriate agenda and ensure that these resolutions 3 are achieved and maintained with the integrity and 4 safety consciousness as is required by law. Thank 5 you.

6 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

7 MR. GROBE: Thank you, Howard. I 8 wasnt sure I got any questions in there, so Im not 9 sure what to respond to. Do you have any specific 10 questions?

11 MR. WHITCOMB: No.

12 MR. GROBE: Okay, thank you.

13 MR. DEAN: Jack, Im sorry, there 14 are a couple things, though, that I think are worthy 15 of both responding to, and one is the issue about the 16 most recent survey that was done of NRC employees 17 related to safety culture. Howard pointed out one 18 issue which was the issue of NRC employees feeling 19 comfortable in raising safety issues through the 20 current NRC process. We have a process called 21 different professional views and different 22 professional opinions which has been identified over 23 the past several years as a very cumbersome process, 24 and, in fact, over the past year and a half, there 25 has been a Senior Management Review Team looking at MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

54 1 that process that recently made recommendations to 2 the commission on things to do to improve that 3 process. What Mr. Whitcomb also failed to mention 4 was that the overall tenor of that report was one 5 that actually indicated an improved overall NRC 6 safety culture, so I think its a bit of a disservice 7 to take one element out of context, and, in fact, one 8 of the things that the commissioners are doing with 9 respect to that report is gathering the information 10 that lead to the data. That report really was just 11 a summation of the data. Theres quite a bit of 12 information and background that goes into the survey 13 results that we want to look at and evaluate. There 14 is comments that were made that were associated with 15 the survey results and have to be assessed, and so 16 were going to hold in abeyance -- the NRC is going 17 to hold in abeyance until it has the opportunity to 18 get that information from the independent contractor 19 that did the survey to look at some of those results, 20 in particular the one that Howard mentioned, but I 21 think it is worth noting that the overall results of 22 that survey actually indicated a -- quite an 23 improvement in a number of areas in the NRC safety 24 culture.

25 The second issue I wanted to talk about was MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

55 1 the issue related to the levying of fines, in 2 particular with the loss of radiation, radioactive 3 material control. Several years ago in a very 4 public process, the NRC revised its approach by which 5 it would consider enforcement actions. It 6 determined that the impact of civil penalties at the 7 degree to which they have been applied and to which 8 the regulations would allow really did not in and of 9 itself serve as much of a deterrent as did the making 10 the issue for which a licensee received a violation 11 public as well as the impact on operations and the 12 additional inspection and effort that the NRC 13 provided, and so there was a conscious decision on 14 the part of the agency, agreed to by the commission, 15 to limit the application of civil penalties to issues 16 where there were either actions that were potentially 17 deliberate or willful on the part of licensees or in 18 those situations where you have actual impact on 19 public health and safety, actual event of a magnitude 20 where you have a substantial release or a substantial 21 overexposure to the public, and so the fact that the 22 NRC did not levy fines is in direct alignment with 23 the current commission policies related to 24 enforcement.

25 MR. GROBE: Thanks, Bill. Yes, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

56 1 sir?

2 MR. HALSTEAD: My name is Rick 3 Halstead. Im a faculty member of Terra Community 4 College in Fremont, Ohio and a resident of 5 Perrysburg, Ohio, Wood County. I really only have a 6 comment. Its not really a question intended 7 necessarily to get an immediate response. I hope 8 this adds something in the way of perspective to the 9 discussion. The Inspectors General of the NRC have 10 concluded that the NRC does not have an adequate 11 culture of safety and that the NRC was remiss in 12 allowing Davis-Besse to operate to the February 16th 13 shutdown date. A recent survey within the NRC 14 states that numerous NRC employees are hesitant to 15 bring up safety issues. Consider that number again.

16 Thats a lot of regulators who are reluctant to 17 express safety concerns. Its likely that most of 18 the people in this room remember the day the 19 Challenger Space Shuttle exploded seconds after it 20 was launched. Its also likely that some people in 21 this room know that this tragedy was not caused by 22 unforeseeable events, but rather by the willingness 23 of the corporations and Government agencies involved 24 to ignore the warnings of their engineers that the 25 launch was unacceptably risky.

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

57 1 Recently, we have witnessed the Securities 2 and Exchange Commissions failure to regulate in the 3 public interest. A primary driver in the Enron 4 World Com and IM Clone scandals was, again, profit 5 motives left unchecked by a weak regulatory agency.

6 Now, weve had this near disaster at Davis-Besse.

7 We heard FirstEnergy and the NRC issue mea culpa.

8 Many of us find them unconvincing because in at least 9 two of these cases there were voices within the 10 companies or the regulatory agencies involved warning 11 of impending disaster. Until corporations and their 12 regulators make it reasonably safe for responsible 13 employees to sound the warning siren in the interest 14 of public safety, we have no reason not to expect 15 another Challenger, another Enron, another 16 Davis-Besse. I dont think that the family -- are 17 we still on here -- that the families and friends of 18 the Challenger crew would regard the concept of a 19 safety culture as nebulous and neither should we.

20 Thank you.

21 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

22 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much 23 for your comments. Yes, sir.

24 MR. DOUGLAS: Jack, I think you know 25 who I am. To the people in the audience who dont, MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

58 1 my name is Jim Douglas, Im a retired chemical 2 engineer, and I live on the doorstep of Davis-Besse.

3 THEREUPON, the microphone was repositioned.

4 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay, start again.

5 My name is Jim Douglas. Im a retired chemical 6 engineer, and I live right on the doorstep of 7 Davis-Besse. I made a couple of suggestions to Jack 8 on things that I thought would be helpful in getting 9 Davis-Besse going again; one was a photographic 10 preventive maintenance program that would have some 11 teeth in it. In other words, if they saw dirt and 12 corrosion and corruption on the head of the vessel, 13 they dont start the plant until its repaired. I 14 have heard no comment from anybody from Davis-Besse.

15 I have heard no comment from the NRC about the 16 suggestion of a photographic PM program.

17 I would like to throw in another suggestion.

18 Namely, the monitoring cameras for the internal parts 19 that show the wells welds on the head of that vessel that 20 are monitored by camera 24-7-365, and they are shown 21 on the camera in the operating room, and they can be 22 set up so that the entire welded areas of the head of 23 that vessel are available simply by pushing a button, 24 zoom in with a camera and we can inspect them right 25 then and there, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day in operation. This MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

59 1 is not a tremendously expensive program. It can 2 become very expensive, but it doesnt have to be. A 3 very useful monitoring program and a very useful 4 photographic program have not been commented on by 5 either the NRC or by Davis-Besse. Have you got any 6 comments, Jack?

7 MR. GROBE: First, let me ask you 8 a question, Jim. Last time you joined us I think we 9 were at the high school and FirstEnergy committed to 10 stop by and share with you a variety of information.

11 Did that ever happen? Did you ever get that 12 information?

13 MR. DOUGLAS: I went down to 14 Davis-Besse at their invite and the chemist down 15 there did try to convince me that the corrosion on 16 the head of that vessel is from boric acid corrosion, 17 and it is definitely not. It is boric acid used as 18 an electrolyte in a battery, thats all it is and --

19 MR. GROBE: The -- let me respond 20 as best I can to your specific comments. There are 21 many areas of the plant that are inaccessible to 22 humans during plant operation and there are some 23 areas that are very difficult to gain access to when 24 the plant is shut down. Utilities are more and more 25 using video examination techniques. One of the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

60 1 findings of our Lessons Learned Task Force was that 2 they werent taking advantage of those, we the NRC 3 inspectors, to as great an extent as we can.

4 MR. DOUGLAS: Thats correct.

5 MR. GROBE: And thats one of the 6 specific findings and thats something that we plan 7 on doing more of in the future. I dont believe 8 there is any rules under consideration of mandating 9 video examination or cameras inside containment. I 10 believe currently that the commission views the 11 monitoring systems in place sufficient, and at 12 Davis-Besse, had they been responded to properly, had 13 the indicators been responded to properly, this 14 situation wouldnt have occurred. So currently, 15 there is no rule making underway to mandate any sort 16 of videography type maintenance program. That 17 wouldnt be within the purview of this panel, that 18 would be more within the purview of the Office of 19 Nuclear Reactor Regulation to promulgate a new rule, 20 so I think I answered the question.

21 MR. DOUGLAS: Well then, Jack, let 22 me ask you this one question. What is Davis-Besse 23 doing to assure me as a neighbor, as a technical 24 person living close to them, that they are doing a 25 better job to maintain the head of this vessel, nice MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

61 1 strong, clean head, so that we got a good strong 2 vessel and its not going to go to hell like the 3 other?

4 MR. GROBE: Well, I think thats 5 an excellent question.

6 MR. DOUGLAS: Im sorry for the 7 language, but there it is.

8 MR. GROBE: Thats pretty 9 straightforward, and thats the way I like it.

10 MR. DOUGLAS: Darn right.

11 MR. GROBE: What the company is 12 doing is putting into place the programs and the 13 approach that they should have had back through the 14 late 90s, which would have prevented this in that 15 time period, those programs are in existence at all 16 other nuclear plants and no existence of problems 17 like Davis-Besse was identified at any other plant in 18 the country, so the failures of Davis-Besse to 19 implement the types of maintenance programs that Im 20 sure you would find acceptable are what caused this.

21 The -- in addition to that, the licensee has 22 taken an industry leadership role in developing a 23 more substantive reactor coolant system leakage 24 program, leakage monitoring program, with very 25 conservative thresholds for taking action. We have MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

62 1 a limit of one gallon per minute of what we call 2 unidentified leakage, below which it is not required 3 to shut down, above which the plant is required to 4 shut down in very short order. The company is 5 setting much more conservative monitoring levels and 6 installing a state of the art system. Its referred 7 to as a Flus Leakage Monitoring System that comes out 8 of Europe thats not used anywhere else in the United 9 States, so they are taking a number of actions to 10 improve their ability to detect primary system 11 leakage, and they have put in place monitoring 12 criteria that will cause them to take actions far 13 below any of our regulatory requirements, so I think 14 you can gain some confidence in those issues.

15 In addition, I think you can gain some 16 confidence in the inspections that we have been 17 performing and the communications we have been having 18 with the public about the results of our inspections.

19 Were making sure that the changes theyre making are 20 the right changes and that theyre going to be 21 lasting, and this panel will stay in existence for an 22 extended period of time after restart to continue 23 monitoring performance at Davis-Besse and to ensure 24 that theres not a remission, to ensure that, in 25 fact, when we do make the restart decision, if we get MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

63 1 to that point, that our confidence that they can 2 start up and operate safely was not incorrectly 3 placed.

4 MR. DOUGLAS: Jack, I would make 5 only one further request of you, that you stay in --

6 that the NRC stays in operation and stays on top of 7 Davis-Besse until they do get these photographic and 8 monitoring systems in.

9 MR. GROBE: Yeah, I think Bill and 10 I are here for the long haul, so well make sure that 11 these changes are lasting.

12 MR. DEAN: Jim, one thing I would 13 like to share with you from a -- I guess from a 14 national perspective, in terms of some of the 15 requirements that were considering placing on 16 licensees with respect to inspection of the reactor 17 vessel heads is requiring them, depending on where 18 they are in terms of age, time of life or if they get 19 rated in a particular susceptibility category, for 20 example, Davis-Besse at the time of their event was 21 in what we call the high susceptibility range because 22 of the amount of time and temperature in which they 23 operate at the plant, requiring not only every 24 outaging outage, bare metal visual inspection of the reactor 25 vessel head. In other words, they have to remove the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

64 1 insulation and, you know, eyeball with trained 2 evaluators the reactor vessel head itself, but also 3 to do a combination of what we call nondestructive 4 testing, either using any Eddy current testing or 5 ultrasonic testing of the wells welds to do even further 6 assurance of the integrity of those penetrations, and 7 so I think over the coming months youll see the NRC 8 actually issue requirements of licensees to do that 9 while we go through an actual rule making process 10 which actually takes several years, so we plan on 11 putting in place some interim measures for licensees 12 to have more stringent inspection requirements for 13 the reactor vessel heads nationwide.

14 MR. DOUGLAS: Im only too well 15 aware that the Davis-Besse fiasco has shook up the 16 whole nuclear industry, all 68 hot water boilers, Im 17 very well aware of that, and I would certainly expect 18 that to be part of the NRCs national concern, not 19 just here at Davis-Besse, but Davis-Besse is the 20 worst existing example in the world of neglect.

21 MR. GROBE: Thats correct.

22 MR. DOUGLAS: And thats just about 23 stating it as frankly as I can put it, and the other 24 two examples are Chernobyl and Three-Mile, okay, but 25 the worst one in the world and how they could ever MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

65 1 have lasted with paper thin stainless steel and not 2 blow a hole in 2,000 pounds is very close to 3 miraculous, darn near proof of the existence of God 4 for any scientist.

5 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

6 MR. GROBE: Thanks, Jim.

7 MR. DOUGLAS: So, anyway, Im very 8 glad to hear and, thank you, Jack, about the 9 photographic and the monitoring system.

10 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

11 MR. DOUGLAS: I hope to hear and see 12 them soon. Thank you.

13 MR. GROBE: Okay. Any other 14 members of the public that have questions or 15 comments? Yes, sir.

16 MR. DUSSEL: My name is Tim Dussel.

17 Im a concerned citizen, and theres a few questions 18 I have as far as why Davis-Besse was allowed to keep 19 running an extended length of time when they were 20 supposed to have a shutdown for inspection. I keep 21 reading different articles that the NRC keeps saying 22 if wed only known now (sic), what we know now, we 23 wouldnt have let them run. I dont understand why 24 the NRC didnt know what they know now. What was 25 you doing before then?

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

66 1 MR. GROBE: They are really two 2 separate complete issues. What youve read about 3 with the Inspectors General report and the 4 Chairmans response to that had to do specifically 5 with the decision making that went into allowing the 6 plant to operate for six more weeks and those 7 documents pretty well speak for themselves, the 8 position of the agency and the position of the 9 Inspector General. The question of why we didnt 10 know -- what we know today based on the -- regarding 11 the condition of the reactor head is an excellent one 12 and that was what the Lessons Learned Task Force was 13 charged with doing, and they came up with about 50 14 recommendations for us to improve our inspection 15 programs, our procedures, our training, not 16 specifically, necessarily focused on this issue, but 17 looking more broadly at these types of issues and 18 what we can do to prevent that, and that report is 19 available on the website, and I believe just today, 20 the -- how the agency is going to respond to that 21 report is also available publicly, and there was a 22 commission meeting in headquarters today where the 23 commissioners heard the results of that report as 24 well as the Executive Directors response to that 25 report, so I think weve pretty well self-assessed MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

67 1 ourselves from every perspective and were getting 2 even more help these days. The General Accounting 3 Office is now investigating those two questions also, 4 so by the time were done with all the investigations 5 and corrective actions, I think we should have this 6 one nailed down pretty well, but I think youll find 7 in those documents the answers to your questions.

8 MR. DUSSEL: Also, I would like to 9 know if there is being any criminal investigations 10 being done? I find it really amazing the amount of 11 people at FirstEnergy that falsified records, 12 falsified information, out and out lied, and you guys 13 stand behind them and swear by them. I dont 14 understand that.

15 MR. GROBE: Thats a good 16 question, and I dont stand behind people and swear 17 by people. I evaluate performance. Thats what our 18 job is.

19 MR. DUSSEL: Someone is not doing a 20 very good job.

21 MR. GROBE: And we dont -- we, 22 the NRC, do not -- were not involved in criminal 23 prosecutions. Thats not our bailiwick. We do 24 have an Office of Investigations, and whenever it 25 appears that something could have been more than just MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

68 1 a mistake or an oversight, that initiates an 2 investigation into that specific issue. They are 3 investigating that issue. If they conclude that 4 there was a deliberate action on the part of 5 individuals to violate requirements, then they report 6 to the Department of Justice regarding criminal 7 prosecution, and that activity is ongoing. I think 8 that answers your question.

9 MR. DUSSEL: Theres continuing --

10 you know, numerous issues brought up where it has 11 been proven that there was falsification on records 12 and on inspections. The modification of the platform 13 above the reactor, I believe it was 10 years ago that 14 the NRC advised that modifications be made on that so 15 there could be inspections --

16 MR. GROBE: I think you got your 17 facts just a little bit wrong. Let me see if I can 18 flush that out a little bit. The NRC did not 19 mandate or advise anything. What happened was 20 utilities were finding -- some utilities were finding 21 it difficult to visually examine their head -- excuse 22 me, visually examine the reactor head.

23 (Laughter).

24 MR. GROBE: And chose to implement 25 a modification, and Babcock & Wilcox, the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

69 1 manufacturer of this type of reactor, designed a 2 modification to the support that structure that any 3 utility was interested could purchase and implement.

4 A number of utilities -- theres seven of the 5 reactors like this in the United States; five of them 6 chose to implement that modification, two did not, 7 and Davis-Besse was one of the ones that did not.

8 As of today, they all have that modification, so it 9 wasnt an NRC mandate or requirement. It was a 10 choice on the part of the licensee to implement 11 something that would make it easier to inspect the 12 head or whether or not, as Davis-Besse, chose to 13 continue utilizing the original ports that were 14 provided to do this type of examination.

15 MR. DUSSEL: The other power plant 16 that had the same type of platform, they have not yet 17 modified?

18 MR. GROBE: All the plants have 19 modified their support structure.

20 MR. DUSSEL: Dont you think it 21 would be -- the NRC should be involved in such things 22 if there is a structure that you cannot do an 23 inspection and this could go on for 10 years and the 24 NRC not know that the inspections are not being done 25 properly? I dont understand how that can happen.

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

70 1 MR. GROBE: Again, that was the 2 focus of the Lessons Learned Task Force was how do 3 these things happen. I think its a very 4 comprehensive report. Its available on the 5 website, we can get you a copy, if you like.

6 MR. DUSSEL: Okay, October 11, 7 2001, FirstEnergy officials and their lawyers met 8 with representatives of the NRC, five member 9 governing board. The company insisted Davis-Besse 10 is safe to run until April, and says it will take 11 every action necessary to obtain the technical basis 12 on which the NRC staff is basing its shutdown 13 decision. Throughout October, FirstEnergy gave NRC 14 staff additional technical information on its own to 15 support its case.

16 Was that about the same time that the big red 17 picture wasnt showed?

18 MR. GROBE: Really these, I 19 think -- Im not sure what you were reading from, but 20 I think these are the exact issues that are addressed 21 in the IG report and were addressed in the Chairmans 22 response, and those documents speak for themselves, 23 and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on 24 either of those issues. They dont have anything to 25 do with -- those decisions that were made over a year MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

71 1 ago dont have anything to do with this panels 2 activities. This panel is looking forward from 3 February 2002 on.

4 MR. DUSSEL: I think maybe the two 5 panels or three panels or four panels or however many 6 panels there are, everyone should get together and be 7 on the same page. I think this is where a big 8 problem is. Its real easy for someone else to say 9 we didnt see it. I cant understand how the NRC 10 keeps making these statements that we didnt know.

11 Thats just -- I dont understand -- I dont see 12 where any of this is going to improve any. If you 13 dont learn from past history, I dont see where any 14 of this can improve.

15 MR. GROBE: Maybe what we can do 16 is talk later and we can move on to another persons 17 questions.

18 MR. DUSSEL: One more statement or 19 fact. I dont understand, you say that youre not 20 going to -- there was no fine brought forth for the 21 five people that was contaminated.

22 What good does any of the fines do to begin 23 with with a corporation when money does not mean 24 anything? There is no one being held accountable.

25 I dont understand. I have asked numerous times and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

72 1 other people have asked what have happened to all 2 these so-called managers that have been fired or let 3 go or have been moved. I dont see by firing them 4 or having them let go without question, how youre 5 going to learn anything. These are the people that 6 made these mistakes and youve sat and said that 7 people and mistakes that caused this. If these 8 people arent held accountable and are not 9 questioned, how do you feel youre going to learn 10 anything from it?

11 MR. GROBE: Let me go back to the 12 issue on the radioactive materials that got into the 13 public domain because thats apparently an issue of 14 concern and its very important that everybody had 15 the correct context on that. We currently assess 16 our violations by safety significance or risk 17 significance. In the area of radioactive materials 18 or radiation exposure is strictly based on safety.

19 The -- and we categorize certain violations, 20 violations that we issue in four levels starting with 21 green being the least significant, white, yellow and 22 red being most significant. This violation was 23 categorized as a green violation. It had very low 24 safety significance. The materials that were 25 released had no health consequences to the public.

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

73 1 Had the materials been of greater quantity or a 2 different type of material and had they had health 3 consequences, then the violation would have been 4 categorized at a higher level. As Bill indicated a 5 few minutes ago, if it presented a clear risk to the 6 public, then there could have been fines associated 7 with those violations. These violations are not 8 significant. They are of low significance. We 9 issued the violation. The company has to fix it, 10 and well make sure they do. Thank you very much 11 for your comments.

12 Are there other members of the public that 13 have questions? Yes, sir.

14 MR. HIRT: Dave Hirt is my name, 15 Danbury Township Trustee. Im a lifelong resident 16 of Ottawa County and have lived with this company in 17 our backyard since its inception. Safety has always 18 been our concern here. As public officials, theres 19 safety plants, contingency plants and backup plants.

20 Davis-Besse has been a good neighbor for us. Its 21 got a good -- its had a good safety record in the 22 past, producing electricity reliably for more than 25 23 years. The plant is capable of running. Problems 24 can be fixed. Safety can dominate compatible with 25 production of energy. Please give it your ultimate MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

74 1 consideration for the restart of the plant. Thank 2 you.

3 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much 4 for your comments.

5 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

6 MS. MUSER: My name is Mary Muser.

7 I have been a lifelong residence along the lake and 8 in Ohio my whole life. You were talking about these 9 new regulations, new things that you were coming up 10 with in this Lessons Learned. I just wondered who is 11 going to be in charge of overseeing all these new 12 regulations? Is this still going to be a matter of 13 trust between the industry and the NRC?

14 MR. GROBE: The Lessons Learned 15 Task Force really doesnt have anything to do with 16 the utilities. It has to do with how we do our job 17 and how we serve our public, expectations of the 18 public and the report went to the Executive Director, 19 thats the top guy in the agency, and he is charging 20 all of the appropriate people to implement those 21 changes and maybe you can help me here, Bill. I 22 think theres a six month review, every six months 23 hes going to review our progress in these areas.

24 It was either three or six months. I think it was 25 six months that were required to report back to him MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

75 1 on how were making process and making sure this 2 issue is fixed.

3 MS. MUSER: So basically the 4 company will still report to you about the level of 5 safety at their plant and you take their word for it, 6 or are you going to go in there and see for yourself?

7 This is what Im wondering.

8 MR. GROBE: Good question. We 9 have two inspectors on site every day, and they just 10 dont go around and ask questions. The reason we 11 have them here at the site every day is that theyre 12 at the plant every day, putting their eyeball on 13 whats going on.

14 MS. MUSER: And they were there 15 throughout this whole --

16 MR. GROBE: Thats right. You 17 have to appreciate that we have to select the 18 activities that were going to look at, and we chose 19 not to look at the head inspections because of the 20 belief that that was an issue that was well handled 21 based on the review of the records. As somebody else 22 pointed out earlier there were some inaccuracies in 23 those records. We currently are evaluating how 24 those records got to be inaccurate, but theres a lot 25 of activities that go on every day at the plant that MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

76 1 we cant actually look at ourselves. We do review a 2 lot of records, attend a lot of meetings and do 3 independent inspections ourselves, but we didnt 4 choose to look at this one specific activity and that 5 was unfortunate.

6 MS. MUSER: Okay. You also talked 7 about clear risk of the public as being a measurement 8 for how fines are levied and so forth. I would think 9 that a bulging liner seems to be a clear risk to the 10 public.

11 MR. GROBE: The specific issue we 12 were talking about was the release of --

13 MS. MUSER: Radioactivity --

14 MR. GROBE: -- 18 discrete 15 radioactive particles.

16 MS. MUSER: Right, but I would 17 seem to think that a bulging liner also seems to be a 18 clear risk.

19 MR. GROBE: I understand that.

20 MS. MUSER: I once asked, given 21 the past history of Davis-Besse to bury photos of the 22 degradation to the NRC, how can the public trust them 23 to be honest now with the safety issues, and the 24 answer that I was given was from one of the people 25 who is responsible for the restart. He said that how MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

77 1 we would know this would be safe -- not a concern now 2 is that he gives us his word. I dont feel thats 3 good enough, and I would like to know what better 4 assurances you have?

5 MR. GROBE: Well, the -- you can 6 have assurance that were going to provide 7 appropriate inspection and oversight of the Utility 8 to make sure these issues are fixed and they dont 9 recur.

10 MS. MUSER: Okay.

11 MR. GROBE: I hope you can develop 12 that assurance through watching how we do our work.

13 Were out here every month having public meetings.

14 We do a lot of work between those monthly public 15 meetings. Were reporting out publicly and there is 16 just a wealth of information about what were doing 17 on the website. I seek your feedback on specific 18 things that you read about what were doing.

19 MS. MUSER: Right. I was curious 20 about the head because you were saying some places 21 human beings cant get into to inspect. Is this one 22 of these places?

23 MR. GROBE: Well, during 24 operation, the head is completely encapsulated in 25 insulation.

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

78 1 MS. MUSER: Right.

2 MR. GROBE: And you cant see it.

3 MS. MUSER: Right, I understand 4 that.

5 MR. GROBE: During shutdown, the 6 head of a reactor, Davis-Besse reactor head, is 7 highly radioactive and access to that is limited --

8 MS. MUSER: Okay, so --

9 MR. GROBE: -- for personal safety 10 reasons.

11 MS. MUSER: So it seems like a 12 camera thing might be a good thing.

13 MR. GROBE: Its an excellent 14 suggestion and it was brought up as a recommendation 15 in our Task Force report.

16 MS. MUSER: Now, I keep hearing 17 how nuclear power is clean and unpolluted.

18 What about the waste that will remain 19 radioactive for thousands of years? No one has ever 20 been able to deal with this problem, and as far as 21 being cheap, we all know that thats a farce. It 22 isnt cheap.

23 MR. GROBE: The waste issue and 24 particularly I think youre referring to the high 25 level waste issues?

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

79 1 MS. MUSER: Right.

2 MR. GROBE: There is one that its 3 far beyond the purview of this panel, but I could get 4 you a contact thats involved in the Yuca Mountain 5 project, and Im sure youre familiar with the 6 Department of Energys initiative to develop a waste 7 repository at Yuca Mountain, thats the approach that 8 the Department of Energy is pursuing and the NRC has 9 some responsibility to review that as if the 10 Department of Energy is a licensee of ours.

11 MS. MUSER: Okay. Now, when you 12 think the NRC failed -- the NRC basically failed to 13 follow your own regulations by not ordering immediate 14 shutdown in the past, so why do you feel now that new 15 regulations would make a difference?

16 MR. GROBE: Really, youve gotten 17 back into those issues that are described in the IG 18 report as well as the Chairmans response to that 19 report, and I recommend that you read the Chairmans 20 response.

21 MS. MUSER: I did.

22 MR. GROBE: And those documents 23 speak for themselves. I really dont have anything 24 to add beyond what the IG said and what the Chairman 25 said. Thank you.

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

80 1 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

2 MR. GROBE: Thank you.

3 MR. RITTER: Good evening. My name 4 is David Ritter. Im a policy analysis with Public 5 Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environment 6 Program, Washington, D.C. We are a non-profit 7 agency. We do not take any funds from the 8 Government or any corporations and we have a 9 membership of over 150,000. While I do now live in 10 the D.C. area, I was born and raised in Ohio, and I 11 lived there for 28 years and my family still resides 12 in North Central Ohio with my sister and 13 brother-in-law working regularly in Marblehead, so I 14 have a personal interest, as well as professional, on 15 this issue, and I can confidently say that I also 16 represent them as well as the public citizen members.

17 I realize that the viewpoints Im about to 18 express are not likely to change. Im going to speak 19 quickly because I know I have a time limit. Not 20 likely to change any minds or convince FirstEnergy or 21 the NRC to reverse course in their plans to start 22 Davis-Besse, nor will they shock the NRC to any 23 extent that might initiate real substantive changes 24 within the NRC, within the organization.

25 Nonetheless it is apparently necessary to air these MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

81 1 viewpoints.

2 We have heard a great deal from FirstEnergy 3 about how they are in the process of turning over a 4 new leaf and that they are -- and that they have 5 learned their lesson regarding placing emphasis on 6 production over safety. In fact, if one didnt know 7 better, it would seem that FirstEnergy is completely 8 indifferent to Davis-Besses future ability to turn a 9 profit now that they are so focused on safety, 10 safety, safety. One could nearly be fooled that 11 Davis-Besse is a public project of national pride.

12 I presume that most in the room could recognize one 13 particular reactor that operated in a state owned 14 setting, Chernobyl, but certainly, lets not mistake 15 Davis-Besse for Chernobyl. Fortunately, disaster 16 was narrowly averted at Davis-Besse, and, of course, 17 Davis-Besse is very much owned and operated by a 18 private entity -- FirstEnergy. In time, FirstEnergy 19 will again be faced with a production versus safety 20 dilemma. Any time a strong -- any time a decision 21 in favor of safety could adversely impact the bottom 22 line, there will always be a strong inclination to 23 act to maximize profit and anyone who has seriously 24 evaluated this industrys prospects for a 21st 25 century renaissance in anything remotely resembling a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

82 1 free market knows that demonstrating a business case 2 for nuclear is difficult at best. Making the 3 decision to reduce power or shut down the plant for 4 some time or to make repairs is not a decision that 5 delights investors. In truth, we know that safety 6 culture, from the owner/operator licensee 7 perspective, is mostly a public relations campaign 8 aimed in any direction. In truth, we know that 9 relying on the nuclear industry to keep us safe and 10 secure is to actually expect the fox to guard the 11 henhouse, and, lets face it, thats not really fair 12 to the fox. Naturally, this community values the 13 revenue and jobs that come with Davis-Besse, but 14 certainly the community also wishes to avoid a 15 nuclear accident or being at the center of terrorists 16 attack. Knowing that ultimately it isnt reasonable 17 to expect to be protected by FirstEnergy, who can 18 this community rely on to protect them? All of this 19 is not to say that many of Davis-Besses employees 20 are really not concerned to safety. It is only to 21 say that in the end there must be a countervailing 22 force to absolutely prevent production from being 23 prioritized over safety.

24 In theory, the protector would be the NRC, 25 however, their reasons, both specific to Davis-Besse MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

83 1 and generic, to question NRCs capacity to meet its 2 charge to safeguard the public. The dangers are 3 real. Thats why the hole in Davis-Besses reactor 4 head was much more than just a footnote in industry 5 journals. Two recent reports only serve to 6 highlight the question. Who can we trust?

7 On December 30th, 2002 the NRCs own 8 Inspector General issued a report entitled NRC 9 Regulation of Davis-Besse Regarding Damage to the 10 Reactor Vessel Head. Several findings deserve to be 11 reiterated here. That decision by the staff to allow 12 Davis-Besse to continue to operate was, quote, 13 contrary to the goal of NRC bulletin 2001-01 to have 14 at risk plant conduct timely inspections to ensure 15 NRC regulatory requirements related to reactor 16 coolant leakage were met, and, quote, NRC appears to 17 have informally established an unreasonably high 18 burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety 19 problem versus lack of reasonable assurance of 20 maintaining public health and safety before it will 21 act to shut down a power plant. The staff 22 articulated the standard to the Office of the 23 Inspector General as a rationale for allowing 24 Davis-Besse to operate until February 16th, 2002, 25 even in light of information that strongly indicated MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

84 1 Davis-Besse was not in compliance with NRC 2 regulations and plant technical specifications and 3 may have operated with reduced safety margins, and 4 NR -- and quote, NRC staff developed a well 5 documented technical basis for preparing an order to 6 shut down Davis-Besse, and on November 21st, the EPO EDO 7 informed the NRC commission of the intent of the NRR 8 Director to shut down the plant on or before December 9 31st, however, contrary to strong justification 10 presented in the order that NRR Director did not 11 force a shutdown, and this goes on. It says the NRR 12 staff did not document its analytical bases in 13 conclusion to support its decision, so the Inspector 14 General is NRCs own quasi independent arm to 15 investigate problems in the agency. It can be seen 16 as one line of defense to be sure that NRC is 17 accountable and actually does its job.

18 NRCs Chairman Reserve Meserve, perhaps bearing a 19 stain on his resume, quickly characterized the report 20 as, quote, unfair, and was indignant that the 21 Inspector General dared to, quote, question the 22 decision on CRDM cracking in the light of subsequent 23 knowledge, end quote, calling it, quote, Monday 24 morning quarterbacking.

25 One can only guess that Chairman Reserve Meserve MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

85 1 would be so dismissive of the IG report if there had 2 been a loss of coolant accident. Perhaps that was 3 forecasting a variety of problems both known and 4 unknown in calling for inspections of the industrys 5 pressurized water reactors in the first place. A 6 second report from the Inspector General as, quote, 7 survey of NRC safety culture and climate was released 8 on December 11, 2002 and raised questions which made 9 FirstEnergys own defenses of their safety culture 10 seem fairly ironic, and even though its been noted 11 that -- about taking things -- certain things without 12 reading the entire document and that this is actually 13 an improvement from the last time that a survey was 14 done, I would say that thats kind of a sorrowful 15 defense considering it indicates to me that NRC has 16 gone from poor to mediocre, so its worth noting the 17 following areas of difficulty for NRC safety culture 18 as noted by the Office of the Inspector General.

19 Quote, concern that NRC is becoming influenced by 20 private industry and power to regulate is 21 diminishing. Another one, many NRC employees 22 perceive a compromise of the safety culture.

23 Employees tend to be confused regarding an overall 24 agency mission. Safety training is considered to be 25 based on outdated scenarios leaves security of the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

86 1 nuclear sites within the U.S. vulnerable to sabotage, 2 and there are others, so, in light of these findings, 3 it appears that the public not only in Port Clinton, 4 Toledo, and Cleveland, but any community in the 5 fallout zones of Americas 103 commercial reactors 6 has much to be concerned about who is doing the 7 regulating and who is protecting them, and if the NRC 8 cant demonstrate the ability to regulate and 9 safeguard the public and not simply cabal and promote 10 the city, Davis-Besse should not be restarted.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

13 Weve been going for about two hours now. I would 14 suggest that we give the fingers of our transcriber a 15 brief respite and take about a 10 minute break. All 16 right? Well catch you right at the beginning.

17 Thank you.

18 THEREUPON a brief recess took place.

19 MR. GROBE: Why dont we find our 20 seats. I think we have some young people in the 21 audience that want to speak. Why dont we let them 22 speak. Its getting late.

23 MR. SHAW: My name is Ian Shaw, 24 and I would like to make a comment. I like see 25 changes made in the NRC and FirstEnergy, and Im glad MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

87 1 to see that these changes are being made.

2 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much, 3 Ian.

4 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

5 MS. SHAW: I just wanted to make 6 a follow-up comment from the students. One, they 7 were very positive about nuclear energy being a good 8 source of energy for our country and also one of the 9 comments you made, Mr. Dean, alluding to fines, I 10 wanted to share with you what their solution was on 11 researching this project. Their solution, its 12 interesting that you brought up that fines -- civil 13 fines were not a deterrent, they came to the same 14 conclusion without doing statistical study. Their 15 analogy was, well, if I break my brothers toy, I 16 have to pay from (sic) it and that teaches me a 17 lesson, so in adult terms an arbitrary fine probably 18 doesnt make much sense or be a deterrent. Their 19 solution was a fine that would have a consequence to 20 make things more safety (sic) since its made the 21 community feel unsafe, and the fine would be in the 22 amount of about two million to make sure that there 23 were moisture protection seals around the nozzle 24 heads, and, secondly, that money is paid in an amount 25 that the NRC could do inspections with robotic MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

88 1 equipment and that report would go to them for a 2 period of two to three years until there was 3 documented change of a change in the safety culture, 4 and I thought that that was a pretty good conclusion.

5 This is a comment of my own. In their 6 research, too, and in asking questions it looked as 7 if Framatome, the company that has robotic equipment 8 that does the ultrasonic technology inspections of 9 heads and can see if there is cracks, owns or has 10 financial interest in FirstEnergy, and I guess my 11 question or concern is how is the check and balance 12 if a company thats contracted with to do these 13 delicate inspections is pretty much inspecting itself 14 and maybe if a fine was levied that an outside 15 robotic technology company with ultrasonic equipment 16 might be used for reports?

17 MR. GROBE: Did you want to 18 respond to that, Bill?

19 MR. DEAN: In terms of the 20 enforcement policy? Go ahead.

21 MR. GROBE: Well, I think I heard 22 two questions. I think I heard you agree with 23 Bills comments regarding enforcement approach, but 24 the second question was a company thats getting paid 25 by FirstEnergy to do these inspections, your question MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

89 1 had to do with the --

2 MS. SHAW: Well, if they owned 3 them, if the company that they, I guess, contracted 4 with, somewhere along the lake, they made it seem 5 like Framatome owns FirstEnergy or is connected.

6 MR. GROBE: No.

7 MS. SHAW: Okay.

8 MR. GROBE: I think thats a 9 misunderstanding.

10 MS. SHAW: Okay.

11 MR. GROBE: Framatome is an 12 engineering firm that provides services.

13 MS. SHAW: Right.

14 MR. GROBE: And if they dont 15 provide good services for the fees that they collect 16 theyre not going to be in business very long, so --

17 MS. SHAW: So there is no 18 financial connection between the two?

19 MR. GROBE: Other than theyre 20 hired by FirstEnergy.

21 MS. SHAW: Okay, okay. And then 22 just the other comment, too, if they looked into the 23 possibility of -- an arbitrary fine doesnt make much 24 sense, but maybe the analogy of some financial fines 25 that actually are associated with consequences to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

90 1 make things safer.

2 MR. DEAN: I think that -- and, 3 yeah, I appreciate that concept, and, in fact, thats 4 pretty much what youre seeing here with Davis-Besse 5 right now. I mean, heres a plant that because of 6 their failure to adequately maintain the integrity of 7 the reactor vessel head has been and will continue to 8 be in a lengthy shutdown, which in and of itself 9 costs them millions of dollars in replacement cost.

10 In addition, the types of activities that they have 11 done to try and improve safety of their plant and 12 improve their safety culture is indeed pouring money 13 into the plant to try and enhance and improvem the 14 safety of the plant, so -- so, but what you were 15 describing was a specific cause and effect, you had a 16 cause or an effect of the reactor vessel, you should 17 pour some of your -- we, the NRC, should direct them 18 to pour a specific amount of money into specifically 19 being better able to not have that occur in the 20 future.

21 MS. SHAW: Right, and theres a 22 difference between fixing a problem and making 23 personnel changes and a financial fee associated with 24 ensuring that there is safety until they can prove 25 it, because I think thats awesome all the changes MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

91 1 that they are making inside and that, but, in the 2 past, there hasnt been follow through and that trust 3 has been broken twice, and it would seem, I mean, if 4 I was a parent and my child did something once, you 5 know, 1985 or whatever, and then they came back and 6 did it again, I would say, you know, thats two times 7 now, and so I believe that you say that youre going 8 to do it, but Im going to have to monitor things a 9 little bit more closely until I see that you do that, 10 say, after another two inspections, so --

11 MR. GROBE: I appreciate your 12 comments, and I think thats what were all about 13 with this panel is providing additional oversight to 14 make sure that this problem doesnt recur. Thank 15 you very much. Im not sure we got your name on the 16 record.

17 MS. SHAW: Lori Shaw.

18 MR. GROBE: Lori Shaw. Thank you 19 very much, Lori.

20 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

21 MR. GROBE: I know you have been 22 itching to speak, but we have a couple more young 23 people behind you.

24 MR. (JEREYMY) PATRICK: Its all right. He 25 can go ahead.

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

92 1 MR. TSCHERNE: Are you sure?

2 MR. GROBE: Thats okay with you?

3 MR. (JEREMY PATRICK): Its no problem.

4 MR. GROBE: Okay, go ahead.

5 MR. DEAN: And, Im sorry, Jack, 6 if I could just make an administrative announcement, 7 the facility closes at 10, so we need to finish by 8 9:45, so well just need to take that into account.

9 MR. GROBE: Thanks, Bill.

10 MR. TSCHERNE: Thank you. There we 11 go. Thank you. My name is Larry Tscherne, and Im 12 the business manager of IBEW of Local 245.

13 Fellows, Im sure youre aware of the 14 involvement of the International Brotherhood of 15 Electrical Workers on a national basis. We 16 represent approximately 750,000 electrical workers 17 across the United States and Canada. Im happy to 18 say, proud to say, that we represent the physical 19 side of the craft at Davis-Besse from the operators, 20 the mechanics, electricians, INC, chemical, radiation 21 protection, just everybody on the physical side.

22 There was a lot of dialogue tonight on the technical 23 side of things and a lot of assurances. I can stand 24 here with confidence and assure you of one thing, and 25 thats dedication and ownership and craftsmanship on MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

93 1 top of that. Thats what you have in the employees 2 at Davis-Besse who put in a lot of time, a lot of 3 hours, not only at work, but in training, and theyre 4 the best out there, so I dont really have a 5 question. I just wanted to make that statement.

6 Again, there was a lot of dialogue on the technical 7 side and assurances. I cant comment on the 8 technical side, but I can assure you of that 9 ownership and dedication. Thank you.

10 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much, 11 appreciate it.

12 MR. JEREMY PATRICK: Good evening. My 13 name is Jeremy Patrick. I run a local computer 14 business out of my home. Im 15 years old and I go 15 to school at Oak Harbor.

16 A couple points I wanted to make. I heard 17 Mr. Whitcomb earlier make allegations about 18 radioactive waste that has been mishandled. Thats 19 not even the topic at hand. I mean, we need to keep 20 on the topic. A suggestion I had, the public has to 21 be informed of more than just the problems. More 22 like how the plant was designed, how far we were from 23 actual public safety risk. That was a far shot.

24 Even if the reactor would have in some way leaked 25 something, theres plenty more containment that would MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

94 1 have contained it. I feel this issue is being dealt 2 with in a professional manner and is being dealt with 3 what it is. Its only a problem. I mean, there was 4 no injuries or permanent damage. This can all be 5 repaired, and its being dealt in that same way.

6 People need to see the whole side of the story.

7 Theres not just what the media says. We need to 8 express that people are only looking at the bad side 9 of it -- some people, I should say. Some people are 10 only looking at the bad side of it when theres an 11 entirely different side, as improvements are being 12 made, safety is being increased, things are going to 13 continue to be normal, and the majority of the public 14 actually has no problem with the nuclear plants and 15 the select few who have notable problems, those 16 problems are unfounded. I have talked at these 17 meetings before, and I would say that more -- more 18 has been done in the past few months than I ever 19 expected that it would happen, and I just wanted to 20 say youre doing a great job. Thank you.

21 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

22 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

23 MR. RANDY PATRICK: My name is Randy 24 Patrick. Im a shift engineer, the shift engineer on 25 operating crew five at Davis-Besse. Im also a MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

95 1 neighbor of Davis-Besse, live within five miles of 2 the reactor. Im a member of the Oak Harbor 3 community. I go to church in Oak Harbor, and I 4 didnt anticipate on talking, but my son wanted to 5 talk, so I felt obliged that I should say a few 6 words. I dont have a prepared text. Im not going 7 to stand up here and read a statement or many 8 statements making accusations or whatever. Thats 9 easy enough for anybody to do, but I would like to 10 talk from my heart and what I feel.

11 To start off with, I have full faith in the 12 NRC, I think youre doing the right thing. I think 13 you have the proper amount of rigor, and I think 14 youre doing a great job keeping the public informed.

15 Its very easy to cast stones at people to 16 take the topic away, take the topic away from what we 17 should be discussing. We know what happened in the 18 past. We know the problems that we had and we need 19 to look at what we have done, and I want to present a 20 little human face to Davis-Besse. For the lady that 21 lived on the lake, the lady that has concern about we 22 need to incorporate our nuclear profession and our 23 nuclear state and everything we do so thats 24 engraved. Its not just something we say, and it is 25 part of our yearly evaluations now. We are MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

96 1 evaluated on our nuclear safety concerns, our 2 professionalism, otherwise if we fail in those areas, 3 then our reviews are very bad. Its part of our 4 reviews every year. Our safety conscious work 5 environment, I have had training on that, and we just 6 had training on many other things.

7 Back in 1985, we said we fixed things and it 8 happened again. Well, the difference between work 9 done this time and work done back in 1985 is vastly 10 different because we take time, and we have done 11 things differently, and the management now I feel is 12 much better. I can go to my boss and say, Mike, I 13 got a problem. I have a problem with reactor 14 safety, I think this is the wrong thing to do, and 15 hes going to go with me to his boss, and hes going 16 to go to his boss to the Vice President. By virtue 17 of my license, Im required by law to carry out -- my 18 primary directive is to protect the health, safety 19 and welfare of the public. If I have a problem with 20 them, I go to these people. Theres two of them 21 here at our plant every day, at least one of them 22 lives in Oak Harbor. I know where he lives. I can 23 go see him if I have concern, but what we need to 24 focus on is that we have changed, we have done 25 things. Im part of it, and I not only do the right MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

97 1 thing, Im not going to question reactor safety based 2 on everything I look at because its going to be a 3 safe reactor. I do it because the NRC requires it, I 4 do it because my company requires it. I do it for 5 my own good because thats what I want to do. I do 6 it so I can go home at night and look at my family.

7 I do it so I can go to church and look at my fellow 8 congregation members and say, look, I work there, I 9 do the right thing, its safe. It do it for my 10 neighbors, I do it for our opponents, I do it for you 11 because youre somebody that lives here and I care, 12 you may not agree with me, but thats why I do it, 13 and so just to give you a human face on it, thats 14 where Im coming from. You can talk evaluations.

15 You can talk figures. You can talk about 16 allegations, but, in reality, this is what I am, and 17 this is what I do, and I want people to know that.

18 Thank you.

19 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

20 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

21 MS. KRAMER: Hi. Jessica Kramer.

22 I live in Cleveland. You might remember a while 23 back, it was explained to me at a previous meeting 24 how a contained section of Lake Erie is shared as 25 part of the coolant system -- I dont know. I dont MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

98 1 understand how a section of a lake can be contained.

2 I need to know -- I need a guarantee that our 3 drinking water and any other possible radiation that 4 could be contaminating that -- is there a guarantee 5 that my drinking water and bathing water is safe at 6 this point? Can you guarantee that it will be in the 7 future, and Im referring to the fact that 8 radioactive particles have been really -- whether 9 they are dangerous or not they have radioactivity.

10 How many others have been included? Is there a 11 possibility of that?

12 MR. GROBE: Yes. I think I can 13 answer your question, and if I dont hit the nail on 14 the head, let me know. Theres -- I believe there 15 is somewhat of a description of this in our 16 newsletter, but let me go through a couple things.

17 The reactor coolant is contained within an 18 enclosed piping system, and then there is a second 19 coolant system that cools the reactor coolant much 20 like the air cools your engine coolant through your 21 radiator, except this is another closed coolant 22 system, so the reactor coolant is contained within a 23 closed system, and theres a second system that is --

24 that cools the steam generators that cools the 25 reactor coolant and then theres a tertiary system MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

99 1 which actually comes from the lake. Its called 2 circulating water, and that water is brought into the 3 condenser and cools the second system, so theres 4 three separate cooling systems. The first two are 5 completely self-contained and thats one of the 6 principal ways that the release of radioactive 7 materials to the lake is controlled. Separately, 8 continuous monitoring is done of the lake not only by 9 FirstEnergy, but also by the State of Ohio, and they 10 have a radiological monitoring program that they 11 implement to provide independent assurance, and we 12 inspect FirstEnergys evaluation of the releases of 13 radioactive materials, so thats how you can be 14 confident that the drinking water in Lake Erie is --

15 MR. DEAN: Jack, (indicating).

16 MR. GROBE: -- is not being 17 contaminated with radioactive materials. Oh, look at 18 that. Doesnt get much better than this, does it?

19 This is the primary coolant system I was talking 20 about inside the reactor and -- Im getting lots of 21 help here, and then this is whats referred to as a 22 steam generator. Theres a secondary coolant system 23 which is completely contained, and then this is where 24 the water comes from the lake through the third 25 cooling system, so the lake is very well isolated MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

100 1 from anything that might contain radioactive 2 materials, and these systems are continuously 3 monitored for levels of radioactivities as well as 4 independent measurements in the environment.

5 MS. KRAMER: Now, has that also 6 been checked along with all the other investigations 7 at this point for cracks or leaks?

8 MR. GROBE: Yes.

9 MS. KRAMER: So you can guarantee 10 that my drinking water is safe?

11 MR. GROBE: I have no concerns 12 about your drinking water.

13 MS. KRAMER: I do.

14 MR. GROBE: Were getting some 15 feedback here.

16 MS. KRAMER: I want a guarantee.

17 I mean --

18 MR. GROBE: I appreciate that.

19 We havent identified -- we inspect the radiological 20 monitoring program. Its referred to as radiological 21 environmental monitoring program. We inspect them on 22 a regular basis with experts out of the Region III 23 office, so -- and we havent identified any problems 24 with Davis-Besses radiological monitoring program.

25 The specific issue that happened with some minor MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

101 1 discrete radioactive particles that were released on 2 peoples clothing out of the site was completely 3 different, not associated with radiological and 4 environmental -- it was failure to properly survey 5 some workers, and those violations that occurred were 6 extremely low level and were not of any health 7 concern, so I dont believe that theres a basis for 8 concern for radiological monitoring, and I would be 9 glad to talk to you more about this after the 10 meeting.

11 The second question that you asked, I wasnt 12 quite sure had to do with, I believe, theres a 13 certain portion of the intake canals from the lake 14 that in the event of an earthquake, a seismic event, 15 that intake canal would be isolated from the lake 16 itself, so I think thats what you were referring to 17 when you said a closed portion of the lake. Its 18 actually the intake structure that takes water from 19 the lake. Obviously, the lake is not seismically 20 designed, its the lake, and there is a possibility 21 that that portion could be closed off from the lake 22 in the event of an earthquake, and the concern there 23 is whether or not there would be sufficient cooling 24 capacity in the water thats captured and circulated 25 around, and thats an issue that is -- its a design MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

102 1 question regarding thermally transfer capability of 2 the various systems, and thats an issue thats still 3 under review, but it doesnt have to do with 4 radiological releases. Its simply related to 5 thermal characteristics in the plant and whether or 6 not there is sufficient cooling. Have I answered 7 your questions?

8 MS. KRAMER: The best that you 9 probably can tonight, yes.

10 MR. GROBE: I would be glad to 11 talk to you after the meeting. Thank you. Yes, 12 sir.

13 MR. SHUTT: Okay, Im Dan Shutt.

14 I was here at the last meeting. This is my second 15 time again. I came unprepared to say anything, but 16 in listening to other people speak, I got an idea of 17 something I wanted to say, and that was, the way I 18 look at it, I dont work for FirstEnergy, Im a 19 contract employee over there. The truth is they 20 work for me because I pay my electric bill. I 21 certainly dont work for the NRC, the truth is you 22 guys work for me because I pay my taxes, and to some 23 measure what people spoke to in the form of public 24 advocacy, they kind of work for me, too. They 25 represent me because I am part of the public.

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

103 1 Exclusive of the people who came up here with 2 personal concerns, such as the young lady in front of 3 me, regarding the contamination of water which is a 4 legitimate question, I just wanted to kind of give a 5 job performance review for the people that work for 6 me. It occurred to me that -- and I havent had the 7 opportunity to fire anybody in a long time. In the 8 position Im in now, I dont have anybody working for 9 me. Ive got three children, two of them are 10 teenagers. I dont think Ive got much control on 11 them either, but, I tell you what, if I was in a 12 position to dismiss people, there would be good 13 reason here today. I see people doing a good job, 14 and I see people doing a bad job. The good job that 15 I see is that were being provided by a regulating 16 agency with an open forum which is on top of it, 17 which is restarting the plant. I see the Utility 18 and the regulatory agency responding to the concerns 19 of people as they raise them. With these successive 20 forums that I have been to, Ive heard past issues 21 address, and new issues brought up. Those were 22 addressed in a very calm manner. I see that the 23 Utility and the regulatory agency are providing 24 information that is accurate and verifiable.

25 As opposed to that, I see the advocacy MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

104 1 people, rather than providing an open forum, which is 2 on top of it, they are kind of digging into the past.

3 You hear a lot about 1985. It has nothing to do with 4 restarting the plant today. We certainly need to 5 learn from history, but I dont think that thats on 6 topic. I see that rather than responding to any 7 concerns that are raised, I see them going back to 8 the next meeting, reloading up on more information, 9 coming back with greater skepticism and truly not 10 listening to the answers because they are asking the 11 same questions again and again. Rather than 12 providing information thats accurate and verifiable, 13 I hear a lot of misleading information taken out of 14 context. I hear pieces of the formula brought 15 forward and championed as though that were truth. I 16 hear them impugning the character and questioning the 17 veracity of the people that work at Davis-Besse, and 18 people that work with the regulatory agency, and I 19 take that personally, because my character is solid.

20 My family depends on it, and I depend on it, and I 21 think everybody in the room can depend on it.

22 I also see that the Utility and regulatory 23 agency here are here to offer solutions to an 24 admitted mistake, to admitted problems, solutions, 25 things to fix that for the future. All I hear from MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

105 1 the advocacy groups are offers of attacks, how to 2 tear it down, lets shut it down, weve got to stop 3 it all, and I also see that the regulatory agencies, 4 the Utility, admit the mistakes that were made and 5 theyre addressing them and theyre taking actions to 6 correct those problems and move forward into the 7 future. I see the advocacy groups repeating the 8 same mistake in information over and over again. I 9 dont see them correcting anything. When a question 10 is answered properly with facts, I dont see that 11 that solves the question. The question gets brought 12 up again, so I see a big repetition of things, and, 13 Ill be honest with you, if I had an employee who 14 repeated the same mistakes over and over again, 15 responded in forum by offering attacks rather than 16 solutions, who provided misleading information on a 17 regular basis, based on speculation and impugned the 18 characters of people that they were talking to and 19 about, also continued to dig into the past for 20 information rather than move forward into the future, 21 I wouldnt have much use for them, and last, but not 22 least, I see the regulatory agency and the Utility 23 following the schedules that we have set for these 24 forums rather than some of the people who come up to 25 speak who run way over their five minutes as if added MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

106 1 verbiage was equal somehow to increased wit, and Ive 2 got to tell you the quote that comes to mind when I 3 hear those speak is that brevity is the soul of wit.

4 I have taken up my five minutes certainly, maybe not 5 quite that, but I would like to keep it at that, and 6 just say if I could fire somebody tonight it would be 7 the people that think theyre representing me as a 8 member of the public, and if I were to applaud 9 somebody who worked for me, it would have to be the 10 regulatory agency and the Utility thats doing their 11 job.

12 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

13 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

14 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: My name is Don 16 Ackerman. I am a resident of the State of Ohio, and 17 I have been a contractor in the nuclear industry for 18 22 years. I have worked in and around many nuclear 19 power plants throughout the United States. At this 20 point, I hear a lot of questions and a lot of 21 comments on the safety conscious work environment.

22 I can tell you that a safety conscious work 23 environment is brought from the top down in a belief 24 that anybody can go and have a result and has a path 25 that leads them to result. Its a commitment from MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

107 1 the upper management to their people and from their 2 managers down within the craft levels to the 3 supervisors to the bottom of the pier that everybody 4 has a place to go to get results. I have worked 5 with this management out here, the upper management, 6 the middle management and the management in the 7 contractor level, and I can tell you that they are 8 committed, that they will have a safety conscious 9 work environment not only on this site, but within 10 the FirstEnergy system. I have worked at all three 11 plants for FirstEnergy. I have also worked for 12 several other owners of nuclear power plants. I see 13 no more commitment than what you have here at 14 Davis-Besse from the upper management and from the 15 levels coming down on safety conscious work 16 environment. I believe that theres many avenues 17 that the people out here have to go, not only from 18 within the client themselves and within the owners of 19 the property out here, but also with the NRC and with 20 private ombudsmen and on down to that area, so when 21 we talk about a safety conscious work environment, it 22 does start from the top and you dont have the regime 23 here that was always here. You have many new 24 members out here that I have worked with throughout 25 the industry, and I think youll see a change and MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

108 1 there is a change, and I believe that the people out 2 at the site have a way to go and place to voice their 3 opinions and are not afraid to do that at any time.

4 Any person out there that doesnt think they have 5 that avenue has -- is -- cannot be completely 6 truthful to themselves or to the people standing here 7 if you heard those comments, because everybody at 8 that site with honesty and integrity has fulfilled 9 that commitment to have a safety conscious work 10 environment. Thank you.

11 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much, 12 Linda.

13 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

14 MS. DOHRMAN: Ill be brief. I 15 dont have a question. I just have a statement.

16 My name is Linda Dohrman. Im one of the managers 17 at Davis-Besse. I work with the -- I work with the 18 most professional bunch of people I have ever come 19 across to the point that when I deal with people 20 outside of the industry, I have little patience for 21 the lack of high standards that I expect to deal with 22 every day. Im so proud of the team of managers 23 that I work with, theyre the best I have seen in 24 over 20 years, yes, most of them are new. We are 25 focused on safety. That professionalism goes MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

109 1 through the entire organization. I guarantee we are 2 and we work in a safety conscious work environment.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. GROBE: Thank you very much.

5 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

6 MR. GROBE: You all are starting 7 to look tired.

8 MR. GARCHOW: Good evening. My 9 name is Steve Garchow, and I also work at the 10 station. My responsibility there is the human 11 performance at the worker level, and I think to give 12 some context to a couple of comments I would like to 13 make, I was a Licensed Senior Operator at a previous 14 nuclear plant, and I also spent 13 years at the 15 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, during which 16 time I visited every station in the U.S. with the 17 exception of one, and I have been to International 18 stations from Canada to India, so I have been in a 19 few containments, and I worked with a few 20 organizations, and it seems to me -- Ill just go to 21 kind of these simple things the way I think in 22 operator terms and really looking at a few things to 23 restart our plant.

24 One is the physical attributes, the safety 25 readiness, and we all know thats fairly easy to MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

110 1 measure. We can test things. We can run things, 2 measure current and satisfy ourselves that theyre 3 ready to run and perform.

4 The second one is a little more difficult, 5 and maybe what I would like to ask you to do and the 6 commission and maybe even challenge you to do and 7 that is the question of safety culture. I would ask 8 you to come down and talk to our electricians, talk 9 to our engineers and ask them what is different today 10 than a year ago or two years ago, because I dont 11 think you can get that sense from questionnaires or 12 from newspaper articles. I think you get that from 13 an eyeball to eyeball discussions with the people 14 that are carrying the wrenches and turning the 15 switches, and they are the guys that really make our 16 plant operate, and I think youll find that we have 17 some of the best technicians in our country.

18 As far as our operating crews, weve heard 19 from one of our shift engineers. I used to do crew 20 evaluations on simulators, and, frankly, I would put 21 our crews performance up against any crew in the 22 country, and I would also invite you to observe them, 23 how they conduct their activities in the control 24 rooms. The pier peer checks theyre doing with our 25 maintenance and crafting at the plant on a daily basis.

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

111 1 Thank you.

2 MR. GROBE: Thank you.

3 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

4 MR. CUFF: My name is Jeff Cuff.

5 I also am in operations of the Davis-Besse Nuclear 6 Power Plant. A year ago you would have found me as 7 a front line supervisor supervising a crew of 13 8 people on an operating shift.

9 In April of 2002, I was reassigned to the 10 training department to train my peers.

11 In December of 2002, I was reassigned to a 12 managerial position to assist in the restart effort 13 of our power plant. In each of those positions, 14 Ive done my best to ensure the safety of the plant, 15 to ensure the quality of training, to ensure the 16 quality of restart.

17 Tonight I became a fox guarding the henhouse.

18 The difference here is this fox has two children, 19 theyre 12 and 14. They live in Port Clinton.

20 This fox has friends that live throughout Ottawa 21 County, Carroll Township, Sandusky County, Perrysburg 22 Township that all depend on the safety of this 23 reactor. They all depend on me doing my job safely.

24 Its a job I take very seriously. It also includes 25 my own life because not only am I in jeopardy if MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

112 1 something goes wrong at that plant, my livelihood if 2 we do not restart is also in jeopardy. I dont want 3 that plant restarted if its not safe, and its my 4 job now to make sure we dont take the next step 5 until its safe, and I will do that.

6 I also take risks in my life. December 2001, 7 I took a flight down to Puerto Rico. I looked 8 introspectively after September 11th and said, do I 9 want to fly in this environment, and I said, you 10 know, there are certain risks involved, but I believe 11 I can do this safely. I also believe I can produce 12 electricity safely and just as the FAA is looking at 13 airplane regulations and being in their spective on 14 themselves and how to improve safety there, Scott and 15 Doug, men from the 350 Panel, everybody from 16 Davis-Besse, all the advocacy groups, we need to 17 consistently look at the mistakes we make in our 18 lives. We need to learn from those mistakes. If 19 you run a stop sign and hit a car, youll stop twice 20 every time from there on out so you dont make a 21 mistake. We made a mistake. I wasnt at this 22 plant in 1985, but I need people to push back on me 23 so in five years and 10 years when the production 24 pressure does come, and it will come, we put that in 25 the scales and make sure the safety comes first MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

113 1 because I have to two kids whose lives are on the 2 line. I have a livelihood thats on the line, and I 3 like my life and I like my living. I need the NRC 4 to push back, I need the advocates to push back, I 5 need my own workers to push back and they do that.

6 You go talk to any of the men Ive supervised and any 7 of them will come up to you and say, I can go to 8 Jeff, give him my concern, and hes going to take it 9 where he needs to take it. I can tell you were 10 doing work on a diesel generator tomorrow because one 11 of the guys in my work group said we need to do this 12 work. I pushed on my boss and its gone into the 13 schedule, and were doing that work. Im here to 14 create environmentally safe electricity for northwest 15 Ohio, and I need everybody to learn from their 16 mistakes, and I need everybody to push back. Thank 17 you.

18 MR. GROBE: Thank you.

19 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

20 MR. GROBE: Yes, sir. I think 21 this will be our last comment. Bill correctly 22 pointed out we need to start clearing out at a 23 quarter to ten, and its about 20 til, so welcome 24 aboard.

25 MR. LANG: Well, my name is Ted MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

114 1 Lang, and Im a Senior Staff Engineer at Davis-Besse, 2 I just wanted to get away a little bit from some of 3 the being an engineer, I wanted to get away a little 4 bit from some of the human factors that talked -- one 5 of the points an earlier speaker brought up. In 6 particular, I have been charged with the developing 7 an alloy 600 program for Davis-Besse, and that 8 program, for those that dont understand what the 9 meaning of that is, alloy 600 is, of course, the 10 nickel base alloy that cracked on our reactor head 11 that got us into this problem in the first place.

12 My job is to make sure that our program is not just 13 good, but really the best in the country, and I 14 intend to do that.

15 First of all, as youre aware when you issue 16 a bulletin, the guidance that you provide in it is 17 somewhat up to the Utility thats used, what to take, 18 what not to take and how to argue it, in your last 19 bulletin, Bulletin 2002-02, weve taken for the 20 reactor head not only the recommendations that youve 21 provided, but we have met or exceeded all of those 22 recommendations and committed that we would do that.

23 Besides the reactor head, alloy 600 is used in other 24 parts of the system. We have done complete and bare 25 metal visual exams on every alloy 600 joint in the MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

115 1 system. We are committed to continuing inspections 2 in the future written down in the program.

3 In addition to that, weve done, as the NRC 4 is aware, bottom head inspections looking at the 5 import nozzles which is not an industry practice and 6 it hasnt been, to my knowledge, in any way mandated 7 by the NRC in any way yet, and that -- and in that 8 endeavor we intended to do a pressure test holding 9 for seven days at considerable cost during our start 10 up activities. All of these things are -- I would 11 have to say above and beyond what the industry in 12 general has been doing, and we intend to continue 13 those things.

14 Furthermore, in the program, we will have 15 more or less requirements and expectations of the 16 program owner to not only do inspections proactively 17 to make sure that we continue those inspections in 18 state of the art, using state of the art techniques.

19 Weve also done some proactive inspections above and 20 beyond ASME Code where weve actually cut into the 21 system and done the base of inspections.

22 Furthermore, in some cases weve made 23 decisions to replace those materials with alloy 690 24 which would, of course, be more resistant in the 25 future, so I just wanted to address that a little MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

116 1 bit.

2 Another thing, gentlemen, before me, many 3 speakers before have talked about why arent we doing 4 things like instituting a photographic program where 5 we take pictures and compare them to the past, well, 6 that is part of the program, so I just wanted to 7 point that out.

8 MR. GROBE: Okay. Thank you very 9 much.

10 THEREUPON, the audience applauded.

11 MR. GROBE: I think weve met or 12 exceeded our expectations for tonight. Our goal was 13 to be able to communicate with the public, and, as 14 Howard Whitcomb appropriately pointed out, diverse 15 views result in the best outcome, and I appreciate 16 all the views that were expressed here tonight.

17 Those of you that are interested can participate in 18 the January 30th meeting telephonically or youre 19 welcome to travel to the Windy City and visit with us 20 personally and --

21 Okay, who has the date for the next 0350 22 meeting? February 11th is our next 0350 meeting, so 23 thank you very much.

24 MR. DEAN: And if Debbie from the 25 Camp Perry staff is around, thanks for your help in MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

117 1 trying to make sure our sound system worked.

2 THEREUPON, the hearing was adjourned.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. ROGERS-LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900

118 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 certify 6 that the foregoing, consisting of 117 pages, was taken by me in stenotype and was reduced to writing 7 by me by means of Computer-Aided Transcription; that the foregoing is a true and complete transcript of 8 the proceedings held in that room on the 14th day of January, 2003 before the Nuclear Regulatory 9 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

, 2003.

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