ML20059L336
| ML20059L336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/27/1994 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9402040089 | |
| Download: ML20059L336 (88) | |
Text
_
NW6WW M1WM,W4%WAW4WMW;tWA%%AAW6fffgg:fg Occument Control Oest. 216 Phillies
'3
- A?! SMIT AL 7 :
2 O
iDVANCEO COPY '0:
The Public Occument Roem 5
G
'3
/ [3 /.
5 3
CATE:
c C
2 SECY CorresDondence & Records Branen g-FROM:
=
6 9
Attaenec are ccoies of a Ccemssion meeting transcript and relatec meeting 3
document ( s ).
They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and 9
placement in the Public Document Room. No other cistribution is recuested or recuirec.
Meeting
Title:
ftA Lt.1; /)
- A hhN Y
)W s
u ww a
a
=
'E Meetinc Cate:
//;7 7/W Open X Closee c'
C, y
~
i E
a h
h
!!em Cescriptien*:
Copies Advanced DCS 5
s*
to POR C3 3[ >;
E3
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1
!h o)/A Y w e k N ]
f ii,
f i:.
1!
iii 2.
g.
0, 5'
- E:
--W C,
3.
5 ji
=.>
'~
=>
p i
=S r
1 c:
a.
j
=d h
s s.
e
-.-e u :,,.j u u a a
-t>
t-i f
t 1.1 s
- DDR is aavanced one copy of eacn document two of each SECY cacer.
'O I
C1R Branen files the original transcript, with attacnments, withcut SECY j
6 'h}
/ '
- acers.
h 9402040089 940127 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR una
-mnennnnMMMMMnnnnnnnnnggggggnnnnnppppp
.f f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-j NUCLEAR -REGULATORY COMMIS SION.
1
-i b
4. !
!q l
.'i
Title:
rtRico1c.
irac ou ortRir1xc azicronS ino FUEL FACILITIES LOCatiODl ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND i
s Date:
anuar n.1994 PageS 79 RAGES t
i 1
e 1
ti 1
NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
]
cocat arrontras Awo 7:4wscurstus-1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest
- l Washington, D.C.
20005-i (202) 234-4433 l
r I
l
-i
+
r y
j DISCLAIMER i
o 1
This is an unotficial transcript of a meeting of
?
the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' held on 1
January 27, 1994, in the Commission's office.at One L
White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was I
open to public. attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it _may contain inaceutacles.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it.is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other' paper may be filed with a
the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result o f,' or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as tho' Commission may authorise.
lj HEAL R. GROS $
count nepoetens AND TRANSCR$st$
ists aNoosesLAND Avenue.M.W.
(sori n4-44ss wAmaNetoN.04 2006:
sm) Ms 6000
_.,w-
. - -. =
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' i
O PERIODIC BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES h
t PUBLIC MEETING i.
i Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland t
Thursday, January 27, 1994 i
t The Commission met-in open
- session, t
pursuant to
- notice, at 1:30 p.m.,
Ivan
- Selin, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner i
FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner o -
E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner 1
l 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
3
" STAFF SEATED AT'THE' COMMISSION TABLEE JOHN HOYLE, Office of the Secretary.
(
j KAREN CYR, Office of the General Counsel
{
. JAMES TAYLOR, Executive. Director for Operations
{
THOMAS MURLEY, Director, NRR ROBERT BERNERO, Director, NMSS THOMAS MARTIN, Region I Administrator STEWART EBNETER, Region II Administrator JOHN MARTIN, Region'III Administrator JOE CALLAN, Region IV Administrator KENNETH PERKINS, Region V Administrator NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISUND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
3' I
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
1:30 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good afternoon, ladies
.o.
4 and gentlemen.
{
~
The Commission is meeting now'to receive.
5 6
a briefing from our staff on the. status of operating c;
7 reactors and fuel facilities.
This is a semi-annual 8
presentation of the results of discussions, these held 1
9 at the most recent NRC senior management meeting.in.
10 January lith, 12th and 13th at our Region IV office.
11 During these meetings, the senior NRC staff performs 12 detailed evaluations of those licensees selected.for 13 discussion.
14 The observations and recommendations 15 presented today are a result of the Agency's senior 16 managers as a group reviewin.j the performance.of 17 operating reactors and fuel facilities across the 18 country.
This review includes inspection ; results, -
+
19 scores on our systematic assessment of licensee 20 performance,
- events, performance indicators, 21 enforcement history and recent changes to the plant.
22 The evaluation serves a leveling ' function to assure' r
. +
23 that.the standards are applied or a standardization-24 funct ion to assure that we apply these-standards 25 evenly across the country.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHfNGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 P
v
-w s
n
4 l
1 In.my opinion, these meetings.have been 2
.very effective. in determining which licensees need l
l 3
additional attention and where our limited resources..
4 could be most effectively used in carrying out the 5
Agency's mission.
- i 6
The Commission is, without exaggeration, 7
quite eager to receive the staff's observations and' t
8 recommendations.
1 9
Copies of the viewgraphs are available at i
10 the entrance to the room.
11 Mr. Taylor?
12 MR. TAYLOR:
Good afternoon.
With me at 13 the table are Doctor Murley from NRR and Bob Bernero 14 from NMSS and the five regional administrators.
I i
15 would note that this is Mr. Callan's first appearance 16 as a regional administrator with the Commission.
17 I would like to speak for just a moment to 18 talk about the use of the so-called trending letters 19 which we issue where performance is trending j
.? O adversely.
We believe that this particular situation 21 needs to be communicated to the corporate president or 22 the board of directors.
I thought I'd talk about this -
,. l f
23 for the benefit of all.
24 This-type of letter was only -initiated at i
25 the previous NRC senior management meeting in June of f
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
.s
.~
5 l
1
- last year.
'I would also note that the practice was j
2-suggested' by the Commission itself-in a
staff-'
. 3 requirements memorandum issued to the' staff in'May of f
o' 4
1993.
The Commission idea, as I understand it, was j
i 5
. to send an early warning, the purpose of which was to l
6 get corrective action in the highest' levels of the i
7 corporation so that it would' not be necessary: to put.
8 a plant on the so-called problem plant list.
9 The staff supports that idea and you'll 10 hear today about how it has successfully been applied 11 to the Perry Station.
In addition, you will. hear <of 12 how it is currently being applied to three additional 13 nuclear power stations.
14 I would emphasize to all that receiving a 15 trending type notification is not, and Il emphasize 16 not, the same NRC. action as being placed on what is 17 called the problem plant list.
Certainly failure to-18 heed the message of a trending letter could, however,
]
1 19 ultimately lead, if conditions were not corrected, to.
20 a plant being designated as a problem plant.
Butfit l
i 21 is.not the same.
I thought that brief discussion was 1
22
-important since this is only the second meeting in i
i 23 which the staff has utilized this. tool at the 24 suggestion of the Commission.
25 Now I'll ask Tom Murley to continue.
Tom NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 -
e
- y e
e-gw r
y
+-
6 I
will touch on some of-the background of what we do at 2
.the senior : management meeting and the elements 3
considered.
You mentioned some, Mr. Chairman.- Then l
4 we'll continue on with the actual plant discussions..
5 Tom?
6 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Thank you, Jim.
7 Commissioners.
\\
8 In preparation for our January senior 9
management meeting, we held a series of meetings in 10 November of this year where NRR and'AEOD sta'ff met-11 with the regional administrators and we reviewed the 12 performance of each nuclear plant 'in the country.
13 From these screening meetings then, the regional 14 administrators and I selected for further analysis an 15 in-depth discussion those plants that we wante'd.to.
16 analyze further at the senior management meeting f
17 itself.
18 This review process has become the central 19 feature of the staff's process for evaluating ~
20
. operational safety in the United States. The meetings 21 bring together the most experienced people ' in the 22 staff with the purpose of being able to get their 23 views and assess the' information about operational 24 safety.
We gather together a great deal' of plant j
25 performance that exists throughout the Agency in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
7 1-preparation for this. meeting.
Most. important, of 2
course, are the ' findings from - our own. inspection 3
reports, from resident inspection reports, specialist o
4 inspections and team inspections, and the conclusions 5
from the most recent SALP reports for that plant.
But 6
we also look at other things like the risk insights 7
from the plants own IPE or if the NRC has a PRA for 8
that plant.
We look at the operating event history, 9
particularly any severe accident precursor events. We 10 look at. the performance indicators, the operator i
11 requalification exam-records, the status and condition--
12 of plant equipment as determined through our.
13 inspections, and the enforcement history at the site.
14 The central focus of the meetings _is to 15 determine whether the operational performance of these 16 plants being discussed. has revealed weaknesses or 17 downward trends that warrant increased NRC regulatory 18 attention.
But we also review plants that have been 19 found to have good safety performance over the past' 20 year or so and I'll talk about those-first.
21 What the staff considers-.in
. good 22 performance are primarily the recent SALP results for 23 that plant.
But we also weigh the plant's enforcement 24 history and particularly the licensee's' approach to-25 self-assessment and problem resolution.
Among those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20035 (202) 234-4433
8-1 plants that we've discussed; we've concluded that ten 2
have shown consistently high performance and warrant 3
recognition and reduced inspection activity.
f 4
(Slide) If I could have the second slide, 5
please.
Yes.
6 These ten plants include Diablo Canyon 1 7
and 2, Grand Gulf, St. Lucie 1 and 2 and Summer, which-8 were all on the list last time.
But there have been-i 9
four new plants added which are Callaway and 10 Monticello and Byron 1 and 2.
11 With Byron, this is the first time that a 12 utility has had plants on the good performer list and 13 the watch list simultaneously.
14 (Slide)
Now I'll turn the watch list, if 15 I could have slide 3.
f 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Tom, before you 17 leave that, how far along are we on the pilot program i
18 for identifying good performers? I think that was to 19 be a trial period, but I forget how many years and how 20 far along.
Does anybody remember?
21 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
I don't recall the 22 exact time or actually what's next.
We' treat it as 23 pretty much a standard effort, but we realize I think
{
24 we do have to get back to the Commission.
l 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
I NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
9 1
COMMISSIONER: ROGERS:
Yes, we're' pretty-l 2
close to the end'of that cycle, I think.
One more, I 3-think,-to go.
4 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, I think it is.
-l 5
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
6 MR. TAYLOR: We'll check that and get back.
r
.I 7
to you.
We're close.
I-think it was two years i
8 approximately, but we'll check that.
i 9
DOCTOR MURLEY:
Could I have slide 3,
- i 10-please?
11 Turning to the watch list, category. 1 12 plants are those that have been removed from the watch 13 list. The evaluation factors that the staff considers f
14 for removal from the watch list are the ' following.
15 They're really questions that we ask.
Has the 16 licensee identified the. fundamental problems and their 17 root cause?
The second question ~is has the licensee-l 18 identified and developed a corrective action plan and 19 begun to take steps to implement that plan?
Is there 20 evidence that the corrective actions are. working-and
[
21 performance is improving in the plant?
We use 1
.i 22 judgment in assessing the answe'rs to those. questions.
23 And also, I should add for two unit sites:the staff-in
-24 the past has expected to see a period of operation of 25 both units before removal from the watch list.
The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -
10
.1 staff judges that Fitzpatrick is a category 1 plant 'at 2
this time and Tim Martin will 'later discuss the 3
background for that judgment.
4 (Slide)
Could I'have slide 4, please?
5
' Category 2 plants are those that are on 6
the watch list but they're authorized to operate but 7
NRC staff believes they must be monitored closely.
8 The purpose of placing plants on the watch list is to 9
give the NRC regulatory attention and action' if 10 necessary before' unsatisfactory conditions are self-11 revealed by a serious event or even an accident at a 12 plant.
That means that there's a fundamental safety 13 reason for the watch list and this is not an open-
l 14 ended quest to push the industry toward a vague i
15 standard of excellence, as some have suggested that 16 the watch list is.
17 The questions that we consider in judging 18 whether to place a plant on the watch list are.the
~
19 following.
First is the performance on a declining 20 trend as evidenced by operational incidents, 21 enforcement
- history, plant material condition, 22-operator requalification' exam results or other' 23 indicators that I mentioned earlier.
.24 The second question is does it appear that -
25 the licensee is not aware of that declining trend.or NEAL' R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
~!
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 e
11
~ 1.
does not accept the. performance problems or have they.
2 been ineffective in dealing.with the problems?
The 3
third question is does the staff judge thatif the d
4 performance' trend continues.to decline, it would soon i
5 reach a level that would be unacceptable for continued 6
operation.
So, the whole intent is to prevent ~ an-
.7 accident, to not wait around until conditions get so
'I 8
bad that there is an event or an accident.
9 These are' essentially the'same questions 10 that we have asked ourselves. since - starting this 11 process in.1986.
I don't believe our standard have 12 changed over that ' time, although our ability to
]
13 develop answers to those questions has gotten better r
14.
with experience.
We do more analysis now, but the.
15 questions are the.same.
. 16 There are seven category 2
- plants, 17 Brunswick 1 and 2, Dresden 2 and 3, Indian Point 3, la and South Texas 1 and 2.
There were no new category j
q 19 plants identified this period.
20 (Slide). Slide 5, please.
21 Category 3 plants are thotte that are.
22 shutdown and. require Commission approval to operate
.t 23 and which we monitor closely while they're shutdown-f
- .i 24 Browns Ferry 1 and 3 remain as category 3 plants.
[
25
- Finally, Jim Taylor talked about the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
12 1
trending letters. We do believe that this promises to -
2 be an effective method that allows an early warning by.
3 the staff and it allows early action by the licens'ee-4 to take steps.to prevent operational safety problems-5.
that could lead to being placed on.the watch list.
6 f
(Slide)
Could I have slide 6, please?
7 In our discussions, we concluded that both 8
Quad Cities 1 and 2 and LaSalle 1 and 2, Commonwealth 9
Edison plants, have indications of downward trending i
10 performance.
In
- addition, the Cooper plant 11 performance was identified as trending downwards.
12 Jack Martin and Joe Callan will discuss those plants 13' in their discussion.
Jack will also briefly discuss 14 the status of the Perry plant which received a 15 trending letter, you'll recall, last June.
16 So, in summary, there were no new plants j
i 17 added to the category 2 watch list and one was taken
)
18 off.
Five new plants received a trending letter.
19 I'll turn to the regional administrators 20 and Tim Martin will begin for Region I.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just before we do 22 that, Tom, have you seen any inconsistencies in the 23 materials that you examined for any particula'r plant?
l L
24 In other words, when you come to render a judgment as i
)
25 to the status of a plant, are any of the materials NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
13' 1
_that you use in that -- in coming to that ever 2
inconsistent with the general finding?
3 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes, in the sense that --
-a 4
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: 'Such as SALPs?
5 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
In some cases the 6
information does not all uniformly point in the same 7
direction.
I can't think of a specific example, but 8
I know there have been some.
These are' typically the 9
plants that we spend an awful lot of time on.
(
10 Sometimes we will want to make sure we take a closer 11 look at them at our next meeting.
But it's not a 12 numerical process that we go through and it's not --
13 as you correctly point out, it's not always clear cut 14 that the evidence is pointing in one direction.
But-t 15 that
- just, I
think,. spurs us to do-even-more 16 introspection.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The follow-on to i
18 that is when you find situations of that sort, in 19 retrospect would that flag some change in our' 20 procedures or some change in what we're looking for or 21 how we look for things?
22 DOCTOR MURLEY:
I think yes,-it has.
I
[
23 think its had an impact on the changes that we've made 24.
in SALP in the last year, for example.
There'have 25 been other impacts on the SALP process as well, but I NEAL R. GROSS f
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
~'
'l
.14 1
think the needs of our-senior' management meeting has 2
had that impact. 'It clearly'has caused us to look at' 3
how we treat the information from the accident 4
precursor program.
We now bring that into our 5
discussions.
So, in that sense, there has been'this 6
feedback and I think it's been good.
I believe our 7
analysis is sharper now than it was by some margin.
8 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I know that you're 9
also bringing in results from the IPE program.
10 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I found that quite 12 of interest.
.i 13 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
P 14 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Actually, before we go on :
15 to the specific plants, since your presentation is 16 really quite.an important one, I would like to offer-17 a couple of observations.
I do believe based on my 18 two and a half years of watching this process that 19 there hasn't been a systematic toughening of standards 20 per se, but I think there have been four significant 21 changes in this process.
The first -- and this is one 22 that I hope in the new few week's you'll have a chance
]
~
i 23' to set down somewhat more precisely, Doctor Murley.
24 The first is the-process by which plants 25 are brought up to-be discussed at the senior
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
J
r 15
.]
1 management. meeting I think - ' has gotten - much more 1
2 careful.
In fact, as you know, there's-a great deal 1
3 of interest in what the overall process is and I think-J 4
it would be useful to illuminate not so much what 5
happens. at the senior management meeting, that's-6 relatively straightforward, but how plants get on the j
7 agenda in the first place because that's'more of a 8
staff function than it is the high-level function that-
^
9 )
the discussions lead to.
10 The second, as Commissioner Remick notes; 11 is the use of the individual plant evaluations and the 12 probabilistic risk assessments.
The third ha's been 13 much greater use just in these last two years of the i
14 licensee event reports and particularly the precursor -
l 15 results.
I've been impressed with the role that the 16 AEOD information which is quantitative, which'does 17 compare - plants with others in the class on.a whole 18 range of pieces. Not that the numbers are added up or
-l 19
- averaged, but that the systematic data are P
20 consistently used and referred to.
21 The fourth is that again, as you've 22 pointed out, is the SALP process has improved.
The 23 SALP process has become a more senior level process 24 and a more timely one so that in most cases you're l
25 dealing with SALP information that's more relevant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS.
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
-16 l'
I think that's led into a'more'.replicable-process.
i 2
.So, I think you and the staff.are'to'be 3.
. congratulated
.on
.a:
consistently-self-improving-4
. process.
But I think it's.important to lay out at the 5
next. level of discussion some of the indicators that' 6
are used to 'say these are plants that we - should t
7 discuss.
Obviously the discussions themselves are 8
hard to quantify'since they-are senior people with a 9
great deal of experience comparing the same set of-10 information.
But I do think that it's been a marked 1
11 improvement in the process and I think that's quite a
.i 12 worthwhile point.
At some point,. these ' trending 13 letters will be a source of interest as well..
14-Thank you.
~
15 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Thank you,;Mr.-Chairman.
~
16 Tim reminded me. I'd forgotten one of the i
l 17 most important inputs that we get for a plant and that-
- {
18 is when we do a diagnostic evaluation team inspection.
19 That forms the basis.for that particular plant.
We-i 20 typically.only do one of those, one or two a year, but i
21 that:is important information also.:
I 22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you.
23 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Tim?
J 24' MR.
T.
MARTIN:
First I'd like to. talk 25 about the Indian Point 3 plant.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL.AND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433 i
.t 17.
]
~:
1 The New York. Power Authority's ' Indian
~]
.2 Point 3 Nuclear Power Plarit was first discussed in the 1
3 June 1992 senior management meeting. The SALP for the
.l 4
period June
'91 through August
'92 identified 5
declining performance 'in five of seven functional 6
areas.
Of particular concern was performance and 7
engineering in tech support.
'During 1992, NRC took i
8 escalated ' enforcement action against IP-3 on 'four.
9 occasions.
Recurring elements at route to these 10 actions included inadequate procedural adherence and 4
11 attention to detail, inadequate implementation ~of.the 12 surveillance testing program, untimely or ineffective 13 correction action for identified problems, inadequate _
l 14 or inaccurate information flow and inadequate l
15 management guidance, oversight and control..
~
I 16 In response to the SALP and a mounting l
1 sf 17 list of problems, the New York Power Authority l
18 performed a
self-assessment and.
developed
'a-l 19
. performance improvement program.
On February 26th,.
l 20 the New York Power Authority ' determined that the 21 anticipated transient without scram mitigation. system 22 actuation circuity, better known as AMSAC, had not i
j 23 been maintained in compliance with NRC regulations and-24 shut the plant down.
25 Subsequently, NYPA announced an extension NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1S23 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 t
wy y
e
- 18 1
of.the shutdown as.a plant performance improvement-2 outage.
The licensee also committed not to restart 3
the until they were ready and the.NRC had agreed.
4 Last May, the NRC completed a three week 5
special team inspection and concluded that the root' 6
causes of the past performance deficiencies could be
.t 7
grouped into three categories, including weak 8
management processes and controls, weak management 9
skills and vigor and weak independent oversight.
l 10 Specific problems'were identified with the programs 11 for corrective
- action, commitment
- tracking, l
12 surveillance
- testing, emergency diesel generator 13 preventive maintenance and~ dissemination of the 14 administrative policy and. guidance with performance
{
15 and planning and scheduling, establishing 16 accountability, management of change and 1
17 organizational communications and with oversight 18 provided by the QA organization, corporate insight-
]
19 management and the on and off-site safety review 20 committees, i
21 On June 17th, 1993, the NRC issued a 22 confirmatory action letter that outlined steps that 23 NYPA must take prior ' to restarting - the ' facility.
24 Indian Point 3 was subsequently placed on the NRC's 25 watch list as a category 2 facility requiring close NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
3 (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344437,
~
'l 19
-f t
1-monitoring.
Since last June's senior ' management l
f-2 meeting, Indian Point 3 has established or revised:a c
3 number of programs and devoted significant effort to 4
reduce a dau'nting. backlog of corrective action work,_
[
t 5
modification'and engineering requests.
6 As a positive '. result of these efforts,
[
7 additional significant equipment problems have'been 8
identified by the licensee for corrective action.
9 These include pipe wall thinning on steam lines and 3
10 unexpected locations due to original construction fit-11 up problems, multiple valve deficiencies in design, 12 operations, maintenance and modification-history, a
13 modification which inadvertently bypassed a
gas 14 stripper and liquid rad waste process line. and 15 redundant required cooling fans for safety-related 16 switch gear powered from the same bus.
17
- However, during.the same period.we 18 continued to identify problems with. procedural.
19 adherence, attention to detail, work control and j
20 communications.
As a result, and admittedly the most-21 significant examples, two or three emergency diesel' 22 generators were made inoperable.
The wrong rad waste 23 monitor tank and a condensate storage tank were dumped ll 24 to the Hudson River on separate occasions.
One.
'l 25 thousand gallons was inadvertently spilled from the NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
J (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (232) 2344433-l
30 1.
boric acid storage tank and a fan cooler unit service 2
water header was opened while still pressurized..
j 3
In November 1993, the NRC conducted a 4
service water system operational performance 5
inspection.
The team found the service water system 6
was generally capable of performing its safety 7
functions, but identified several concerns.
One of 8
those concerns was the use of solenoid operate'd valves
?
9 at pressures beyond their design limit.
To address 10 this concern, NYPA developed a plan to replace certain 11 valves throughout the plant.
Unfortunately, 12 maintenance control problems associated with the valve 13 work led to all three emergency diesel generators 14 being simultaneously inoperable without the knowledge f
i 15 of the operating staff.
i a
16 An enforcement conference was held on I
17 December 10th.
Subsequently, NYPA provided the 18 details of an improved plant work control process 19 which included a station-wide work slowdown..During 20 a public meeting on December 17th at the site, the NRC 21.
again expressed concern about the continued personnel
-i 22 errors.and weak-performance at the
- facility, 23 particularly in the areas of plant configuration 24 control, work control, procedural adherence.
The NRC.
25 also expressed concern with the effectiveness of-the f
NEAL R. GROSS
?
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433_
er
=-
21 1
licensee's performance improvement plan and whet!her it 2
was sufficiently comprehensive to adequately address 3
continuing performance problems that must be resolved l
4 prior to restart.
5 NYPA has formed a corporate task group to 6
assess the current status of Indian-Point 3's 7
improvement plans and revise those plans accordingly.
8 Despite these concerns, improvements h' ave been noted.
1 9
Problem identification and' documentation at the site; l
10 has improved.
The new resident manager has provided 11 stronger oversight of day to day activities and has 12 promoted
'better performance tracking
'and e
13 accountability.
A new system for reporting and 14 tracking deficiencies has been instituted. The Indian 15 Point 3 staff has established additional interfaces
'I 16 with the industry to learn from their experiences and f
17 the site is now actively seeking outside assistance to.
18 review deficiencies and help determine root causes of f
19 problems.
20
- The Board of Trustees has also established
[
i i
21 a Nuclear Advisory Committee to provide expert opinion i
22 on the operation of NYPA's nuclear facilities.
The'-
23 committee is composed of three individuals with senior 24 management level industry.and regulatory experience.
'I 25 It should be noted that in less than a year nearly j
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
22.
1.'
half'of NYPA's top management positions responsible I
2 for oversight and support of activities at' Indian 3
Point 3 have experienced personnel changes. *These 4
changes include the Chairman of-the _ Board, the i
5 President,' the Indian Point. 3 resident manager, two or 6
three site general managers and many_ of their f
7 subordinate managers.
8
- Further, in early: December 1993,
.the t
9 Executive Vice President for Nuclear Generation went 10 on sick leave.
In light of these changes, the NRC is 11 particularly concerned with the substantial reduction 12 in nuclear experience and continuity of leadership of l
13 the corporate management staf f.
NYPA must assure the 14 pace and substance of these changes does.not prevent 15 the management team from providing appropriate and 16 timely support and oversight of plant activities in 1
17 nuclear safety.
18 In summary, overall performance at the Li
.19 facility has not significantly changed since the last' 20 senior management meeting.
Indian Point ' 3 remains 21 shutdown and the New York Power Authority has.
22 committed not to restart the unit until they are ready t
23l and we agree.
However, in light of the_ hardware and 24 program problems identified to date, the improvements 25 necessary in plant management and staff performance NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433
' WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433
'23 1;
and.the need to demonstrate plant' readiness. for-2 restart, the NRC staff has concluded that IP-3 should.,
3 remain a category 2 - facility subject to close NRC 4
4 monitoring.
5 Are there any questions?
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I have a comment.
It's 7
clear given the improvement we've seen at Fitzpatrick 8
that good local management can lead to significant 9
improvement even without much corporate support.. But 10 I'm really just astounded at how weak this chain has 11 been at indian Point 3 from the top, the trustees, the 12 lack of supervision by the trustees, the lack of-13 performance at the corporate level, as well as at the 14 staf f level.
I think we should just make it clear to 15 the new management at the New York Power Authority 16 that they really have their work cut out for_ them.
17 Theres just no strength up and down the line.
.It's 18 not just an occasional pocket of problems here or
'l l
19 there, there's a complete rebuilding to be done and 20 this turnover has been from the bottom up, not from 21 the top down, as if somebody is replaced and if that 22 doesn't work then somebody else gets the axe and it 23 just keeps going, as opposed to a solid piece of
-i 1
24 management comes in and says, "We've analyzed the 25 problem from top to bottom and here's our solution to NEAL R. GROSS COURT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
- 24
-1 do this."
2 So, I certainly. support your conclusions l
3 at the end and-hope that the new management both at 4
the: trustees level'and at the operations level at the' 5
Power Authority realizes just how much their work is j
6 cut out for them and this plant up and down.-
7 I don't think-I'm putting words in your 8
mouth.
I heard at least elements of those pieces in-9 your observations this morning, j
-l 10 MR. T. MARTIN:
Mr. Chairman, you're not 11 putting words_in my mouth.
In fact, based upon my.
12 discussion with the current president and the vice 13 president there, they are very clearly aware that this i
14 is a problem and they are concerned also and they've
-l 1
15 got a lot of work to do.
16 The next one I'd like to talk about is the 17 Fitzpatrick facility.
The New York Power Authority's 18 James E.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant was first 19 discussed during the June 1991 senior management 20 meeting. We were concierned with declining performance
-21 in the functional areas of operations, radiological 22 controls and safety assessment quality verification..
,[
23 The occurrence of an unmonitored' radioactive release ~
24 from their house heating boiler and the identification 25 of an unsatisfactory licensed operator requalification NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE !$ LAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
25 1
program in the months immediately preceding the senior 2
management meeting further supported those concerns.
3 As a result, the EDO directed the performance of a 4
diagnostic evaluation team assessment.
5 The licensee utilized the results of their i
6 own evaluations, along with those of the DET, to 7
develop a long-term results improvement program which 8
they continued to implement.
The licensee shut down 9
Fitzpatrick in November 1991 due to equipment problems 10 and subsequently extended the shutdown in order to 11 resolve numerous design and engineering deficiencies, 12 most notably in the fire protection and Appendix R 1
13 safe shutdown programs.
14 During the January 1992 senior management 15 meeting we placed Fitzpatrick on the watch list as a 16 category 2
facility.
The licensee completed a
17 significant number of major work tasks' during the 18 extended 14 month shutdown and the work was typically 19 well controlled and performed. Further, the reduction 20 in contaminated areas and combustible material in the 21 plant and the improvement in plant and equipment-a 22 preservation and cleanliness were notable.
23 In December 1992, the NRC agreed with the 24 New York Power Authority's conclusion that the 25 facility and staff are ready to safely support restart NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433
w i
26
~
1 and power operations--and on January 3rd the reactor.
O 2
was-again made critical.
During unit restart and 3
power ascension, the control room. was quiet and-i 4
professional and the shift supervisor exhibited good 5
command and control.
Evolutions in progress were 6
closely monitored to minimize any interference' or 7
distractions.
Overall, the start-up was conducted in 8
a deliberate and safe manner with excellent management i
9 oversight and control.
10 During the first six months of 1993, the 11 licensee experienced five forced outages due to j
12 equipment failures or design deficiencies.
In each 13 case, operator response to the~ event, staff safety 14' perspective and outage performance and management
-l 15 involvement and oversight were good.
The unit has-16 been operating pretty much at full power 'since the 17 last senior management meeting.
18 On September 23rd, power was reduced ~and 3
19 the turbine generator was taken off the line in order
- l 20 to locate a
battery ground in the turbine 21 electrohydraulic control. system.
- However, while-l 22 troubleshooting the
- system, a
bypass valve' i
23 inadvertently closed in the reactor scram due to high j
24 reactor pressure. This was the only automatic reactor 1
25 trip from power since the June 1993 senior management NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
- (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (2021 234 4433
-]
-1
27 1
meeting.
2 After the battery ground was repaired, the 3
reactor was restarted and operated at full l power until 4
the plant was shutdown on October 23rd for a ' scheduled
~
5 maintenance outage. Performance during the outage was j
6 mixed.
The licensee identified an increase in human-7 performance-related problems early it,the outage and 8
invoked a safety stand down to reemphasize the need
]
9 for greater attention to detail and self-verification, f
10 The unit restarted on November 20th and no.
.4 11 additional significant human performance problems had i
12 been identified.
13 In October 1993, the NRC also conducted an -
^
14 operational safety team inspection to assess -the-15 quality of management
- programs,
.self-assessment
,i 16 programs, corrective action programs, and engineering i
17 and tech support.
The team found that corporate and r
18 plant management practices were effective in assuring 19 safe plant operations.
Self-assessment programs and 20 processes for problem identification, assessment and 21 resolution were generally effective.
Corporate i
22 engineering interfaces with plant and cechnical 23 support for maintenance and operations were improved.
24 The root cause evaluation program had.
mixed 25 performance, planning-and prioritization of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 D
4 28 1
nodifications needed enhancement and'there existed a
.5 a
2 significant backlog of outstanding' requests and 3
corrective actions.
- q 4
overall, the licensee has made significant '
5 changes to promote both short and long-term-6-
improvements in performance. Corporate management has f
f 7
provided substantial resources and support.
Licensed-8 operator staffing'has.been improved.
The operator 9
' requalification program is again satisfactory and the 10 performance and operations, maintenance surveillance, 11 radiological controls and safety assessment quality-12 verification have improved.
In addition, the plant's 13 material condition has been improved.
Operating.
14 maintenance and ~ surveillance procedures have~ been 15 enhanced and the long needed administration' building
-t l
16 is complete and the facility management team under the I
J l
17 new resident manager has been effective.
l-18 As discussed in the Indian Point 3
19 presentation, there's been a
large number of 20 significant changes in corporate management staff, j
21 particularly those responsible for support and l.
22 oversight of nuclear safety activities.
The loss of t
23 nuclear experience and the continuity of leadership-i 24 from these positions ; remains a
significant' NRC 25 concern.
NYPA must ensure the management attention i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE. N W.
-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
a J
lAe 29
.1, and resources necessary to sustain' continued 2
improvement at Fitzpatrick are not diverted by current
-3 efforts to resolve their corporate staffing issues or 4
by the significant effort needad to address continued
~
~~
5 performance and programmatic weaknesses and restart 6
issues at the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant.
7 In
- summary, Fitzpatrick is '. currently 8
operating at full power with no significant problems.
9 Performance sin'ce the last senior management continues 10 to be good and improving.
Improved management 11 oversight, increased staff accountability and a
12 conservative safety approach toward operations have 13 been evident.
- Further, despite the-significant 14 changes that have occurred in the-corporate-15 management, we have concluded that the licensee-has 16 committed or provided sufficient resources, programs, 17 site management and oversight - to carry out planned' i
18 long-term performance improvements.
As a result, the
- i 19 NRC has determined that sufficient overall improvement 20 has been demonstrated by the licensee such that close 21 monitoring of licensee activities is no longer 22 warranted.
4 t
23 Are there any questions?
i 24 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Stu?
25 MR.
EBNETER:
I have two plants to NEAL R. GROSS.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
l 30-1-
discuss, : Brunswick and Browns. Ferry.
I'll. discuss 2
Brunswick first.
3 Brunswick, a
two unit boiling water-4 reactor owned by Carolina Power and Light Company, i
5 located in Southport, North Carolina.
Unit 2 is 6
presently at 100 percent power and Unit 1 is in start-7 up readiness operations.
Brunswick was placed on the f
8 problem plant list as a category 2 plant'in June of.
9 1992 as a result of weak senior management involvement 10 and ineffective self-assessment and corrective action -
l 11 program and a poor work control program.
These 12 conditions resulted in poor unit performance, degraded 13 plant material conditions, high backlogs in. numerous-i 14 areas and extensive enforcement actions.
15 CP&L has made extensive management changes 16 at all levels from ~ the President, Chief Operating 17 Officer to Operations Shift Supervisor. These changes 18 have been made at - both ' corporate office and the i
19 station.
The new management' has been primarily 20 recruited from sources external to CP&L and has 21 brought experience in nuclear operations.
The CP&L t
22 management has developed a recovery plan and a three t
23 year business plan for the Brunswick plant which l
t 24 clearly sets forth management goals and expectations.
-l 25 based on higher standards of performance.
These have NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
j
. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. N0(,5 (202) 2344433 t
l!
31 1
been communicated effectively to the site staff via 2
senior management meetings at the site.
3
- The self-assessment has been strengthened 4
and improved with regards to Brunswick operations has 5
been noted.
Additional assessment 1 and feedback
,i 6
channels have been instituted and they have 7
incorporated two levels of senior type managers who 8
provide the nuclear committee oversights.
These 9
communities both have experienced and diverse nuclear 10 personnel on them from industry.
11 The work control system has been revised 12 and restructured to ensure that adverse conditions are 13 addressed promptly and correctly and that the backlogs I
14 are controlled to appropriate targets.
The backlogs 15 have been reduced at both units and the ma'erial 16 condition of the station has improved significantly.
17 The effectiveness of the new management 18 and revised program has been demonstrated by the ll l
19 recovery, restart and exceptional performance of unit j
)
20 2.
Unit 2 was restarted in April of 1993.
Start-up l
21 was essentially error free and the unit has run N
22 without any trips, forced outages or major personnel 1
.a 23 errors for approximately 250 days.
-l i
24 Unit 1 has remained shutdown since April 25 1992 and is being refueled and upgraded.
Unit 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
902) 234M33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
32-I 1-start-up' was originally scheduled for September of 2
1993, butethis has been delayed' by emergent Lwork, 3
primarily the cracks in the core shroud and some
~
4 debris found in the reactor coolant ' system.
The-5 resolution of the shroud issue and the industry f
1 6
identified. jet pump hold-down beams was characterized t
7 by very good conservative decision making to focus on.
e 8
safety issues and effective engineering corrective 9
actions.
10 Unit 1 material condition.
Upgrades have 11 been accomplished, backlog resolutions and the targets 12 have been met.
Unit management changes and revised-13 programs are in place.
Criticality is' scheduled for' l
14-Brunswick Unit 1 on January 28th, 1994 and I believe
.15 that is still on schedule.
16 The recent systematic SALP assessment that -
17 we performed of Brunswick was very positive.
One.in 18 operations.
and plant. support and two in the 19 maintenance and engineering.
The SALP recognizing 20 increased performance at the' station.
1 21 In summary, the root causes attributed to l
22 the past cyclical performance of Brunswick have.been 23 addressed and demonstrated to be effective on Unit 2..
24 Unit 1 recovery is complete and the unit is ready for f
25 restart.
The licensee must now demonstrate dual unit NEAL R. GROSS 1
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
f (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTOtt D C. 20005 -
(202)2344433
33.
1 operational performance.
' Brunswick remains on the _
f 2
problem plant list as a category 2 plant.
3 Any questions?
4 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
It sounds as if the main ~
i 5
thing that remains to be shown is a ' successful restart 6
of Unit 1.
Is that a fair' assessment, that you're
- I 7
quite pleased with Unit 2 and you remain to be seen i
8 that. Unit 1 can come up and that both units'can be 9
operated satisfactorily?
10 MR.
EBNETER:
Yes.
.There's a. lot - of
{
11 management at Brunswick that was brought in that have 1
12 not actively operated a BWR.
These people will be l
13 doing the start-up of Unit 2 - -or-Unit 11' start-up.
14 Unit 2 will'be coming down in an outage just'at the'-
.i 15 end of the build-up or start-up of. Unit 1.
I think.we.
l 16 need to see the ability of CP&L to operate both units i
17 in these conditions.
- Past cyclical performance of-1 18 Brunswick has been troublesome for us since mid-1980s.
19 So, I don't expect them to stumble, however.
I am 20 very confident that this present management structure 21 is very, very good.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Just a related 23 comment.
First, I.want it to be clear that-I am.not:
l 24 second guessing staff-judgment or differing vith your 25
. judgment, but it's a comment hopefully for the future NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
34 1-good of the process.
2 When I read the letter that'was sent to 3
Brunswick, read it very carefully.
In your 4
presentation there's a list of seven very positive 5
statements about progress.. There's one statement that 6
says management's' focus should now be directed to safe 7
start-up of Unit 1 and demonstration of sustained good 8
dual unit. operational performance, which I view as a
?
9 neutral type of recommendation, which makes good 10 sense.
But then came the conclusion that they would 11 remain basically on the watch list.
I thought 12 somebody just reading that letter, not hearing the 13 things you just presented to the Chairman in response 14 to his
- comment, I
don't think the conclusion 15 necessarily follows.
It's just. purely, I think, that 16 the letter itself does not have that transition from 17 here are all the promising things, but an explanation i
18 of why the staff feels that they should continue on 19 the list.
I think somebody reading it coldly could j
20 understand,
- well, what is it then the NRC is 21.
expecting?
That's just a comment.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I had exactly the 23 same reaction.
I read the letter carefully and there 24 were nothing ~ but positives in it..
Then the next 25 sentence says, " Based on this, the plant will remain.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT RE PORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 234 4433 r-TF
L
'35 l
1 on the. watch list. "
I-~ don't think that it follows-2 that based on that,-the preceding paragraph..
There-3 are other considerations for' keeping'it on the watch' 4
list.
~
5 It seemed to me that if.whoever-received 6
that letter' knew nothing else but'what was in that 7
letter, it didn't give them any guidance in any way.-
8 MR. TAYLOR:
That's a-reasonable-comment.
9 We were perhaps too terse in the' letter and I think 10 we'll take that in our --
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I read all the other 12 letters just to see how this one compared and this one 13 really stood out in that sense. The other ones listed 14 specific problems.
This - one. only listed positive 15 accomplishments and then said, " Based on those, you're 16 going to stay on the problem list."-
17 MR.
TAYLOR:
We presumed too much 18 knowledge perhaps on the part of the readers in terms 19 of -- but that's a reasonable comment.
We'll take 20 that.
Excuse me.
21 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
- But, you know,.
as 22 Commissioner Remick said, I believe that based on-the 23 discussion, the judgment is correct.
It's purely a question of how much goes in the letter.
24 25 MR. TAYLOR:
We have confidence they've NEAL R. GROSS COURT HEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
36 l'
built up' ; confidence.
We need ' this extra ' bit: of-2 demonstration.
3 MR. EBNETER: ' Trust, but verify.
4 Any other questions on Brunswick?
i 5
Browns Ferry.
We'll be' discussing Browns 6
Ferry Units 3 and 1
l 7
Browns
) Unit, BWR station owned by 8
the Tennessee Vi ority located in Northern 9
Unit 2 is at.00 percent power and has been i
i 10 there in excess of 200 continuous on-line days, which l
l 11 is very good for that unit.
But Units 3 and l'are i
12 both shutdown and defueled.
i 13 Browns Ferry Units 1, 2 and 3.were placed "j
14 on the problem plant list as category 3 plants in-1986-U 15 as a result of management issues and chronic poor 16 performance.
Unit 2 was restarted in May-1991'and 17 after a period of sustained good operations - was.
18 removed from the problem plant list in June of 1992.
19 Units 3 and 1 remain on the problem plant list as 20 category 3 units.
~'
21 Recent changes at TVA are positive.
Two i
22 Board of Director vacancies were filled last' summer 23 and the Board is now fully constituted. Thel Board has-24 been providing adequate resources for Browns Ferry 25 Station.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
37,
)
i
'l
'A recent reorganization has placed nuclear:
2 activities in a separate - organization with senior l
3 management dedicated nuclear-operations.
The long-i 4
vacant senior vice_ president position was filled by
)
5 internal promotion.
We think these changes -- are
-)
6 positive and will have a positive - impact on - the j
7 nuclear operations.
8 Unit 3 is being upgraded and modified to 9
the standards incorporated in the Unit 2 recovery and i
10 these were agreed upon by the staff.
The base 11 engineering of these modifications is essentially 12 complete and licensee attention is now focused on l
13 construction activities.
Management changes which 14 placed all Browns Ferry units under the site vice 15 president approximately 15 months ago was made-in 16 response to ineffective contractor interface control 17 and inefficiencies in the work practices.
These 3
18 changes apparently have been effective.
We have seen l
19 progress in the engineering area and the construction 20 areas are moving forward in the electrical systems, 21 piping and hangers and supports.
22 Additional work performed in response to 23 available windows of opportunity such as vessel NDE, 24 non-destructive exam, on the shroud and the' vessel.
25 These both demonstrate good planning and a slow NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433 -
38 1
- deliberate ~ approach to. recovery activities. Unit 3 is.
2 scheduled for fuel load in June 1995 with criticality 3
several months later.
4 Unit 1.
Work on unit 1 is basically 5
suspended pending senior management decisions on the 6
selection of a strategy for future utilization of this 7
unit. This unit has very low priority and very little 8
work is being done on the unit.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I ' m ' sorry.
Is this a 10 strategy from a business sense or from an allocation 11 of engineering resources?
-i 12 MR.
EBNETER:
Mostly from a business
.I 13 sense, I believe.
14 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
When they need the power 15 basically.
16 MR. EBNETER:
Well, that and I think it's 1
17 tied perhaps to the discussion with relicensing i
18 issues.
That unit came on-line in the early '70s and 19' has quite of bit expended on it.
20 One comment.
Although no adverse 21 conditions have been noted, the recent changes at the 22 Browns Ferry site have the potential to adversely 23 impact activities at the station.
TVA senior 24 management is monitoring this closely.
We haven't 25 seen any issues.
Just
- quickly, the - site vice NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
39 l
1:
president was promoted to-the. senior vice-president
.I i
2 position and he's serving in a dual capacity there and '
3 there have'been some other changes below him at the i
4 site.
I 5
Browns Ferry Units 3 an'd'1 remain on the 6
problem plant list as category 3 units ~and require
]
7.
Commission authorization to restart.
+
8 Any questions on Browns Ferry?
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Do you see any. reason to 10 believe that the Tennessee Valley Authority does not 11 have adequate resources, either financial or. personal, I
12 to manage the plan that they put forward to the 13 Commission?
14 MR. EBNETER:
I don't see any problems i
15 with that.
16 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Jack Martin?
.i 17 MR.'J. MARTIN:
Well, I~will discuss the 18 Commonwealth plants and then go on to Perry, starting ~
19 with Dresden 2 and 3.
20 Dresden. Station was placed on the.NRC's 21 watch list.in June of 1987, removed in December.of' i
22 1988 and again placed on the watch list in January.of' I
23 1992.
Significant contributors to Dresden being 24 placed on the watch list a second time included 25 weaknesses in work performance, control of work i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
40 1
-1 activities, plant material condition, procedure 2
quality, adherence to procedures by personnel and 3
engineering support.
4 over the last two years, Commonwealth 5
Edison has been working to address the. problems at 6
Dresden.
This has included the institution of a 7
performance improvement program, personnel changes, L
8 increased resources and engineering support, enhanced 9
corporate oversight and a corporate upgrade program.
10 Dresden is improving, although very 11 slowly.
Some areas that have seen progress include t
12 the resolution of long-standing equipment problems and e
13 a program to upgrade procedure quality.
Operator-14 performance during requalification examinations has 15 improved and both units have experienced relatively 16 event-free operation over the last six months.
17 The most recent SALP presented to the 18 licensee in October of 1993 resulted in Dresden being 19 rated category 2 in maintenance and plant support and 20 category 3 in engineering and operations.
In the 21 maintenance
- area, Dresden has made significant 22 progress in resolving the equipment problems that have i
23 plagued the station for years.
Working around or 24 living with equipment problems seems to be no longer 25 a way of life. More work is still needed, however, in i
t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 j
i
I T41 l
planning and s c h e d u l'i n g w o r k and getting it.
i 1
done 2
- ef ficiently ' at a reasonable dose.
I would expect j
3 continued progress in this area..
i 4
Radiological protection continues to be an.
5 area of concern.
There have been continuing problems t
6 with contamination control dose and high source term.
7 Engineering continues to need attention.
There have 8
been problems with the motor-operated valve program, 9
component cooling service water and system engineer 10 performance in the last few months.
Considering the i
11 additional emphasis and resources that have been 12 placed in this area, engineering.would appear to be 13' poised for an improvement that we'd hope to see in 14
- 1994, 15 Similarly, the operations area _'
has 16 improved somewhat.
However, there have been several E
17 operator errors in the last few months that displayed t
18 poor instincts and work habits.
Of note were i
l 19 misalignments of breakers in the 34 KV switchyard and 20 some valves in the emergency core cooling l system.
21 Most in need of attention is the area of self-22 assessment.
Problems.are still not being reported 23 regularly, given a root cause review or trended and an' 24 effective performance monitoring program is still not l
25 completely in place.
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS q
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 i
t 42 1.
There have been 'several management changes 2
in the last.few' months, including a new plant manager i
3 and a radiological protection manager and a site 4
quality and verification director.
Commonwealth ~
-5 recently announced the' intent to replace the plant's f
f 6
technical services superintendent.
The effect' of 7
these changes is not yet entirely clear.
f 8
In summary, there's been progress at.
9 Dresden, but very slowly and much still needs to be 10 done.
Accordingly, the senior managers decided to 11 maintain Dresden on the watch list as a' category 2 h
i 12 plant.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Why don't you go through k
14 all the Commonwealth plants because there are certain 15 patterns.
s 16 MR. J. MARTIN:
Right.
Next we'make the' 17 jump to the trending plants which, as Tom pointed out, 18 are not the same as problem plants.
But I'll' talk I
19 about Quad Cities first and then LaSalle.-
20-Quad Cities was first discussed at'the 21 June 1992 senior management meeting and then again in 22 June of 1993.
A decline in' overall performance
[
23 precipitated these discussions.
Inadequate procedure
[
24 adherence, poor procedure
- quality, substandard
-)
25 equipment reliability and ineffe'ctive engineering and NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.j i
43
~
1-
' licensing support have all' contributed to problems -in 2
Quad Cities.
In.early June 1993, a high pressure core 3
injection system rupture-disk failed
'during; 4
surveillance testing, resulting:in extensive damage l
5 and personnel injuries. In response to 'these concerns f
6 raised at the June 1993 senior management meeting, a
+
7 diagnostic inspection team was sent to the site in 8
September of 1993.
The material condition _ of Quad 9
Cities and their problems in maintaining the b
10 operability of safety-related' systems, in particular 11 the high pressure coolant injection and the reactor 12 core isolation cooling
- systems, is the most 13 significant aspect of the decline in performance.
14 As of mid-1993, most managers -at' Quad
-i 15 Cities were unaware that their safety system failure 16 rate was significantly greater than average.
'The 17-diagnostic inspection found that management-was 18 willing to accept equipment problems without pursuing
'1 19 corrective actions, the' work control processes were 20 ineffectual and that engineering evaluations 'of 21 degraded equipment were not rigorous.
Additionally, i
22 the licensee's self-assessment program was considered
- l 23 to be in effective, root cause analyses were weak and i
a 24 the oversight provided by system engineering program 25 was weak.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTOrd. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
1
p
[.
44 1
The licensee-conducted an assessment of t
2 equipment vulnerabilities patterned after that done at l
l 3
Dresden. late in 1992. This. was a ' licensee effort.
It 4
was called the vulnerability. assessment.
The l
5 vulnerability assessment identified many plant issues i
6 of plant equipment, but was not followed up'.
After 7
the NRC expressed concerns over the lack of management 8
oversight, a Commonwealth Edison task force was formed 9
to establish a corrective action plan.
The licensee 10 also conducted short maintenance outages on each unit 11 as a start to improving the material condition.
This 12 was done just recently.
13 Several recent management changes have 14 been affected.
We've yet to see a significant 15 positive impact, but it's hoped that these changes 16 will help ameliorate the leadership deficiencies at i
17 Quad. 'Although the operators were considered to be a 18 relatively strong performing group by the diagnostic i
19 inspection, performance in routine plant. operations
{
20 has been mixed.
Personnel errors have been involved i
21 in incidents resulting in short cycling the shutdown
-\\
22 cooling flow and flooding the turbine building j
4 23 basement through open manways in the condenser.
24 Because of the issues found by the.
j 25 diagnostic and the declining material condition in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISi AND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
.j
- 45 I
l'
' performance at Quad cities, the' -senior managers 2
decided that.a letter'to~ the company ' citing, these j
~
j l
3 negative trends _would be appropriate.
4 I'll go on now to LaSalle.
LaSalle's 5
performance has declined.
The licensee' has'
')
6 demonstrated deficiencies in their ability to conduct
.7 engineering.
evaluations of recurring equipment 3
8 problems. and in the conduct of their preventive 9
maintenance program.
Lack of a clear management 10
- focus, poor self-assessment capabilities ~ and an 11 inability to identify root causes all contribute to 12 LaSalle's declining performance.
i 13 There have been recurring problems in the 14 radiological controls area at LaSalle. This is due to 15 a
number of
- reasons, foremost being a
lack of 16 management and supervisory oversight. In looking into i
17 the poor radiological work practices and a major spill 18 in July of 1993, I found that the radiation protection 19 manager hadn't been in the controlled area of the i
I 20 plant yet that year.
i 21 Subsequent to this, several significant 22 radiological incidents have occurred at LaSalle; 23 including a major personnel contamination involving 22 l
24 people and an administrative over exposure due to a a
25 worker ignoring his alarming. dosimeter.
More i
F NEAL R. GROSS COURT FIEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
{
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
- r
-46 1
recently, ' there were. two occurrences' of radiation
-1 2
workers personal clothing' being intentionally l
1 3
contaminated by'others.
i 4
Plant material conditions are degrading i
5 due to an ineffective maintenance program.
A.recent 6-loss of off-site power-event -was complicated by a
'l 7
cascade of: equipment failures.
There have bene 8
problems, repeat problems, with several. key pieces'of 9
equipment and balance of plant equipment failures are 10 becoming more prevalent.
11 The situation at LaSalle -has been 12 complicated also by management instability.
The site
?
13 vice president was hired about a year ago from outside 14 the company, but has only spent part-time on site, U
15 maybe a little over half-time.
A new plant manager 16 from Haddam Neck reported this month.
However, there 17 was no' plant manager at all for. the last six months of 18 1993.
The previous plant manager was reassigned to 19 Dresden in June'of 1993 only after a few months on-20 site.
h 21 Due to the events at LaSalle this year and 22 using the Quad cities evaluations as a
- guide, 23 Commonwealth Edison did-an extensive analysis of f
24 LaSalle in late November 1993.
The Commonwealth 25 assessment found many of the same types of issues as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS r
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005
~ (202) 234-4433,
47 1
were'found by our-'DET at-Quad ~ Cities.
In. addition, 2'
the, new LaSalle quality verification director has i
3 raised vigorous issues. with the= LaSalle. corrective I
4 action program. These self-analyses are very positive 5
developments.-
It's too early to tell whether the
{
6 issues raised are complete or will be dealt with.
7 Because of events, equipment-and personnel 8
issues at LaSalle, the senior managers also considered r
9 that a trending letter similar to Quad Cities would be 10 appropriate.
l i
11
- Now, to complete the' picture, at the 12 opposite end of the spectrum or continuing in that 13 direction is the Byron plant which is. considered an 14 excellent performer by any measure and was considered 15 by the senior managers appropriate' to recognize as 16 such.
Now, because of this picture at Commonwealth 17 involving the spectrum of performance in the letter 18-that we sent, we considered-it wise to also request a 19 meeting with their board of directors to discuss this 20 situation in some detail.
21 That completes our --
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:'
- Well, I-have 'some-
- i i
23 comments.
First of all, the one thing, Mr. Martin, 24 that you didn't raise particularly but is there is 1
25 that the radiological performance of LaSalle is not-NEAL R. GROSS fuRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHING 10N. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433.
~
48 i
l '.
unique within the system,' that all -- although LaSalle 2
is probably the worst, that all three of.the boiling
-l 3
water reactors within the Commonwealth L system have l
4 much poorer than industry performance as measured 5
either in incidents or in the ' cumulative exposure.
6 That's a clear sign of mangement inattention.. There's 7
absolutely no reason in the 'world that a reactor I
8 should have such -- any reactor should have such poor j
9 radiological performance other than toleration of poor 10 performance.
11 In fact, the picture that you paint of one j
l 12 site, two reactors on the problem list, one site, two
)
l i
13 reactors on the good. performance list and two sites on j
14 the downward trending list, if it's necessary, should
]
-l 15 be quite a wakeup call to overall management. There's i
16 just something wrong, whether it's in terms of overall 17 resources or how they're allocated or the continued
-]
18 attention.
That's just too poor an.overall 19 performance picture to be at random.
If anything, I 20 read the putting of Byron on the good performers' list i
21 as a great credit to the people at Byron,.but yet' I
22 another indication that the corporate management 23 really isn't delivering the added value that they 24 should be delivering.
If such a wide range of
)
i 25 performance can exist, there's clearly lessons to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W j
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 L1'
49 1
learned from the better performers from outside the 2
system that have to be implemented.
3 I did want to ask you one question.
Is it t
4 plausible that either or both of'the plants that got.
5 the trending letters could be back in a stable' l
6 situation within six months or do you see the problems
'i 7
as requiring more than that time to turn'around?
I 8
MR. J. MARTIN:
Well, I think'we're still i
9 a little bit developmental here in the use of the 10 trending.
I think what we have tried to use so far i
11 was has the situation been arrested, not has it been 12 corrected.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Right.
t 14 MR.
J.
MARTIN:
The Perry thing was so 15 clear cut that there really wasn't even any close call 16 discussion on it.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Where there were 18 corrections, not merely --
19 MR.
J.
MARTIN:
Well, not only arrested 20 but very vigorously so.
So, that would be our hope, 21 that it would be arrested.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Can you trace any of 7
23 this to resource problems?
Commonwealth has had f
24 severe resource problems, I take it, from overall 25 corporate position.
They've told us that it doesn't NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
50 1-
~ affect their nuclear, but to you disagree with that?
2 MR.
J.
MARTIN:
Well, it depends on who 3
you talk to.
Certainly at the working level at the 4
plants, it's not infrequent to find people in a state 5
of mind that a lot of this results from resource 6
limitations.
But we did not discuss.this explicitly 7
among the managers, but my sense is that's not a real i
8
-contributor here.
It may have been the far distance 9
past, but the' issues we're dealing with certainly at l
10 the trending-plants and Dresden's rather slow 11
. improvement I don't sense are primarily resource 12 driven.
But again, we didn't really thrash that out 13 completely.
I'm not sure whether - that's a fair
.i 14 representation.
15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Resources in the sense of 16 the dollars and the number of bodies.
I 17 MR. J. MARTIN : Yes, or numbers of people.
18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
But you have painted a 19 picture of trying to get by with maybe too thin a set 20 of management where they're trying to be both 21 corporate managers and --
- i 22 MR.
J.
MARTIN:
- Both, too thin and 23 quality.
24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
You're talking l
25 about the amount of change, significant changes in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l
51 1
management?
2
-MR.
J.
MARTIN:-
Well, here again, we 3
'didn't -- I think there has been significant change.
4 Some of the traditional patterns have been broken.
S They are bringing in people from the outside-to some.
6 degree.
I think it would be fair to say that one of 7
the major complicating factors here with the' company 8
is continual change.
One of the major -issues we. had 9
at Quad Cities, for example, is failure to implement 10 the last get well program and there is a degree of 11 skepticism that these things come up every couple,of-12 years and that's something that people have to be" 13 convinced that it's different today than it was in the 14 past.
But change is, to a degree, part of the problem 15 here.
16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
17 DOCTOR MURLEY:
I believe-you were going 18 to discuss the Perry.
19 MR. J. MARTIN: Right. Going on to Perry, 20 it was discussed at the senior management meeting 21 several times in the past inadequate-corrective 22 actions for cleanliness problems that caused the'ECCS~
23 suction strainer fouling.
It led to a-discussion of
~
24 Perry status at the June 1993 senior management 25 meeting.-
Other issues included -poor nTterial-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
- m.,
52
- . i 1
condition of balance of plant equipment, problems with 2
f ailed ' fuel', personnel errors and problems.with the 3
licensee's engineering evaluation.
4 At the June 1993 meeting, it was. decided 5
that a
letter should-be sent to Perry senior 6
management citing adverse trends and requesting a 7
meeting to discuss the issues.
In response to that, 8
the licensee has instituted a major reorganization 9
which resulted in the replacement of a
large-10 percentage of the senior management down to and n
11 including the department head level.
This included 12 the transfer of a number of managers of demonstrated 13 effectiveness from Davis-Besse to Perry.
The company 14 was also somewhat reorganized and a senior vice 15 president nuclear appointed and he set up his office 16 on-site at Perry and has been involved in monitoring-17 daily plant activities.
18 Strenuous efforts are also underway to 19 improve the plant material condition and develop a 'new 20 work attitude.
They took a recent maintenance outage-21 to focus on balance of plant equipment problems.
The-22 Perry corrective action plan seems complete 'and P
23 aggressive and it's expected to correct the problems-24 if implemented as planned.
There's already been some 25 noticeable improvement in many portions of the plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433' WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
153 1.
As a footnote, after the senior management 2
meeting, at their request, I met with the entire board 3
of directors for Centerior the day before' yesterday to 4
discuss the situation with them.
I thought that was 5
significant that they would ask for that.
I'came away 6
with the conclusion that each and every one of them 7
understands what they're.up against.
We went around 8
the table and each and every one was committed to 9
doing what needs to be done to implement'this plan.
10 So, there's no ambiguity or misunderstandings from the 11 top to the bottom at this point.
12 So, because of all the near-term actions 13 that could reasonably have been taken, have been taken 14 by the utility and most importantly because the 15 declining trend has been stopped,'the senior managers 16 decided to remove Perry-from the trending status.
We' 17 recognize it will be some time for Perry to fully 18 achieve its desired results.
l 19 CHAIRMAN SFLIN:
Have you seen any 20 offsetting deteriorati.on at Davis-Besse as the 21 resources have shifted?
22 MR. J. MARTIN:
What I told the directors 23 is that -- I'm not sure who's responsible for this, 24 but there was an enormous depth built into the Davis-25 Besse plant, down two to three levels in each NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
-l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
-l
i 54 l
1 position.- It was sort of a prototype of a' succession
.j L
2 planning so that when the crisis came there were_
3 people to fill it.
l 4
- Now, what we discussed is that it's 5
probably necessary now to go back and rebuild that so 6
that you restore the situation.
But'I am nervous 7
about that, but haven't seen anything yet.
8 DOCTOR MURLEY:
But there has not been a 9
deterioration that we've seen.
10 MR.
J.
MARTIN:
No, no, not yet.
11 Hopefully there won't be, but it's something we need l
12 to be careful about.
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Very good.
Thank /ru, j
1 14 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Okay.
We'll go or t ',
I 15 Region IV then, Joe Callan.
16 MR. CALLAN:
Thank you, Tom.-
17 I have one category 2 watch list plant to 18 discuss.
That's South Texas project and then I'll go 19 on to our single trending facility, Cooper Station.
20 The South Texas project was identified as 21 a category 2 watch list plant during the June 1993 22 senior management meeting.
This categorization
.l l
23 resulted from declining performance characterized by j
24 longstanding equipment
- problems, ineffective-and
)
25 inefficient work control processes, inadequate problem NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON O C. 20005 (202) 2344433.
55 1
identification and corrective active-programs, a
t.
2 general lack of effective management direction and 3
support, and ineffective use of self-assessmentiand:
4 quality oversight functions..
5 In August 1993, Houston Lighting and Power 6
provided the EDO with their initial' response to the l
7 NRC diagnostic evaluation team inspection report.
8 This response emphasized those actions'necessary to.
9 support resumption of power operations.
A more 10 comprehensive response that addressed longer range-
+
11 actions was provided to the EDO in October 1993.
12 An NRC restart panel composed. of managers 13 from Region IV and NRR was. formed to assure consistent
'i 14 agency approach to the issues identified, to track 15 progress on completion of plant. restart' issues 16 addressed in the region's. confirmatory action letters 17 to Houston Lighting and Power and to assure proper i
18 coordination of significant meetings and inspections.
19 The panel meets biweekly and meets with Houston
[
20 Lighting and Power representatives monthly with public.
21 observation.
'i i
- )
22 The NRC's principal efforts at South Texas -
l 23 project since October 1993 have consisted of reviewing I
~
24 items associated with the identified restart issues.
25 Recent inspections have noted continuing improvement NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE, N W.
(20?) ?344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
56
't
-i 1
in management initiatives and program development, but 2
have identified.
examples of.
implementation-3 shortcomings.
Despite these inspection findings, the 4
general performance trend of South Texas project has
{
~
5 been slowly improving. For example, in the operations.
?
6 area there have been staffing enhancements such as the q
7 addition of a-sixth shift and the control room 8
operators have had their non-watch. standing duties i
9 reduced.
i 10 In the maintenance area, there is evidence i
t i
11 of successful work prioritization and an effective 12 maintenance planning and coordination.
Training 13 improvements and more effective management oversight l
14 also have been evident in the maintenance area.
15 The NRC operational readiness assessment
-l
- l 16 team inspection that completed its on-site activities
.j i
17 last week identified continuing concerns in some 18 areas, however.
Examples include corrective action 19
- programs, configuration management and plant
'[
20 procedures.
The. team also identified various 21-strengths,-
such as a
control room operator i
i 22
-professionalism and qualifications, staff morale and
,1 i
23 their willingness to raise concerns to management and 24 the independent assessment function. The team did not i
25 consider any of its findings to be serious enough in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
r (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
57 1
themselves to prohibit plant restart.
2 The conclusions of the operational 3
readiness assessment team are an important step in the 4
staff decision for permitting restart of Unit 1.
5 Another important step will be a restart meeting with 6
Houston Litihting and Power in which the readiness of 7
Unit'l for restart will be reviewed in' some detail.
8 This_ meeting will be open to the public.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
When is that meeting?-
10 MR. CALLAN:
Mr. Chairman, as of this 11 morning, it's penciled - in for February 8th,. but we 12 haven't received formal confirmation of that.
13 Intensive NRC inspection ' activities are 14 planned in the event that the staff decides to permit 15 plant restart.
Particular attention will be paid.to 16 the considerable post-maintenance testing that can be 17 performed only when the unit is heated up, including 18 the testing of the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater 19 pumps whose failure - in February 1993 led to the 20 shutdown of both units.
21 Continued close NRC monitoring of-South 22 Texas project performance will be necessary if ' the :
23 decision is made to permit plant restart in order to 24 assure that improvements underway can be sustained.
25 This is especially important due to the extensive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433
. WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
58 1
management and' organizational changes that have 2
occurred over th'e past nine months.
These changes 3
3 appeared to be promising, 'but the - test of ' their 4
effectiveness will occur only as operational 5
challenges are faced.
6 This concludes my discussion of South 7
Texas project.
]
8 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Mr.
Callan,_ I was 9
particularly interested in your remark about high 10 staff morale and a willingness to raise concerns to 11 management because, as we all.know, this has been a 12 plant that's been notorious for its number. of 13 allegations in the poor labor-management relations.
14 Can you talk a little bit more about that, and 15 particularly the basis for the remark?
16 MR. CALLAN:
They' base their remark on' 17 their interactions with plant staff.
Shortly before 18 the operational readiness assessment team, whose 19 remarks I discussed, there was a region-based review 20 of their employee concerns program,.what used to be 21 called the -speak-out program.
It's since been-22 changed. The. picture from that inspection. isn't quite 23 as rosy.
There's still a significant minority 'of 24 plant personnel who are suspicious of the program and 25 who still remain concerned about retaliation.
That NEAL R. GROSS
'l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W (202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
l}
59 ll 1
inspection' led to a management meeting and subsequent l
l 2
commitments by the licensee and we'll be. following 3
that very closely.
But it appears that there are 4
enough short-term corrective actions in. place to give.
5 us:the confidence that they have a workable program.in s
6 place today.
7 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I hope a lot of attention 8
will be paid to that in the restart. decision because 9
that's -- you know, although it's true that one or two 10 people with a determined effort could nake the l
i 11 problems seem worse, then it might objectively be.
r 12 Nevertheless, that seems to be a pretty good indicator 13 of labor-management relations and you need to have the 14 people running the plant in-line with the program if 15 the plant is to operate safely.
So, I hope we will 16 look at that in some depth and assure ourselves'that 17 we're comfortable that such an attitude does exist, 18 namely a willingness to come forward with safety 19 concerns.
We depend very much. on that and the 20 operation of the plant.
.i 21 I forgot to welcome you to our meeting, i
22 Mr. Callan.
23 MR. CALLAN:
Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Congratulations.
I: hope 25 you find standards higher than when you were in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE'R$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
~i (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
60 1
southern part of the former Soviet Union.
Thank you.
2 DOCTOR MURLEY:
He has one more plant _to 3
discuss.
4 MR.
CALLAN:
As I said, that was the 5-single category 2 watch list facility in Region IV.
6 The next facility I'm going to discuss is in the 7
trending category and that's Cooper Nuclear Station.
8 Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper 9
Nuclear Station is a single unit EWR-4 located in the 10 southeast corner of Nebraska.
It began commercial 11 operation in 1974.
Over the past year, the NRC has 12 identified problems at Cooper Nuclear Station that 13 have warranted increased regional attention and NRC 14 corrective action inspection performed in the spring 15 of 1993 identified several issues for which escalated 16 enforcement action was subsequently taken.
17 These issues mainly concern hardware 18 problems' that had existed for some time without 19 corrective action being taken.
For example, this 20 inspection identified the potential for existing 21 leakage of reactor coolant past two containment 22 isolation valves to over pressurize adjoining low 23 pressure piping and thereby bypass containment.
This
~
24 potential had gone unrecognized and unreported by 25 Cooper Station.
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
61 1-In July 1993,-a public meeting was. held 2
with Nebraska. Public Power District'to discuss the-3 most recent SALP report.
At this meeting we noted 4
that performance had declined in several functional s
5 areas and that a large number of equipment problems 6
had occurred during the latter part of the SALP period -
i
'i 7
that were caused in part by the failure of. Cooper 8
Station employees to aggressively pursue the root 9
cause of potential significant equipment problems..
10 Plant personnel often appeared willing to live with 11 problems rather than thoroughly evaluating degraded or 12 potentially degraded equipment issues.
13 Many of the examples were longstanding and 14 were viewed as reflective of fundamental weaknesses 'in-l 15 the oversight and self-assessment functions.
These~
i 16 concerns were most evident in the areas of maintenance 17 surveillance and safety assessment and quality 18 verification, both of which were rated as a category 19 3.
20
.Another important recent resource-of 21 information about Cooper Nuclear Station performance.-
22 was the operational safety team inspection, the OSTI, 23 which was conducted in November 1993.
The team 24 concluded that there was a general lack of management 25 direction and control of routine and complex NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
s 62 1
operations and that certain procedures and. training 2
. were weak.
Of particular concern. to us was that 3
several of the team findings were similar to previous 4
NRC and plant self-identified findings, suggesting 5
continuing weaknesses in the station's corrective i
6 action process.
7 On the other
- hand, the. various NRC 8
inspection efforts continue to highlight areas that
.f 9
have been historical strengths at Cooper. Nuclear 10
- Station, such as the housekeeping.and. material 11 condition of the plant and the plant's operating-12 history.
However, because of the problems'that have 13 been identified at Cooper Nuclear ' Station, especially l
14 the demonstrated weaknesses in their self-assessment 15 and corrective action activities, the senior managers 16 have determined that performance improvements are 17 warranted in order to avoid having the existing 18 adverse trend result in more significant problems in i
19 the future.
In order to provide early notice so that?
i 20 Nebraska Public Power District has..the opportunity to 21 take appropriate remedial action, a letter was sent to 22 the President and Chief Executive Office of Nebraska 23 Public Power District informing him of our concerns
.3 24 and of my intention to meet with him on this matter.
25 This concludes my discussion of Cooper NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
~
(202) 2344433 WASH:NGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
63 1
. Nuclear Station'.
2 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I' had a
question.
3
.Between the two points, the one-is the continuing 4.
4 identification of the same problems without resolving 5
them, and the second is finally finding some of the 6
engineering problems that ? apparently have been in 7
place a long time.
Is Cooper really deteriorating or 8
has it been at ' this level and _ we ' re just sort of-9 coming to realize that?
l 10' MR. CALIAN:
Mr. Chairman, that's always f
i 11 a question that we have to ask when we ' encounter-12 findings of this nature.
As in the past, similar-l 13 facilities, there's probably a mix of both new issues 14 and the fact that there have been some events and some-1 15 innovative inspection techniques that have allowed us 16 to unravel some of these problems.
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Was that a yes or a no?
18 MR. TAYLOR:.Maybe.
]
19 DOCTOR MURLEY: -Mr. Chairman, if I could,-
20 it's frequently the case, not just-in Cooper but
-l qj 21 frequently the case that what we - perceive as a 22 downward trend is a mix of actual downward trend-but 23 just our perception of it.
We've, amongst'ourselves,-
24 kicked this
- around, but the net result is, we i
25 conclude, that either way we feel we have to take the
' i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, f
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
64 1
kind of actions that we take.
2 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I don't have any problem 3
with the action.
It's the diagnosis that I'm 4
interested in.
l
~
5 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Frequently we send in a-6 team inspection.
They find some things and we ask, 7
"My gosh, how could we have missed that for so long?"
8 because some of it obviously did not just happen.
So, 9
partly it's our perception that it gets better and.
10 partly there are real trends.
11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
- Well, actually,. you 12 raised the question.
I'd like to ask you -- another 13 point that's been clear during these discussions is 14 the truly pivotal role that -- not-in the case of 15 Cooper, but several of the other cases, that the 16 diagnostic evaluation teams played. Could you.tell us 17 a little bit about either, Mr.
Taylor 'or Doctor 18 Murley, the conditions under which we decide to send 19 in a DET?
Clearly this is_a very big decision.
It 20 has real impact.
You know they're going to find j
21 things and that's a major decision.
22 MR.
TAYLOR:
- Well, the diagnostic is l
23 approved by me.
It is a subject we take up at the-24 senior management meeting as to which stations may
- l 25 require this type of review.
It's usually a mixed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEfJUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
'65' l
~
I 1
' performance' situation where-we really don't feel _we, I
2 have enough information to make a good' decision and l
'3 really it's reasonably continuing decent. trends maybe, j
l 4
.but definitely some downward trends for the various 5
things that Tom has mentioned.-
It causes us.to feel l
6 this type of effort has been -- try to put the piecesi 7
together.
f I
8 As. Tom mentioned, we can.only. perform,--
j 9
we can perform no more than two of these a year.
So, f
10 it's not something we can use in every case.
In a 11
- way, some of these trending plants have not - had l
12 diagnostics.
~!
13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Is the assumption with 14 DET that there' is a problem,.but we don't _ really f
-1 15 understand what the problem is and we have to --
16 MR. TAYLOR:.The depth of --
?
17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Yes.
It's not just to 18 determine whether there's a problem, but we can't'put n
19 our fingers without that on the depth or the --
i 20 MR. TAYLOR:
The depth of the problem.
21 MR. CALLAN:
I was just going to say, Mr.
- j 22
- Chairman, that in ' the case of the two plants I l
f 23 briefed, in the case of South Texas, they had'an f
24 operational readiness assessment team which was an NRR 25 run totally independent team inspection from Region f
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
{
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
'i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
+
.m
66 1
IV.
Not to the' scale of a diagnostic evaluation.but-2
.it was very useful.
In the case of Cooper we had the 3
OSTI, operational safety team inspection.
Again, it l
4 was NRR run with some minimum Region IV participation,
?
5 but also giving us that independent third party 6
assessment that we used, similar to a debt.
7 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Chairman, before staff 1
8 concludes, I
should recognize Ken
- Perkins, who 9
succeeded to the job as Region V Administrator upon' 10 the retirement of Bobby Faulkenberry.
Ken was a very 11 active participant in all these deliberations.
But I 12 should have recognized him at the beginning.
13 I
believe that concludes the staff
^l 14 presentation.
15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Is there any discussion
{
16 on the material side?
-1 17 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Bernero?
l 18 MR. BERNERO:
No, sir.
We don't have any-19 material facilities to discuss here.
The focus of 1
i 20 this whole senior management activity is-on:
j 21 operational safety of major facilities.
So, in the 22 materials area, we confine plant concerns to large 23 facilities and their operational safety.
It's 24' basically the fuel cycle and there are none now.-
25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Rogers?
NEAL R. GROSS COUR' REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 13/3 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
67-
'l' COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes. ;I'm sure.that{
2 you ask yourself this question each time you have one i
of these meetings, but do you see any industry trends, 4
any sign of any broad industry trends one way or the 5
other at this time?
6 DOCTOR HURLEY:
- Well, we - looked very.
7 carefully backwards at-the precursor' history, going 8
all the way back to 1969.
In.that sense, there'are 9
some trends since Three Mile Island,and even since the.
-j 10
. Davis-Besse event, since 1985.-.
The frequency and 11 severity of severe accident precursors
's down i
12 substantially.
That leads us.to believe'that our.
13 focus on operational safety as opposed to hardware' and 14 more and more hardware, that our focus-is the right 15 focus, that the industry is improving.
We think INPO 16 is doing a very good job focusing as well'.
So, in the -
17 long-term trend.
9 i
18 Now, with regard to do we see trends from 19 year to year, it's more difficult.
A lot of the 20 problems that we talked about at this senior
'I 21 management meeting were ones that we've talked about 22-three, four years ago.
My sense is that the job of-
.i 23 preventing complacency at nuclear plants.is going to 24 be with us forever.
This kind of.a system I. feel 1
25 comfortable with, is a good system that forces us, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 I
68 almost forces us to look at that and prevent 2
complacency.
j 3
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I wonder if you i
4-could say a word or two about how you weigh corporate 5
performance as against plant performance. I know that 6
there was a consideration, :at least in one case or so, 7
that corporate performance did not -- stood in the way.
8 of a plant being named on the better performer list, 9
I believe.
I-wonder if you could just give us what 10
'your thinking is on how you weigh those together.
11 DOCTOR MURLEY:
That's a
very-good 12 question because in one case we see New York Power 13 Authority where we -- in spite of what are some clear 14 weaknesses in problems in the corporate structure, we 15 decided that the Fitzpatrick plant could come off the 16 watch list.
With regard to Commonwealth Edison, we 17 clearly thought that Byron was a good performer that 18 we should recognize.
The reason for these is we've i
19 watched very carefully.
We've been reluctant.
20 There's
.no question we've been reluctant to 21' acknowledge that a plant, a site can be ' a good 22 performer when there's the potential for transferring 23 one. or two key people that could change all that 24 within a
matter of-months.
That's been' our 25 reluctance, quite frankly, at Byron. But we've talked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
[
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i' 69 1
~ about the p l a n t-' n o w ' a n d. observed - it for : several' 2
meetings, I would say, and our conclusion now is that 3.
the depth of management there at the site is solid and-4 deep and that it's not likely -- you could almost say 5
in spite of some weaknesses in the-corporate 6
structure.
But we're confident that this performance 7
will remain.
8
.In that sense then, that's,. I -guess I 9
should have mentioned, one of 'the things that we look 10 at also when'we.look at good performance.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think that's.very 12 reasonable to look beyond just the first cut at 'it, in
~
13 a
- sense, to look to see what might -lea'd 'to a
14 diminution in that rating, yes.
It may be a little 15 bit hard in a sense on the plant, personnel where the 16 plant is doing quite well and might conceivably 17 qualify for outstanding performer, but the questions 18 about whether it's sustainable or not in light of jj 19 difficulties elsewhere in the: system is.a reasonable
- j 20 caution, I suspect.
j 21 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
Ultimately we have-i 22 to also be -- I mean there's a matter of fairness and
)
23 consistency too and we were very keenly aware of that.
good'
)
24 If the whole world - recognizes that this is a 25 plant, but yet we don't, for some reason it's not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE, N W.
.i (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 o
70 1
-clear, we're concerned about that.
I think that was 2
a factor also in recognizing Byron in this case.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I noticed that in 4
the letters or perhaps just in some of the background 5
material that there were a variety of terus or phrases 6
that. were used when poor ineffective management 7
practices were being referred to.
For example, poor 8
supervision and control of work, inadequate management 9
control of work, inadequate management controls, core 10 organizational performance.
These are from Dresden, 11 Indian Point 3 and South Texas.
And the question I 12 have is is there really a clear definition that 13 distinguishes between those three characterizations?
14 Are they really something quite different in each of 15 those cases or are these more or less fungible terms 16 that could be applied in any of those cases?
Is this
.j 1
1 17 just -- I'm really just questioning of how' consistent i
i 18 is the language that we use to describe a concern that-19 we have when we notify someone of a difficulty.
Is 20 there a.
difference between poor supervision and 21 control of work and inadequate management controls, i
22.
for example?
j 23 DOCTOR MURLEY: I'll ask Jack to elaborate 4
~
24 on this.
They are -- in my mind, those phrases are j
25 not congruent.
They're different manifestations of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
L1 71 1
management control.of activities at the plant.
2 MR. J. MARTIN:
Yes, I would think so.
I' 3
mean the poor supervision and control of work is -- of 4
work going ~ on-out in the field as opposed to l
5 management controls which are more of a ' consistent 6
self-appraisal system and attitude, I view those as 7
two completely different things.
I think they were 8
considered different~ in the context of the discussion.
9 as well.
i 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Is there any virtue 11 in trying to establish these terminologies on a i
12 consistent basis, what these phrases generally'mean?
13 Would that be. worth trying to do?
14 MR. TAYLOR:
Let us take a look at that'.
15 There is a variance that comes in of terms that 1
16 sometimes certainly --.since we deal in the depth of 17 the discussion of the problems during the meeting, you 18 can't reflect all that in a brief letter obviously.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Right.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
But let us take a look at it.
21 Consistency in terms is reasonable.
Let us-take a 22 look at it.
i 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it's really 24 from.the point of view of being helpful to the 25 licensee --
NEAL R. GROSS 3 RHODE N AVE E, N (20?; 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
,I
72 1
MR. TAYLOR:
I understand.
2-COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- to know what it 1
3 is they really have to pay attention to.
t 4
MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
Behind the letters, of 5
course, is a very extensive engagement with licensees 6
of what the issues ant problems _are which can barely 7
be captured in what a two paged letter.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: ' Right.
Right.
9 MR.
TAYLOR:
Quite a
record of-the.
10 elements and discussion by the staff with the 11 licensees.
But there is some variance in terms of l
l 12 what we should look at.
i 1
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
Thanks very 14 much.
Very interesting briefing.
15 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I don't have any 17 questions, but I would agree with the comments made 18 earlier that I think I certainly also have seen what 19 I say a tremendous improvement in the process over 20 time.
I think that's a tribute to the group of senior 21 managers that spend a lot of time considering these 22 matters.
I must admit in the past I had some 23 questions about what's the difference between the SALP 1
l 24 process and the senior managers, but I think. I'm 25 beginning to realize more and more it's kind of a J
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(?C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D,C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.73.,
1 supplement.t1 the SALP. process.
I think it' offers 2
greater consistency on the Agency's part because we 3
have a limited number of senior people considering all 4
.the cases.
So, I think there's a greater-chance of 5
consistency in this process over what still exists in 6
the SALP process.
7 I would ask you to look at when the pilot 8
program is due for reconsideration and look forward to 9
your recommendations.
I look back a couple of years 10 ago when we started this and I kind of perceived an 11 agency that as a regulatory body is kind of willing-to r
12 kick people in the pants when they think they're bad' 13 but hesitate to pat them on the head when they think 14 they're doing Nood job.
I think the reason for that 15 is some people fear if we pat somebody on the head, 16 why two weeks later they're going'to do something that 17 we're going to be embarrassed that we pointed them out -
18 as gocad performers.
But I think we're long over that 19 and I think by pointing out who we think are doing a f
20 good job is a way of letting people know when we think 21 they're doing enough to satisfy us.
Otherwise, they-22 never quite know what it is that we're really aiming I
23 for because these things are very subjective.
24 But all in.all, I'think it's a very good
)
l 25 process.
I know it takes a lot of your work.
I see NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 '
I
74 1
it as improving and I greatly appreciate your effort.
2-CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner de Planque?
s 3
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
I have one very 4
general question and you may not be prepared to 5
comment on it today and, if so, at least at some point 6
I'd like to hear your reaction.
But it's become clear 7
that there's been a great deal of movement. among 8
senior management in the utility industry, especially 9
in the last year. Probably an unprecedented amount of 10 movement.
Certainly there's benefit to be derived 11 from that and that's the expected benefit when someone 12 hires a manager away from someone else.
But change 13 per se can carry some negatives and what becomes a 14 benefit in one place can leave behind negatives in the 15 other.
16 Given the incredible ' amount of movement 17 within the industry, I'd be interested in your views 18 as to whether you see net benefits, whether you see 19 any potential problems resulting in the near future 20 because of that.
If so, are you paying any particular 21 attention to that?
22 MR. TAYLOR:
Well, we have certainly seen 23 cases' where strone, management having achieved - and
[
-24 turned plants around going to other plants.
It-has
- 25 started the whole turnaround or completed the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
75 1
turnaround process. -No question --
2 COMMISSIONER de PIANQUE:
Right.
3 MR. TAYLOR:
-- that that has occurred.
4 It's more difficult to assess the second part -of your 5
question.
I think we unless you all care to 6
comment on that, I'think I'd like to take a stronger.
7 look at it.
But we have certainly seen the effects of 8
management change where it has occurred, where we -
9 already demonstrated _ strong' management has come in to 10 turn stations around.
11 Do you want to add to that, Tom?
12-DOCTOR MURLEY:
No.
Something that 13
. Commissioner Rogers had asked ' earlier triggered the 14 same thought, are we seeing some trends.
One of the 15 trends along these lines is that I wonder whether the 16 industry is developing a cadre of very good people who 17 can move into these positions, or if they'd not see it 18 as a dying industry or something.
I think this is 19 something that the Commission might want to ask.at 20 some stage the industry about, NUMARC or someone, 21 because we do see' frequently having'to go'outside of P. 2 the company to get people and then they in turn have-s 23 to go around and it is a game of musical chairs and I 24 think it is a safety issue.
We and the staf f try to -
25
- you know, we don't really get involved in those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
76' 1
things, but it's an observation that I think gets a 2
very good question.
3
, COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
We've clearly s
4-seen it within a particular utility where attention 5
gets changed from one plant.to another and sometimes
~ '
6 you see the good performer go down.
And-now I think i
7 we're seeing this trend industry-wide and you have to.
i 8
wonder does this raise a flag that deserves. some 9
watching.
i 10 DOCTOR MURLEY:
Yes.
Now, I should amend 11 my -- we do often encourage a utility to look outside
~:
12 for different points of view and that sort of thing.
13 But that's only because they really haven't developed, 14 somebody and done some rotations to get a broader
[
15 view.
I just don't know the reason for that.
'l'i 16 MR. TAYLOR: We've certainly seen previous.
17 problem plants turned around and stay turned around.-
18 Plants that we have had difficulties with since this.
19-process started have turned into reasonably good 20 performing plants with high capacity-and certainly--
f f
21-performance for the utility and performance that we.
22 find to-be good.
So, I guess we'll reserve further i
e 23 comment.
.j j
24 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay.
That's 25 all I have.
Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
f i
y
.77 1.
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I'd like to say j
2-something.
'We have much more _often told. top 3
management they better go outside and get some fresh 4
. blood and we have told them that you're making your 5
guys too insecure by hiring people from outside.
I 6
think.a legitimate question is not so much whether we
.l 7
would. encourage or discourage more motion.
That's 8
clearly not our business, but whether ' we see a j
9 systematic lack of development of middle managers and 10 it's something to be looked at.
11 On the other
- hand, performance is 12 improving.
We have the demonstrable work at least'up 13 to the.last couple of years from the precursors to see 14 consistent improvement in performance.
So, personnel 15 development clearly is a key issue..
16 I'd like to follow-up on something 17 Commissioner Rogers
- said, but from a
slightly l
18 different point of view.
Not so much the question of 19 how do you take corporate performance into account f
20 when you assess the good plant or bad plant, but I'd 3
t 21 really like to commend you for when - you have.a i
22 problem, when you see arproblem, to dig deeper than 23 just stopping at the site vice president or the 24 material condition of the plant to see what the impact 25 is of corporate management on the problems at a plant.
f NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
r
78 l
1 And more precisely, what is it going to take.to fix i
2 these problems.
We have really the scary -- that's 3
slightly too strong, but the really discouraging image
~
4 of the New York Power Authority management who sort of 5
vacuum from top to bottom, concerns at Commonwealth l
6 Edison where clearly something is lacking.
It's just 7
been too long that we've had one or two problem plants 8
on the list or trending plants.
Probably some I
9 encouraging results from TVA where they've sort of cut 10 down their workload to something they can manage and 11 are taking steps to manage it.
r 12 So, it's absolutely clear that corporate 13 performance no, corporate. management does 14 contribute to safety as reflected at the plants and I 15 do think that bearing in mind all the limitations and 16 the caveats that when we see problems or when we see
[
I 17 improvements the possible contribution of corporate I
18 performance as opposed to the more engineering-l 19 oriented pieces is important not just.in the sense of 20 providing resources, but in terms of encouraging or l
21 discouraging the allegations program, people coming
{
22 foreword, et cetera.
In fact, I think you're to be t-23 commended on the' broader scale for keeping up the very I
24 high level of competence and attention to the 25 engineering questions, but looking at the other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
e
i 79' i
1 questions,-the operational questions in the broader 2
. sense.
3 I like the trends that I see in. the 1
4 management of this process.
It's inevitable that our l
5 eyes get sharper and that's okay.
t 6
I would, Mr. Taylor and Doctor Murley, 7
again recommend that you try to explain to the general I
t 8
public a little more broadly, including the. roles of-9 these various DETs and OSTIs, et cetera, just how.this j
10 process works since it's -- this process has become 11 very important in our overall management and therefore t
12 that it be not reduced to a cookbook formula, but made 13 more transparent, I think is an important task on the i
14 shoulders of the Agency.
9 15 Thank you very much for an excellent job.
16 (Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m.,
the above-r 17 entitled matter was concluded.)
18 i
19 i
4 20 f
21 22 i
23
.5 1
24
[
25 I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 a
1 i
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER '-
This is to certify that.the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES-PLACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND i
DATE OF MEETING:
JANUARY 27, 1994 were transcribed by me. I further' certify th'at.said transcription..
is accurate and complete, to the best of.my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
~
4 J
A
/ y,A -
Reporter's namet Peter Lynch L
o e
t l
..t g
h HEAL R. GROSS COUtf R990RTERS AND TRANSCRittRS 1333 GH005 ISLAND AVENUf, N.W.
^
(202) 234-4435,
WAIMMSTON, D.C. 2000S (202) 232-6000 9
x
e L
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND MATERIAL FACILITIES
~
January 27,1994 J. Taylor T.. Murley i
R. Bernero Regional Administrators-
'I a
1-w v...
e,-
--wr
=
- w
-ww--
r--
w
.-,-==-.-1
+.,--#,*
er ee,-
w w
+e
- =
w
..w=-,ir=
w w
+.
=
- * =.===-,,
-rr=-r u-
,w,,_-
-.-,1v-
PLANTS WITH SUSTAINED HIGH LEVEL OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE BYRON 1 & 2 CALLAWAY I
DIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 GRAND GULF MONTICELLO 1
ST. LUCIE 1 & 2 SUMMER 1
o
m 1
CATEGORY 1 PLANTS REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF PROBLEM FACILITIES Plants in this. category have taken effective action to correct identified problems and to implement programs for improved performance.
No further NRC sp.ecial attention is necessary beyond the regional office's current level of monitoring to ensure improvement continues.
FITZPATRICK 3-
_.____._._;.s
......2,.
_, _ _.. _ -............. _,... -. ~
CATEGORY;2 PLANTS AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE THAT THE NRC WILL MONITOR CLOSELY Plants in this category-are having or have had weaknesses that warrant increased NRC attention from both headquarters and the regional office.
A plant will1 remain.in this category until the licensee demonstrates a period of improved performance.
BRUNSWlCK 1 & 2 1
DRESDEN 2 & 3 INDIAN POINT 3
- SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2 4-
< ow..s...--.
..-.s..
.---..-~-..,_..,,-_..._mr..-~..~,
._..--.,-,,-_,....._..,,.m._..
..,...., _. ~....,
CATEGORY 3 SHUTDOWN PLANTS REQUIRING NRC AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE AND WHICH THE NRC WILL MONITOR CLOSELY Plants in this category are having or have had significant weaknesses that warrant maintaining the plant in a shutdown condition until the licensee can demonstrate to the NRC that adequate programs have both been established and implemented to ensure substantial improvement.
BROWNS FERRY 1 & 3 i
o,
I
.__-__-.--__...-.,4-.-~-
---._.-._.-...-......-....,.-..,-..~,:n
._.-...__--,....-~_...--..;~--_____-.__-_-_.____--___LL-_-
m m
N k
4 h
I
+
SAFETY PERFORMANCE 1
TRENDING DOWNWARD COOPER LASALLE 4
QUAD CITIES 1
i 6-4 O
-,.n..-
e -
--,s,ev.--
g
,e s
M:
r,-
+-m--,
-+-
---m-e-
,,w
,,--,e...
s
,,ne,
,,wr+wn-n.-m wa e,w.--
x-s-,
,,m-
,w-e.w.,,ae-w--
y
,__a,n-e-,+-
___rn,__,__
4 s
,wL' k
4.
,a.
4ei A
,b4-,,
4 Wun4--
H
- - oh 9
i T
I i
I LU a
5<
u u.
I
(
- m g
CC Z
uj.
O p
z-4 i
2 4
O 1.
I
-