ML20042D063
| ML20042D063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D064 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-284, FOIA-90-A-4, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE EA-88-004, EA-88-4, SECY-88-201, NUDOCS 8807290191 | |
| Download: ML20042D063 (9) | |
Text
3-3.g w--. m w
~*'. U*% Flf5X75W D% Wr"?
4 4
k M I)3N)[kENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE a
fN
'$ ~ '
l y
Is.,,,,/
hg[-
/
POLICY ISSUE sEev-88-201 JU W 15, 1988 (Notation Vote)
For:
The Comissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
Subject:
COMPANY (PECo) AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO COMPRISED THE SHIFT OPERATIONS STAFF AT PEACH BOTTOM AT THE TIME OF THE MARCH 31, 1987 SHUTDOWN ORDER.
(EA 88-04 g al,.)
l i
. u.
,.a~
O 31, 1987, the NRC issued an Order to Philadelphia I n MarchElectric Company suspending operation of its Peach Botto Discussion:
reactors after validating, during the initial phases of an OI investigation, information received by the Comission in March 1987, that control room operators had, at times, left 4
l s
the control room area unattended, and at other times, had
.been observed sleeping while on duty in the control room.
. reading materials not directly job related, playing video games and/or being otherwise inattentive to the obligations of their license.
Since that time. 01 completed its investigation, and transmitted its report to the staff on J December 9, 1987. The OI report included _a copm of the, g%
Q 88$7M$/91X/)
e{ t r
w
+.
f,.
l i
- -The Comissioners ;
findings and exhibits of a separate investigation conducted by the licensee's Claims Security Division.
Further, in the spring of 1988 enforcement conferences were conducted with all licensed individuals who, at the time of the shutdown, were members of the Peach Bottom operations t '.
staff shift work complement and one shift suurvisor who i.,
resigned as a PECo employee shortly before t)e shutdown.. */
p i.
I 1
l' l,
L y
l.
l L
{
1 l
~
~~
~ -~ -
-~
g s
.t :
I MEMORANDUM TO FILE SUBJ: COMMISSIONER CARR'S VISIT TO THE PEACH BOTTOM SITE AND SPEECH TO THE REGION 1 RESIDENTS AT KING OF PRUSSIA Commissioner Carr, accompanied by Tom Elsasser, visited the
' Peach Bottom site _on December 15, 1987.
Region 1 Administrator, Bill Russell, and the Senior Resident, Tom z
Johnson, accompanied the Commissioner during his visit and' tour of the site.
Representing Philadelphia Electric Co.
(PECO) during the visit was Dickenson Smith, Station Manager, Johgn Cotton, Ops Superintendent and other members of station management.
Agenda and other pertinent background information is attached.
The tour started with attendance at the shift turn over meeting in a small of fice adjacent to the combined Unit 2 &
3 control room.
Following that, the Commissioner was briefed in the control room concerning the work being accompdished during extended shut down.
Of particular interest was the extensive human factors modifications that had been completed on the Unit 2 control boards.
The licensee accelerated completion of these modifications due to. the protracted length of the shutdown period.
These mods will also be completed on the Unit 3 side during the ongoing i
recirc piping replacement.
The remainder of the tour consisted of a visit to all secessible areas of Unit 2 and a walking tour of the Unit 2 4
& 3 portion of the site.
(-Mothballed Unit 1 is separated by a security fence and was not visited.)
The mood of the facility was fairly upbeat considering the recent problems.
One could sense a desire to do better and " strive for acco: arac".
Ther: have been extensive enanges j a L i.
corporate, site and shift managerial structure.
Tnese are certainly for the better; however, the changes have not been in place.long enough so that the full impact can be realized.
There has been conscious effort to involve all
-workers at the site in the improvement process by encouraging constructive criticism and feedback.
There is also a conscious effort to improve the material 8
condition of the site.
Previously large areas of surface contamination have been cleaned up.
There is a program in Place to ship the relatively large quantities of low level j
waste that are/were being stored on site.
There is also a program under way to reduce the previous large maintenance backlog.
Management is positive about these initiatives and_
tour
]:
,they are making progress. C3kwever, curug cne-plant I
f-those-member-s-of-a-i-te-management "ith-relatively -long tenure
. Were-not-as--knowledgable-about-cartain-conditions-of Uni-t -
-e e-ene-mi-ght-expee t.
The-o peoi-f4c-i-tem sw ere-mi.n c r-a n d-not -.
. unr+h specificall.y-men + 4 mn%g, but there were--enough-of-them L
s sl
~
-that-the-Commi4s-ioner--made-s,ce-nent in thismgard-to-the-L{
-NRG-pecsc :.cl f c11cuit:g completien of the tour-j Af ter' completion of the tour, ~ we-joined-the licensee for a working lunch.
Topics of discussion included a 30 minute informative briefing on containment venting procedures and capabilities. (slides attached)
Other briefing topics included the managerial reorganization, the radwaste reduction program and the efforts to reduce and track the maintenance backlog.
These briefings were_well done and presented an accurate picture of the current status of affairs at PECO and the Peach Bottom facility.
On Secember 16, the Commissioner addressd the Region 1 residents who were in attendance at the periodic regional resident counterpart meeting.
The Commissioner's remarks (attached) were well rece_ived and a lively ouestion and answer period followed > A
- Jor-topic of concern t-or the (7w '
nts was the recently promulgated policy which is f
inten limit tenure at a given site to 5 years.
Several res a were very vocal in their opposition to the policy.
The Commi 1x>
offered his views on why rotation every 3 to 5 years is hea or the individual and the program.
The residents understoo Commissioner's,goint of view; however, some comments after t ting wW5n along the lines of "what is good for the Navy is not sarily good for the-NRC".
Other questions during the Q & A s ssip 'n are briefly summarised below.
j ere were several questions in the maintenance area; what J
wil the NRC's involvement be in improving maintenance; why-increased emphasis on maintenance is cost effective; are NRC-V
" safety'boncerns" getting in the way of effective h
maintenanc'e.
-An increased Ynvolvement in day to day OPS by HQ has been hs noticed.
It appe'ars this ~ is because HQ is too " top heavy",
regions are being asked to do more with less while NRR g4\\
budget remains fairly *(at".
Answer--Recent 5 yr plan i
.I L
I ki doesn't anticipate any cuts in the regional budgets.
h k
-Commissioner was asked to comment on the SALP process.
j Answer--program is ef f ecti, but %Ps are still too long and P
L not sufficiently standard from regN to region.
-Commissioner was asked to comment on t degree on shift initiative by the NRC.
Answer--the degree operator is not a necessity, but it makes a better operator.
The NE p
utilities 2 yr programs do have some merit.
-Commissioner was asked his opinion on the effectiveness of
" team Inspections".
Answer--not much impact seen to 'date at the Commission level; however, he understands that these\\ s '
inspections are of great help to the utilities.
s.
l
~
4 r -;cm-iisioner was asked to offer his perceptions on the
. French and Japanere7t444ty 4dustries and whether there is any direct applicati e te the c"reant U5meper44 ace. __
The Commissioner's formal ~ time with the residents lasted SgA about ihr; however, he remained behind for about 20 mins
~ talking informaly with Bill Russell and several of the
( A residents.
The rptation policy.for residents was the dominant topic of discussion.
5 l. hw 1/s/s(
.g 1 11 i
I l
I l
l' t
+
h
~
\\
a
~-
i MEMORANDUM TO FILE
SUBJECT:
COMMISSIONER CURTISS* VISIT TO THE PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION (PBAPS) ON MARCH 27, 1989 On March 27, 1989, Commissioner Curtiss and his Technical Assistant, Dave Trimble, visited the Peach Bottom facility.
Prior to the visit, to gain as broad a perspective of the licensee's status as possible, the Commissioner had met with the NRR Project Manager for Peach Bottom (Mr. Bob Martin).
In that meeting, Mr. q$rtin reviewed key issues and ei 3
resolution status.
He pointed out the extensiveness of the changes made in the licensee's organization.
He noted that the facility appeared to now have good leadership with a road map to follow.
He felt that the NRC needs to-encourage the licensee to keep up the momentum toward improvement.
Mr. Martin did not identify any concerns that would adversely affect a restart decision.
The plant visit consisted of (1) a meeting with the Resident Inspectors (Tom Johnson, Larry Myer, and Rick Urban) and their Section Chief (Jim Lindville), the team leader for the February 1989 NRC Integrated Assessment Team Inspection (IATI) at PBAPS3 (2) a meeting with key licensee management personnel including John Kempar, Canice Vica President for Ocastructicn (Limerick 2),
Dickinson Smith, Vice President, PBAPS, and John Franz, Plant Managerg (3) attendance at a morning licensee planning
(" TRIPOD")
9 e
l meetingt (4) a plant tourt (5) a brief meeting with operators; L
and (6)
- a. working lunch with licensee management personnel.
The Resident Inspectors and licensee provided background information on root causes leading up to the shutdown order, management changes, principle corrective actions, and recent i
l problem areas.
The more significant actions taken by the H
licensee includet a.
extensive changes in management personnel from the shift l
manager level up to the CEO (approximately half of the new
,[1 managers came from outside AR the PECO organization);
'~a
- t
\\
b.
a move from promotion by seniority to promotion based upon'
~
performance;
~
c.
beginning a performance appraisal program for employeest d.
a focus on accountability including interface agreements on j
responsibilities where multiple groups are involved; e.
establishment of a Shift Manager position (utilizing senior licensed personnel with degrees) to increase managemen presence on shift; f.
an effort to change the culture from a " generate power" philosophy to a safety, reliability culture; g.
a move away from operation in isolation to an organization which stays abreast of the industry and utilizes outside consultants on oversight committees; h.
an amphasis cn self assessment including wide uco of performance indicatorst and i.
a raising of standards for entry level operations personnel l
w r-,
w
,y
s v.
i l'
to require either two years of college or Navy Nuclear Program training.
1 The IATI team leader and Resident Inspectors see no significant impediments to restart.
They indicated that it will still take l
time to change the attitudes of employees at all levels of the organization.
They have seen improvements in recent problem l-areas such as security and ESF actuations.
However they see a potential for the licensee to be too " tunnel visioned", giving the bulk of attention to the operator area perhaps at the expense
. [i -
of other programs.
1 4
11 1..
L l-During the plant and control room tour, the Commissioner noted 1
l-that material condition and housekeeping were good.
The licensee has significantly reduced the amount of contaminated area, thus I
providing excellent accessibility to equipment.
Equipment L
L labeling was very good.
Operators pointed out that-the control room has been upgraded including such human factors enhancements as control board mimics and paint schemes highlighting critical i
components.
The control room was clean and well lighted.
l Operator professionalism was enhanced by use of uniforms.
A 1
number of scaffolds were in place to support ongoing maintenance.
i The licensee indicated that these would be removed prior to restart.
The licensee pointed out features of the vent system for their tiark i Containments.
Hardened 2 inch diameter vent paths (filtered, monitored, and elevated release) are available from both the torus and the drywell.
A6 inch hardened vent path 1
1 4
W
....r f
from both the drywell and the torus is available through their ILRT piping (unmonitored, unfiltered, and ground release outside as the Reactor Building).
The 18 inch vent. paths are not hardened and their rupture would cause a release into the Reactor m
Building.
Following the tour the licensee indicated that significant modifications will not be necessary for them to meet the Station Blackout (SBO) rule.
The licensee also indicated that they~do 5
not intend to use the NUREG 1150 PRA for Peach Bottom as their
[1 -
IPE.
Their reasoning was not cigar.
The Senior Resident l'
Inspector believes this may be d[e to a disagreement the licensee has with some of the NUREG 1150 assumptions regarding reliability
- 1. P-1*. a of the onsite and offsite electrical systems.
One item of concern to the Commissioner was that 4 of the 6 Shift Managers are scheduled to transfer to'other positions in the next 6-10 months.
This would barely be enough time to get both units back on line.
It would appear that a more gradual transition would be appropriate for such an important position.
The
- We 4
Commissioner's concern was passed on to the licensee by the Senior Resident Inspector.
The licenses stated that replacement personnel, some of at least equal caliber, are currently in training.
Nonetheless it would take time to fully integrate these new individuals with their crews.
To do thic at cuch a critical point may be a mistake.
.