ML071840004
| ML071840004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/2007 |
| From: | Thomas Wengert NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIII-2 |
| To: | |
| Wengert, Thomas J, NRR/DORL, 415-4037 | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2007-0299, NRC-1644 | |
| Download: ML071840004 (46) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting with Union of Concerned Scientists Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Monday, June 18, 2007 Work Order No.:
NRC-1644 Pages 1-44 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 MEETING WITH UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 4
(PETITIONER) REQUESTING ACTION UNDER 10 CFR2.206 5
REGARDING PROTECTION AGAINST CONTROL ROD DRIVE 6
MECHANISM NOZZLE LEAKAGE FAST CORROSION SCENARIO 7
+ + + + +
8 MONDAY 9
JUNE 18, 2007 10
+ + + + +
11 The meeting was convened at 10:30 a.m. in Room 12 0-5B4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White 13 Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 14 Maryland.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I-N-D-E-X 1
Introductions and Opening Remarks.........3 2
Remarks from Petitioner 3
By David Lochbaum..............16 4
Questions from the Petition Review Board and 5
NRC Staff.................. 29 6
Conclusions and Questions from 7
Members of the Public............ 39 8
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
(10:26 a.m.)
2 MR. WENGERT: Tom Wengert, the Project 3
Manager for Davis-Besse, the Petition Manager for this 4
2.206 petition here at the NRC headquarters.
5 CHAIR NIEH: Ho Nieh from NRR Division of 6
Policy and Rulemaking. I'm the Petition Review Board 7
Chairman.
8 MS. LONGO: Giovanna Longo, Office of the 9
General Counsel, Senior Attorney.
10 MR. BURGESS: Bruce Burgess, Region III.
11 I'm the Branch Chief of Oversight of Davis-Besse and 12 Perry.
13 MS. MENSAH: Tanya Mensah, NRR. I'm the 14 2.206 Petition Coordinator.
15 MR. LOCHBAUM: Dave Lochbaum, Union of 16 Concerned Scientists, the Petitioner.
17 MR. COLLINS: Jay Collins, Technical Lead on 18 the Petition Review Board. I work in the Division of 19 Component Integrity.
20 MS. EVANS: Michele Evans, NRR. I'm the 21 Division Director, Division of Component Integrity.
22 MR. GIBBS: I'm Russell Gibbs, Branch Chief 23 in the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, which 24 covers Davis-Besse.
25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. HACKWORTH: Sandra Hackworth, Operations 1
Officer, Office of Investigations.
2 MR. MATTHEWS: Tim Matthews, Morgan Lewis.
3 L [MS. DIECKER]: Jane (inaudible) 4
[Diecker], Morgan Lewis, summer assistant.
5 MR. HAEMER: Robert Haemer, Pillsbury 6
Winthrop Shaw Pittman.
7 MR. HALNON: Greg Halnon, Director of 8
Regulatory Affairs for First Energy.
9 MR. JENKINS: I'm David Jenkins, First 10 Energy counsel.
11 MR. SCHMUTZ: Tom Schmutz, Morgan Lewis.
12 MS. SHEPHERD: Sandy Shepherd, Clifford &
13 Garde.
14 MR. SPALDING: Jeff Spalding, Clifford &
15 Garde.
16 MR.
GUNTER: Paul Gunter, Nuclear 17 Information Resource Service.
18 MS. ROSENBERG: Stacey Rosenberg, Branch 19 Chief, the Special Projects Branch in the Division of 20 Policy and Rulemaking.
21 MS. CHUNG: Yeon Ki Chung (inaudible).
22 MS. CRUZ: Holly Cruz, Division of Policy 23 and Rulemaking Project Manager.
24 MS. JONES: Heather Jones in NRR in the 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Operating Experience Branch.
1 MS. CASEY: Lauren Casey, Operating 2
Experience Branch.
3 MS. SHOOP: Undine Shoop, Office of 4
Executive, Director for Operations.
5 MR. WENGERT: This is Tom Wengert. We've 6
completed introductions at the NRC headquarters.
7 Would the Region III please continue with 8
introductions?
9 MR. GAVULA: NRC Region III. This is Jim 10 Gavula, Reactor Inspector now at the DRN.
11 MR. YULI [ULIE]: Joe Yuli [ULIE], OI Region 12 III.
13 MR. ZURAWSKI: Paul Zurawski, Region III, 14 Branch 6, Reactor Engineer.
15 MR. WENGERT: Is the Resident Inspector from 16 Davis-Besse on the line?
17 MR. SMITH: Yes, the Resident Inspector 18 Richard Smith from Davis-Besse online.
19 MR. WENGERT: Are there any other parties on 20 the line to introduce themselves?
21 PHONE PARTICIPANT: I don't see any other 22 parties on the line.
23 MR. WENGERT: Okay. Then I think we can 24 begin with the meeting. All right, thanks. First, 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I'd like to thank everyone for attending this meeting.
1 My name is Tom Wengert, and I am the Davis-Besse 2
Project Manager. I'm also the Petition Manager for 3
this 2.206 petition under consideration. The Petition 4
Review Board Chairman is Ho Nieh.
5 As part of the Petition Review Board's or 6
PRB's review of the 2.206 petition, Mr. Lochbaum of 7
the Union of Concerned Scientists has requested this 8
opportunity to address the PRB and provide additional 9
information on items number two and number three of 10 the petition. This meeting is scheduled to last from 11 10:30 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.
12 The meeting is being recorded by the NRC 13 Operations Center and will be transcribed by a court 14 reporter. The supplement, the transcript, excuse me, 15 the transcript will become a supplement to the 16 petition that was submitted on April 30th, 2007 and 17 supplemented on May 10th, 2007 by the Union of 18 Concerned Scientists. The transcript will also be 19 made available publically.
20 Today's meeting is a Category 3 public 21 meeting. The public is invited to observe the 22 proceedings. Prior to concluding this meeting, 23 members of the public may provide comments regarding 24 the petition and ask questions about the 2.206 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 petition process.
1 I've prepared an attendance slip that I am 2
now circulating. I ask that everyone sign it before 3
the conclusion of this meeting. The meeting summary 4
that the staff will be issuing will include a listing 5
of all those in attendance and on the phone today.
6 I've also distributed a meeting feedback 7
form. I encourage you to take the time to fill it out 8
so we can learn if there's anything we need to do to 9
improve the effectiveness of these meetings. You can 10 leave the form on your chair, hand it to me, or mail 11 them back to me in the next week or two, and we will 12 get it into our system.
13 We already had the introductions. At this 14 time, again, Mr. Lochbaum, could you please introduce 15 yourself for the record?
16 MR. LOCHBAUM: David Lochbaum, Director of 17 the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned 18 Scientists and the Petitioner.
19 MR. WENGERT: Thank you. I'd like to 20 emphasize once again that we need to speak clearly and 21 loudly to make sure that the court reporter can 22 accurately transcribe this meeting. If you do have 23 something that you'd like to say, please first state 24 your name for the record. At this time, I'll turn it 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 over to PRB Chairman Ho Nieh.
1 CHAIR NIEH: Thank you, Tom. Good morning, 2
David. Good morning, guests. Welcome to the public 3
meeting today on the 2.206 petition submitting 4
regarding a report prepared by consultants to the 5
First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, or FENOC, 6
related to the 2002 reactor pressure vessel head 7
corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 8
Station. This report is also referred to as the 9
exponent [Exponent] report.
10 I want to just provide some background on 11 the 2.206 process that the NRC has for those members 12 of the public here that may not be familiar with it.
13 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 14 describes the process that permits anyone to petition 15 the NRC to take an enforcement-related action to 16 modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued license or 17 take any other appropriate enforcement action to 18 resolve a problem. Details of the NRC's 2.206 process 19 can be found in NRC's Management Directive 8.11, which 20 is a publically-available document.
21 The purpose of today's meeting is to provide 22 the Petitioner with an opportunity to give the NRC 23 additional information and explanation in support of 24 this petition request. The purpose of this meeting is 25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 not to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner or 1
the public to debate the merits of the petition 2
request. This meeting is not a hearing and no 3
decision regarding the merits of the request are going 4
to be made today during this meeting.
5 I want to provide some background on the 6
petition before we get into Mr.
Lochbaum's 7
presentation. On April 30th, 2007, David Lochbaum of 8
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Petitioner, 9
submitted to the NRC a petition requesting the NRC to 10 take actions against the Davis-Besse licensee as a 11 result of the conclusions reached in a report prepared 12 on the licensee's behalf, that is the exponent 13
[Exponent] report. In the April 30 petition request, 14 the Union of Concerned Scientists requested the 15 following three actions. I'll summarize those 16 briefly.
17 The first action was to immediately order 18 the Davis-Besse reactor shut down and remain shut down 19 until the NRC completes an independent review of the 20 exponent [Exponent] report. In the second action, if 21 the NRC's independent review determines that the small 22 leak and fast corrosion rate scenario described in the 23 exponent [Exponent] report is valid, immediately order 24 all pressurized water reactors in the United States to 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 be shut down and remain shut down until the NRC 1
approved either an enhanced inspection scope and 2
frequency or an enhanced leak detection capability 3
that would alert control room operators to small 4
leakage from one or more control rod drive mechanism 5
nozzles so that operators could identify the problem 6
prior to any damage progressing to the depths that 7
were found at the Davis-Besse head. And the third 8
action, if the NRC's independent reviews at FENOC had 9
submitted an inaccurate report to the NRC, it was 10 requested that the NRC revoke the operating license 11 for FENOC.
12 Mr. Lochbaum, did I characterize those 13 requested actions --
14 MR. LOCHBAUM: In my presentation, I'll have 15 a slight emphasis. It's slightly different, but I'll 16 get that in my presentation. It's close enough for 17 the background.
18 CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. The NRC has 19 conducted certain petition review activities since the 20 receipt of this petition, and I just want to go over 21 those briefly again to bring everybody up to speed on 22 how we got to where we are here today. The Petition 23 Review Board, or PRB, met on May 2nd, 2007 to discuss 24 the request for immediate action, which was to 25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 immediately order the shut down of the Davis-Besse 1
facility. On May 3rd, 2007, the Petitioner was 2
notified by telephone that the Petition Review Board 3
denied this request for immediate shut down of Davis-4 Besse because the NRC staff had already performed an 5
assessment of the exponent [Exponent] report and had 6
concluded that the current reactor pressure vessel 7
head inspection requirements are adequate to detect 8
reactor pressure vessel head degradation issues before 9
they result in significant corrosion. The NRC 10 provided an acknowledgment letter stating such to the 11 Petitioner on May 18, 2007.
12 By letter dated May 10, 2007, the Petitioner 13 submitted a supplement to the petition. This 14 supplement questioned whether other failure mechanisms 15 could have contributed to the head corrosion or 16 whether current inspection programs are inadequate 17 because the probability of flawed detection is not 100 18 percent.
19 The Petition Review Board again met on May 20 16th, 2007 to discuss the second and third items in 21 the original petition request and the supplemental 22 information supplied on May 10th. The Petition Review 23 Board's initial recommendation was to reject the 24 second item because the previously-mentioned NRC 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 assessment had determined that it had met one of the 1
criterion for rejection described in Management 2
Director [Directive] 8.11 because, basically, the NRC 3
had already been or this issue had already been 4
subject to NRC staff review and evaluation. In 5
addition, the NRC staff evaluation of the May 10th 6
supplement to the petition request concluded that it 7
did not raise any new issues that would cause the NRC 8
to change its assessment of the exponent [Exponent]
9 report.
10 The Petition Review Board's initial 11 recommendation was to reject the third item for review 12 because the petition did not meet all the criteria 13 necessary for reviewing petitions under 2.206.
14 Specifically, in the request, the Petitioner did not 15 present facts sufficient to constitute a basis for the 16 requested action, which was to revoke the Davis-Besse 17 operating license because of providing inaccurate 18 information. The Petitioner was informed of these 19 recommended actions by telephone on May 29, 2007. In 20 accordance with the NRC's 2.206 process, the 21 Petitioner requested to address the PRB concerning its 22 initial recommendations for items two and three in the 23 original petition.
24 I want to state again that the purpose of 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this meeting is to provide the Petitioner with an 1
opportunity to give the NRC additional information in 2
support of the petition request. It's not to provide 3
an opportunity for the Petitioner or members of the 4
public to question or examine the PRB regarding the 5
merits of the petition request. This meeting, again, 6
is not a hearing and no decision will be made 7
regarding the merits of the petition request.
8 Following this meeting, however, the Petition Review 9
Board will conduct an internal meeting to make a 10 decision on the actions requested by the petitioner.
11 As described in our process, the NRC staff 12 may ask clarifying questions in order to understand 13 better the Petitioner's presentation and to reach a 14 reasoned decision on whether to accept or reject the 15 Petitioner's request in the internal meeting that will 16 follow. The NRC staff and the licensee, who have also 17 been invited to this meeting, will have the 18 opportunity to ask clarifying questions of the 19 Petitioner. For clarification purposes, the licensee, 20 that is First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, is not 21 a part of the decision-making process in the NRC's 22 2.206 petition review process. We invite the licensee 23 here so they are aware of an ongoing request for 24 action against their facility, and we also offer them 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the opportunity to ask any questions of the 1
Petitioner.
2 MR. LOCHBAUM: I do have one question about 3
that.
4 CHAIR NIEH: Yes, sir.
5 MR. LOCHBAUM: That's not exactly what the 6
agenda indicates.
7 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Can we clarify that, 8
Tom, on the agenda?
9 MR. WENGERT: What are you specifically 10 referring to, Dave?
11 MR. LOCHBAUM: The agenda has five items, 12 the first one being the introduction and opening 13 remarks, which I assume this is. The second is 14 remarks from the Petitioner, which would be me. The 15 third one is questions from the Petition Review Board 16 and NRC staff, which is you guys and not them. And 17 the fifth is conclusions and questions from members of 18 the public, which I guess they may be lumped into, but 19 it's a little bit different than the way you've 20 characterized it.
21 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Sorry for any confusion 22 in the agenda, but in our process we do invite the 23 licensee here, and they will be provided that 24 opportunity to ask any clarifying questions of the 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 presentation. Oversight on our part regarding the 1
meeting agenda.
2 Okay. I do want to take just a brief 3
opportunity to introduce the Petition Review Board 4
before I turn the floor over to you, David.
5 Typically, the Petition Review Board consists of the 6
Chairman, which is usually a senior executive manager 7
at the NRC. There's a Petition Manager, and there are 8
also other members of the Board that are chosen based 9
on the technical area that's under review.
10 Again, my name is Ho Nieh. I'm the Petition 11 Review Board Chairman. I'm also the Deputy Division 12 Director for the Division of Policy and Rulemaking in 13 NRR. Tom Wengert is the Petition Manager. Tanya 14 Mensah is the 2.206 Coordinator in NRR. And we also 15 have technical staff from NRR headquarters and also 16 Region III on the Petition Review Board. The Division 17 of Component Integrity is represented on the Board by 18 Jay Collins, and Region III is represented by Mr.
19 Bruce Burgess. The Petition Review Board also obtains 20 advice from our Office of General Counsel represented 21 by Jenny Longo, and the Office of Enforcement, which 22 we are represented by Maria Schwartz, but I didn't see 23 Maria here today.
24 Okay. Are there any questions from anyone 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in the room regarding these introductory remarks or 1
information before we get into the main discussion of 2
the meeting? Okay. If not, Dave, I'd like to turn it 3
over to you for your presentation. Just one quick 4
reminder, just for purposes of our transcriber here.
5 Before you speak, please identify yourself and your 6
organization. Thank you.
7 MR. LOCHBAUM: Good morning. This is David 8
Lochbaum with the Union of Concerned Scientists. I 9
appreciate this meeting, this opportunity this morning 10 to present some of our thoughts on the petition 11 process of the petition and why we think it should 12 come out slightly different than the PRB is 13 recommending.
14 The title of this presentation this morning 15 is Nuclear Pinocchio. The second slide explains a 16 little bit why. A lot of people associate Pinocchio 17 with his penchant for lying, but it's also a fact, at 18 least initially, Pinocchio was a marionette whose 19 actions were controlled by whoever held the puppet 20 strings. This petition is all about who's lying and 21 who's controlling those puppet strings.
22 Slide three restates the summary of what we 23 ask for in the petition. The only slight difference 24 between the way I stated it here and in the petition 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 and how Mr. Nieh characterized it was in items two and 1
three we wanted the NRC to determine whether that 2
report was valid, the exponent [Exponent] report was 3
valid or not. And depending on what the NRC's 4
determination was on the validity of that report, take 5
two actions. So we did not, in the petition, vote on 6
whether we thought the exponent [Exponent] report was 7
valid or not. We thought that was the NRC's role, and 8
that's why we characterized the petition the way it 9
was structured.
10 Slide four summarizes what the PRB's 11 responses were. No across the board. Slide five was 12 our take on that. We disagreed with all of the PRB 13 responses, including the initial one, which is not the 14 subject of today's meeting. We think the NRC has the 15 wrong nos on all three of those decisions.
16 Slide six addresses a point that I wish I 17 hadn't used in the petition. It was the words 18 "independent review." I used that in all three of the 19 asks in the petition, and I think it caused some 20 confusion that was unintended. What I meant by 21 independent review was, basically, the NRC to 22 determine whether the licensee was complying with the 23 requirements of 10 CFR 50.9: completeness and accuracy 24 of information. As I stated earlier, we did not vote.
25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 For one thing, it didn't matter what our vote on the 1
exponent [Exponent] report was. That was the NRC's 2
lone call was to whether that was valid or not valid, 3
accurate or not.
4 So, basically, what the petition was seeking 5
to do was to get the NRC to determine if First Energy 6
complied with the requirements of 50.9. So that 7
independent review was basically just to see the NRC's 8
call whether that was, conformance was met or not.
9 Slide seven, we extracted a portion from the 10 NRC's May 14th, 2007 demand for information to the CEO 11 of First Energy. That was approximately two weeks 12 after our petition was submitted, and the NRC demanded 13 some additional information from the company, from the 14 licensee, regarding the exponent [Exponent] report.
15 We find it incredible or we don't believe that it's 16 possible for the NRC to have taken this step without 17 either having already determined whether it was 18 complete or accurate or at least have that be a step 19 in the process to making that determination. In other 20 words, the information obtained in response to the 21 demand for information will be viewed by the Agency in 22 making a determination whether 50.9 was met or not, 23 which is basically what we were seeking initially in 24 the petition was items two and three.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Slide eight provided why we thought the 1
words "independent review" wouldn't be confusing, 2
although we do admit that it did introduce some 3
confusion unknowingly. This is an extract from the 4
report the NRC submitted to the United States Congress 5
on March 14th, 2005. Then NRC Chairman Diaz was 6
responding, on behalf of the Agency, was responding to 7
the report done by the National Academy of Sciences, 8
which, among other things, recommended an independent 9
review of spent fuel storage capabilities at all 10 plants in the country. In the NRC's response to 11 Congress, the NRC reminded the Congress that the NRC 12 is an independent body, can do an independent 13 assessment because that's the NRC's job. So we felt, 14 since the NRC uses independent reviews quite 15 liberally, that it was okay for us to do that, and 16 then we were a little bit surprised when that caused 17 some confusion. So I apologize for that. That wasn't 18 our intent to confuse the matter, but it did so.
19 On slide nine, I reiterate what we were 20 trying to do or seeking to do with the whole 21 independent review language. We sought to have the 22 NRC, which is an independent agency, according to then 23 Chairman Diaz, determine if one of its regulations, 24 specifically 10 CFR 50.9, had been violated by one of 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 its licensees, in this case First Energy, with the 1
submittal of that exponent [Exponent] report. In 2
other words, was First Energy lying then, or are they 3
lying now?
4 We recognize and we anticipate that at some 5
point in this discussion it will be brought up that 6
the exponent [Exponent] report was not a First Energy 7
product. It was a consultant's report submitted to 8
the Agency by First Energy, but it was not a First 9
Energy product. I call your attention to a letter 10 dated May 9th, 2005 from Theodore Quay to myself.
11 It's in Adams [ADAMS] under ML051470029. I couldn't 12 get you a copy of that today because it's not a 13 publically-available document, and how I was able to 14 obtain the ML number of a not publically-available 15 document --
16 CHAIR NIEH: What was the year of that 17 document again, David?
18 MR. LOCHBAUM: 2005. May 9th. The reason 19 it's not publically-available, it's a response to an 20 allegation that we had made earlier that year. We had 21 alleged, we had cited the document submitted by the 22 Southern California Edison Company (inaudible) where 23 they submitted a Westinghouse topical report. The 24 second page of the Westinghouse topical report that 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 was enclosed in that letter had a disclaimer saying 1
that Westinghouse says this may not be complete, this 2
may not be accurate; we make no warranty whatsoever.
3 It was the standard disclaimer you see in those kind 4
of reports. So the allegation we made was that 5
Southern California Edison could not have met its 50.9 6
obligations to submit complete and accurate 7
information if the second page says we don't stand 8
behind this report as being complete or accurate. And 9
in the letter I cited, the May 9th, 2005 response, Ted 10 Quay, on behalf of the Agency, said the licensee is 11 responsible for all materials submitted, even those 12 prepared by its contractors and agents and whatsoever.
13 So in that case, Southern California was 14 responsible for that Westinghouse topical report being 15 complete and accurate. In this case, First Energy is 16 responsible for the exponent [Exponent] report being 17 complete and accurate because they're the ones that 18 submitted it to you guys. I wish I could have 19 brought, had a copy of that, but it's not public. I 20 couldn't print it out this morning downstairs.
21 So it goes back to what First Energy told 22 the NRC a number of times. In this case, it's from 23 the October 3rd, 2003 meeting. First Energy in those 24 days, when it was trying to get permission to restart 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Davis-Besse, listed all the things they had done wrong 1
to allow this condition at Davis-Besse to exist, 2
breakdown at the individual management level, which 3
allowed the event to occur. And many times, they said 4
it was their fault. It was a breakdown of management 5
oversight, it was a breakdown of QA, it was a 6
breakdown of corrective actions, it was a breakdown in 7
-- since we only have two hours, I can't list all the 8
places they said there were breakdowns, but it was 9
quite a long list of areas they said they had broken 10 down.
11 Slide 11, now they're saying, or at least in 12 that exponent [Exponent] report, it says on the bottom 13 half of that slide, "This event was not only 14 unexpected but was not foreseen or predicted by any of 15 the extensive prior experience with boric acid 16 corrosion or from any of the inspection and analysis 17 of CRDM cracking in nuclear plants worldwide from 1994 18 to 2002."
19 The second document I provided today is an 20 issue brief that I prepared and issued on August 13th, 21 2001, shortly after the NRC issued the information 22 bulletin on CRDM cracking. August 13th, 2001. I call 23 your attention to the second page. "What happens when 24 CRDM nozzles crack? CRDM nozzle cracking can lead to 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 rupture of the nozzle followed by ejection of the CRDM 1
control rod or leakage of reactor water under the 2
unprotected outer surface of the reactor vessel 3
causing its failure." And paragraph two below that 4
goes into more detail about why that can occur.
5 I'm a boiling water reactor person. That's 6
most of my experience. When this CRDM nozzle cracking 7
thing was first identified at county [Oconee], I spent 8
a day in the NRC's public document room, and the 9
documents referenced in this provided the basis for 10 that. It's a 1994 new reg [NUREG], new reg [NUREG] CR 11 6245 from October of 1994, which provides very clearly 12 that it was foreseen, it was predicted, it was not 13 unusual.
14 But that's the exponent [Exponent] report.
15 Again, you guys, Mr. Collins and others, can go back 16 and show that that shouldn't have been a surprise to 17 anybody. That was the reason the inspections were 18 being done, but that's neither here nor there.
19 Slide 12 is a copy, at least on the color 20 version, is a copy of the red photo. It looks more 21 dramatic. This was handed by First Energy employees 22 to an NRC inspector in April of 2000, who merely filed 23 it away. That and six others just like it were filed 24 away. No action was taken by the NRC regarding that 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 red photo. The plant was allowed to run for 1
approximately two more years.
2 Slide 13, this also looks better in color.
3 You've caught First Energy red-handed here with this 4
exponent [Exponent] report. They basically, the 5
response they made to your demand for information, 6
they backpedal off that report faster than the 7
Indianapolis 500 winner. And, again, that's your call 8
as to whether the exponent [Exponent] report is valid 9
or not, but First Energy has backed off from it, so I 10 think it gives you a clue. It's very clear that that 11 exponent [Exponent] report contradicts quite, maybe 12 not 180 degrees but about as close to 180 degrees as 13 you'll ever see.
14 From what they provided you earlier in the 15 root cause report, in the response to the notice of 16 violation, the civil penalty, all that stuff, the 17 exponent [Exponent] report totally contradicts that.
18 You've caught them red-handed by asking them to put it 19 on the docket.
20 Slide 14. If we look at fall of 2001, the 21 First Energy came in many times and told the NRC it 22 could keep Davis-Besse running without the mandated 23 inspections, the requested inspections, even though 24 the licensee for North Anna and Surry, faced with the 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 same information and the same challenge, voluntarily 1
shut down their reactors for the requested 2
inspections. If I recall correctly, North Anna and 3
Surry weren't even scheduled for refueling outages, so 4
they did a mid-cycle outage to comply with the NRC's 5
bulletin and conduct the inspections that the NRC felt 6
were warranted. First Energy could have done that, 7
very easily could have done that in fall of 2001, shut 8
down their reactor. And even if the exponent 9
[Exponent] report is 100-percent right, they would 10 have found that damage in fall of 2001 instead of 11 February the next year or March of the next year. And 12 the response would have been more like South Texas' 13 for the bottom-mounted instrumentation damage instead 14 of the two-plus year outages they worked out a number 15 of collateral damage caused by their management or 16 lack of management.
17 Approximately three and a half years later, 18 the NRC fined First Energy a record $5.45 million for 19 numerous violations, including failing to meet 50.9.
20 So this company's used up it's get out of jail free 21 cards in terms of providing false information. Just 22 a few years ago, they came in and said we've learned 23 our lesson, they got things in place to prevent this 24 from happening again. And two years later, it happens 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 again. They provide a report to the NRC saying 1
they're basically entirely blameless and there was 2
nothing they could have done to keep Davis-Besse from 3
running into the damage it did.
4 So today the NRC is on which end of the 5
puppet strings? Are you going to dance again as you 6
did in fall of 2001 in buying the lies that First 7
Energy was telling you? Or is the Agency going to 8
protect the public and hold this licensee accountable?
9 Slide 15. All we're asking is something 10 we've been asking for like 10 years or 30 years, even 11 before I came to UCS, is stop doing rearview mirror 12 regulating. Stop waiting for events, headlines to 13 tell you whether it's a good or bad situation before 14 you take action. You were definitely concerned at 15 Davis-Besse in fall of 2001 to the point of drafting 16 an order, but you lacked absolute proof. So you 17 waited until everybody on the planet recognized that 18 was a problem before you took action. Now you're 19 faced with a similar situation where this licensee is 20 clearly not meetings its obligations under the law, 21 under the regulation 50.9. Take action now. Don't 22 wait for conditions to get so bad that nobody on the 23 planet can dispute it except for perhaps a couple of 24 paid consultants.
25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The last slide. You know, it's often said 1
that the truth will set you free. If that's true, 2
then repeatedly failing to tell the truth should have 3
the opposite effect and must cost you that freedom.
4 The NRC must not allow First Energy to repeatedly tell 5
lie after lie, repeatedly fail to comply with 50.9 6
again and again without any sanctions that mean 7
anything because it's obviously not having an effect.
8 It's not being a deterrent. It's not slowing down or 9
stopping this behavior on the part of this licensee.
10 Therefore, what we think needs to be done is 11 that, if the NRC determines that the exponent 12
[Exponent] report is non-valid, which it appears like 13 they're on that path to do so, the NRC should revoke 14 the license. This licensee has a pattern of failing 15 to meet its obligations under the regulation. You 16 shouldn't be an accomplice or a facilitator or an 17 enabler of that bad performance, that bad behavior.
18 I call your attention to the case of Gail C.
19 VanCleave, which is my favorite NRC enforcement 20 action. Gail C. VanCleave was a clerk at the 21 warehouse at DC Cook. She used her dead mother's 22 Social Security number to apply for the job as a clerk 23 in the warehouse at DC Cook, got caught, and when the 24 NRC Office of Investigations asked her about it, she 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 said she'd do it again if she was a single mother, 1
working mother, needed to put money on the table.
2 Because she said she'd do it again and she showed no 3
contrition and no I've learned my lesson, it will 4
never happen again, the NRC banned her from the 5
industry for five years, which is essentially a 6
lifetime ban because it would be hard to come back in.
7 She did it once, she said she'd do it again.
8 This company did it more than once, keep saying 9
they'll never do it again, so not only the fact they 10 repeatedly do it, they're lying to you when they say 11 they're not going to do it again. Again and again and 12 again this company has a problem meeting its 13 obligations under the regulations. The NRC needs to 14 make that stop. They've been given many 15 opportunities. It doesn't look like another slap on 16 the wrist is going to bring about the change in 17 behavior that's needed, so maybe you need to revoke 18 the license and give that plant to somebody else who 19 isn't veracity challenged or truthful challenged.
20 There are licensees that can meet their obligation, 21 who can learn from their mistakes and take steps to 22 prevent it from happening again. This licensee 23 doesn't apparently be one of those, but there are some 24 out there who do, are able to do that.
25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 So revoke the license. And if you want to 1
then issue it to somebody else who is not veracity 2
challenged, and that's another case, but this licensee 3
is used up. If you determine that exponent [Exponent]
4 report is false, this licensee has used up its get out 5
of jail free cards and should lose its rights and 6
obligations, privileges to run that reactor.
7 That's basically all I wanted to add or 8
explain what we thought on the petition. I hope I 9
didn't stray across that line in debating the merits 10 of the petition but --
11 CHAIR NIEH: No, I don't think you did.
12 MR. LOCHBAUM: I appreciate that. I'd be 13 glad to answer any questions from anybody.
14 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Thank you for your 15 presentation. At this time, we'll get into that, NRC 16 staff questions for the Petitioner. I do have a few, 17 but I'd like to ask the staff that are here on the 18 Petition Review Board to see if they have any 19 questions at this time. Jay?
20 MR. COLLINS: Jay Collins. I don't believe 21 I have any further questions.
22 MR. WENGERT: Tom Wengert. No, no further 23 questions.
24 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Jenny Longo?
25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MS. LONGO: Hi, Mr. Lochbaum. My name is 1
Jenny Longo from OGC. My question to you is I just 2
want to make sure that I understand your assertions 3
about inaccurate statements, which specifically. And 4
as I understand it, you've identified what I believe 5
are two. The first is FENOC's statement that the 6
event was unexpected, not foreseen or predicted by any 7
of the extensive prior experience that boric acid 8
corrosion or from any of the inspection analysis of 9
CRDM cracking in nuclear plants. Am I correct that 10 you're saying that that was an inaccurate statement?
11 MR. LOCHBAUM: What I'm saying is that 12 contradicts what they said in three or four slides 13 later, which they said it was management breakdowns, 14 they had opportunities that were missed, and so on.
15 What they're saying in that report, the exponent 16
[Exponent] report and the quote that you cited is 17 different from what they said in 2003 in the NOV 18 response and a number of other cases. I'm not saying 19 which ones right; that's the NRC's determination. I'm 20 just pointing out that the issue is were they lying 21 then or are they lying now? Because those two things, 22 both cannot be true.
23 MS. LONGO: And as I understand it, the 24 other possibly inaccurate statement, in the spring of 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2007 FENOC told NRC that FENOC was entirely blameless 1
in keeping Davis-Besse running without inspection.
2 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. That one you've already 3
taken action for with the $5.45 million fine that was 4
issued in April of 2005. The NRC has already reached 5
that determination that that was a 50.9 violation.
6 MS. LONGO: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIR NIEH: Anything else, Jenny? Bruce?
8 MR. BURGESS: Just one question, David.
9 Bruce Burgess from Region III. With regard to the 10 difference between what they said in 2002 with regard 11 to the root cause report and the information contained 12 in the exponent [Exponent] report, is it possible that 13 one could be oriented towards management control 14 systems while the other is a more detailed technical 15 understanding of what actually caused the crack?
16 MR. LOCHBAUM: Exactly.
17 MR. BURGESS: Two separate, if you will --
18 MR. LOCHBAUM: When I read the exponent 19
[Exponent] report initially, it looked to me -- and, 20 again, my vote on the exponent [Exponent] report, 21 whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down, doesn't matter.
22 That's the NRC's call. But to answer your question, 23 when I reviewed the exponent [Exponent] report, it 24 looked like it was attempting to serve a different 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 purpose. The original root cause was to identify all 1
the problems that the company faced that could have 2
prevented that outcome, so it was basically trying to 3
look for as long a period of possible because that 4
would have provided more and more missed opportunities 5
that, had things been different, would have prevented 6
that outcome.
7 The exponent [Exponent] report was looking 8
in the opposite way. What was the worst case? What 9
was the fastest way for this scenario to develop? So 10 you're not looking at the number of opportunities, 11 missed or not. You're looking at the shortest 12 distance. And, basically, that's what it came up with 13 was the fastest growth rate, the fastest corrosion 14 rate, and so on.
15 Having done that, the company then received 16 that. It had an obligation to determine whether that 17 changed its earlier view of what happened, when, and 18 why. By submitting that to the NRC with no report 19 saying we have this under consideration, basically 20 that was viewed as what the company's current position 21 is. That kind of forced the NRC to issue the demand 22 for information saying what's the context behind this 23 report? At the end of the day, if you look at how 24 fast they backed off of the exponent [Exponent]
25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 report, they had plenty of time to do that from 1
December of 2006 when they received that report and 2
March of 2007 when they provided that report to the 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4 So, yes, there might have been different 5
reasons for that, but the company had enough time to 6
go through the steps necessary to determine what the 7
context was and to provide a complete and accurate 8
assessment for the report and what it means to the 9
NRC. They didn't do that.
10 MR. BURGESS: Thank you. One final comment.
11 Have you read the DFI response yet?
12 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes, I did.
13 MR. BURGESS: Okay, thank you.
14 MR. LOCHBAUM: For a couple of hours last 15 Thursday.
16 MR. BURGESS: Thank you.
17 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Thank you, Bruce.
18 Tanya, do you have any questions for the Petitioner?
19 MS. MENSAH: No.
20 CHAIR NIEH: Does any of the regional 21 participants -- this is Ho Nieh again, PRB Chair. Do 22 any of the Region III participants have any questions 23 for Mr. Lochbaum that are on the phone?
24 PHONE PARTICIPANT: None from Region III.
25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. I have a few, 1
and these are, again, for clarification purposes.
2 This is Ho Nieh again, the Petition Review Board 3
Chair. I do want to state that I was not the PRB 4
Chair when the petition was first received by the NRC.
5 There was another management representative that 6
served that function, but I'm back in my normal job 7
right now, so I'm coming back up to speed on this 8
particular issue and what you've submitted.
9 You mentioned that there was some confusion 10 with the independent review. Can you just explain 11 that to me again, what the specific confusion was?
12 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. This is Dave Lochbaum 13 with UCS. In one of the calls, and I forget the date, 14 when the PRB representatives called me to inform me 15 what the PRB's initial decision, preliminary decisions 16 were, the statement was, "The NRC has decided not to 17 do an independent review. However," and I forget the 18 rest of the words, "we've decided that item two 19 doesn't meet the criteria for the petition," or so on.
20 But in each of the responses, it was the NRC has 21 decided not to do an independent review. That 22 response had followed a call about a week earlier 23 where the NRC staff called me and asked me what did I 24 mean by independent review. And during the course of 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that discussion, it was if the NRC hired consultants 1
to go out there and check the math and do all the 2
other things necessary to determine if the exponent 3
[Exponent] report is valid, would you consider that an 4
independent review? And I said that's among the 5
things that would satisfy me in terms of what an 6
independent review is, but we weren't asking for that 7
level of effort on the part of the NRC.
8 So it looked to me when I got that call that 9
that whole, the fact that the NRC wasn't doing an 10 independent review, which I'm not sure I agree with, 11 but was a factor in the PRB's decisions. And I felt, 12 first of all, and, in fact, I think I told the PRB 13 that it was clear that I had been suckered, I think 14 was the language I used. It looked to me that the PRB 15 had relied too heavily on what an independent review 16 was and, having decided not to do an independent 17 review, that that weighed heavily in the decision not 18 to grant the actions requested in the petition. So 19 that was the background, my perception of the 20 background of the independent review confusion.
21 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I just want to make sure 22 I understand that because part of this clarification 23 process here, I want to ensure that the Petition 24 Review Board, when we conclude from this meeting and 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 we have our internal meeting, that we thoroughly 1
review what you've given us. And I'm sort of a new 2
player in this, so I just want to make sure I 3
understand precisely what the nature of your petition 4
is. So thank you for that. Jenny?
5 MS. LONGO: If I could make a clarification.
6 When you were told that the PRB decided not to or the 7
Agency decided not to do an independent review in 8
using the word and the understanding we had based on 9
conversations with you and then explained why the 10 initial recommendations were to not accept number two 11 and number three, the decision about not doing an 12 independent review and the decisions about the initial 13 recommendations didn't have anything to do with each 14 other. We just were trying to answer the request you 15 made, which was if you do an independent review.
16 MR. LOCHBAUM: I appreciate that 17 clarification, but since the first sentence out of 18 both the staff's response for the PRB denials was the 19 staff has decided not do an independent review, it 20 certainly didn't look like it was separate but equal.
21 MS. LONGO: Again, we were trying to answer 22 your complete request.
23 MR. LOCHBAUM: I understand.
24 MS. LONGO: And what we were trying to say 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 was we're not going to do the independent review as we 1
understood you meant that phrase to mean, but, in any 2
case, on the merits of acceptance or rejection, here 3
is why we, here's our initial recommendation and here 4
is why. So, you know, we apologize for any confusion, 5
but we were trying to be complete in our answer to 6
your request.
7 MR. LOCHBAUM: I take full responsibility, 8
all the blame for the confusion, and I'll continue to 9
do so and not change it a couple of years down the 10 road, like others might.
11 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I think I got it. You 12 blurted a little bit for me. Okay. So the issue is 13 not so much what an independent review would entail 14 but rather what it would result in. Is that kind of 15 where you were headed at?
16 MS. LONGO: No, no. I'm just saying that, 17 in saying that, in attempting to respond to Mr.
18 Lochbaum's requests in explaining the reasons for the 19 initial recommendations, we were trying to give a 20 complete answer to his request, which was do a review 21 and, if you do a review, you know, then you should do 22 certain other things. And we needed to answer both 23 parts of the request. That's all we were doing.
24 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. I understand. Thank 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you. You made another statement regarding the 1
licensee FENOC backing off on the exponent [Exponent]
2 report. Can you clarify that for me?
3 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. I think the date is 4
June 13th, 2007. The licensee responded to the May 5
14th, 2007 NRC demand for information with a fairly 6
lengthy response. It came in from Mr. Joseph Hagan to 7
somebody at the NRC. I reviewed that response, and 8
they pretty much distanced themselves from the First 9
Energy report. In fact, at one point, I forget the 10 page number --
11 CHAIR NIEH: Distanced themselves, just to 12 clarify, from the exponent [Exponent] report?
13 MR. LOCHBAUM: From the exponent [Exponent]
14 report.
15 CHAIR NIEH: Okay.
16 Mr. LOCHBAUM: At one point, First Energy 17 says that, "While we respect," I don't have this 18 exactly right because I'm not reading, "While we 19 respect the technical sophistication employed by 20 exponent [Exponent], we think the better approach 21 would have been to rely on the physical data that 22 would better match the conditions." That's basically 23 a eulogy for the exponent [Exponent] reports. You 24 couldn't have buried a report more eloquently than in 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that sentence. And the rest of the response is also 1
pretty much backing off of what the exponent 2
[Exponent] report says. That's their opinion; that's 3
not ours. It also did that, although this petition 4
didn't deal with the Mattson report, but they also, 5
they distanced themselves even further from the 6
Mattson report, but that's not part of this petition.
7 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. What was that? The 8
Manson report?
9 MR. LOCHBAUM: Mattson report.
10 CHAIR NIEH: Mattson report. Okay.
11 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. Even though it's not 12 part of this petition, it does speak to the behavior 13 of this licensee. When the NRC heard about the 14 reports and asked for a copy, the only thing they were 15 provided was the exponent [Exponent] report. Then the 16 resident inspector at Davis-Besse queried the company 17 as to why the insurance company keeps referring to a 18 751-page report and you only provided us a 661-page 19 report. At that time, sometime in May, First Energy 20 said, "Well, there is a second report dealing with 21 that subject that we provided." So this licensee 22 doesn't, isn't forthcoming. It's like going to a 23 dentist and extracting teeth to get information from 24 them. Although that Mattson report is not part of 25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this petition and I'm not attempting to add it to this 1
petition, I think what they've done with the exponent 2
[Exponent] report is enough, more than enough.
3 CHAIR NIEH: Okay. Those are all the 4
questions I had. Tom, where are we at in the agenda?
5 MR. WENGERT: Well, I think if there are any 6
other questions or comments from the members of the 7
public, I think that we can --
8 CHAIR NIEH: Yes, I think we're at the point 9
in the agenda right now where we would invite members 10 of the public to ask any questions they have of the 11 NRC regarding the process. And I think we had also 12 stated that there was an opportunity for the licensee 13 to query Mr. Lochbaum on the issues presented in the 14 petition. So at this time, I'm looking over to our 15 participants from First Energy. Do you have any 16 questions for Mr. Lochbaum?
17 MR. HALNON: No, we don't have any 18 questions.
19 CHAIR NIEH: Okay, thank you. Now I'm going 20 to just open it up to the rest of the room. Are there 21 any questions from any of our other guests here today 22 for the NRC about our petition process and what we're 23 doing here today?
24 MR. SPALDING: I have a question. Jeff 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Spalding from Clifford & Garde. I'm curious. Is the 1
NRC, as part of a petition review, doing any sort of 2
evaluation of the exponent [Exponent] report, or is an 3
independent review denial of whatever the independent 4
review status is mean that there is no evaluation 5
being done by the NRC? So my question, is there any 6
evaluation being undertaken by the Agency as to the 7
validity of the exponent [Exponent] report?
8 CHAIR NIEH: As I understand it, and I'm 9
going to look at our representatives from the Division 10 of Component Integrity to supplement this response, 11 but as I understand it the NRC has looked at the 12 exponent [Exponent] report and evaluated the content 13 of the report. It looks like they did have some 14 questions that they had passed along to First Energy 15 and the demand for information, and they had 16 responded. I haven't read their response in that June 17 13th letter that Mr. Lochbaum had mentioned, but the 18 answer is, as I understand it, is he asked that the 19 NRC is looking at, has looked at the report.
20 MR. COLLINS: This is Jay Collins, Division 21 of Component Integrity. The exponent [Exponent]
22 report provides a couple of items. One is the 23 calculation model, which shows that accelerated 24 corrosion/erosion rates can happen and talks about 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 certain conditions which are necessary for those to 1
occur. And then it takes and applies those to the 2
specifics of some previous items from the Davis-Besse 3
experience and tries to show that these events could 4
have occurred at Davis-Besse, providing a cracking and 5
leakage time line going up to that process. The 6
overall report, as far as doing a complete independent 7
review, in our classification of an independent 8
review, we tried to look at whether or not we would 9
fully endorse the report or we would fully reject the 10 report. There was a significant use of resources.
11 What we did on initially obtaining the 12 report was we performed an assessment. We looked at 13 the necessary conditions. So we accepted the exponent 14
[Exponent] report's ideals [ideas] without question at 15 that point and just looked at the conditions necessary 16 to cause that accelerated corrosion and erosion rates.
17 We found that that took a process of about five years 18 of cracking to develop through these nozzles to cover 19 the extent necessary for the conditions. We looked at 20 our inspection program and verified that our 21 inspection program would be able to identify this 22 cracking going forward, and we have an assessment, 23 which is publically available. I'm sorry I don't have 24 the Adams [ADAMS] number for that, but it was May 4th 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 when it was published. And we could get you 1
additional information on it.
2 That's the type of assessment that we've 3
done on the report. So we've identified that the 4
exponent [Exponent] report itself is not a safety 5
issue that needs to be addressed immediately.
6 However, the calculation aspect is something that 7
we're still looking into, and we're still doing 8
research in this area as far as upper heads, and 9
that's still being looked into. Did that kind of give 10 you an assessment for what we're looking at as far as 11 this area? Why we had maybe the confusion on what we 12 wanted to say as far an independent report.
13 MR.
SPALDING: In assessing the 14 calculations, I realized it's a broad question, but is 15 there any sort of time frame that you have on that, 16 how long that process takes?
17 MR. COLLINS: As far as -- it depends upon 18 who we would necessarily need to get involved. What 19 we were looking at was, since it was not an immediate 20 safety concern, since we were addressing it through 21 our current regulatory requirements for inspections, 22 it would not have as high a priority. And, therefore, 23 it was looking to take at least a couple of years.
24 This is, once again, initial assessments and just 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 looking at various impacts of the items.
1 MS. EVANS: To clarify, though, we're not 2
specifically doing any additional review of the 3
exponent [Exponent] report. We've got our own recent 4
program ongoing that does include this kind of 5
information data. So what he's referring to is not a 6
direct response to the exponent [Exponent] report.
7 Oh, I'm Michele Evans, Director of Division of 8
Component Integrity.
9 CHAIR NIEH: Thank you. Did that help, 10 Jeff?
11 MR. SPALDING: I think so.
12 CHAIR NIEH: Are there any other questions 13 from any other members of the public that are here for 14 the NRC? Going once, going twice. Okay. With that, 15 I would like to conclude this meeting, and we'll 16 secure the telephone connection. Headquarters 17 operations officers, if you're able to do that with 18 us. Thank you, our Region III participants. Mr.
19 Lochbaum, thank you for taking the time out of your 20 schedule to come and provide us with the information.
21 That will help us do a thorough and complete review of 22 your petition. And thank you to all the other guests 23 that have joined us here today at the NRC. Meeting 24 over. Thank you.
25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 1
concluded at 11:19 a.m.)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15