ML20092E725
| ML20092E725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1993 |
| From: | Pullani S NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091F755 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-219 NUDOCS 9509150282 | |
| Download: ML20092E725 (22) | |
Text
I September 10,1993 NOTE FOR
- All DEIIB Personnel FROM
- Sada Pullani SUBJECT'
- REVIEW OF STP RESPONSE TO DET REPORT This note is being issued as directed by Stu.
Please find attached the STP Operational Readiness Plan (ORP), which is the first part of its response to the DET report (Business Plan, the second part, is expected in October 1993).
If your time permits, please review the ORP and forward your comments to me for incorporating into a memo to from Ed Jordan to Region IV.
According to Henry, things to consider are licensee's understanding of the issues, as well as the depth, breadth, and timing of proposed corrective actions.
I Mr Jordar has not been too intei ested, in the past, with having the licensee get into the details of each anc every corrective actior, but has been more interested in the overall approach to the major problems.
Please return your comments to me along with the bottom part of this note by COB on September 17, 1993.
Enclosure:
As stated CC:
i S. Rubin
~
H. Bailey File 0912 E-File:H:\\D912932.SVP Please check one item below and return to Sada Pullani:
_ 1. I hav no comments
_ 2. I have the following comments (attach additional sheets, if necessary):
e
- a. Sw Heht#1 N
SW l?
p, a,., x 1 a Sy c n s SL (&s n) asM w vam a. O V f g wp Ll[
e.
me fa send 9s' u@?
s na g* k 6c srps' u,nw@g/;
lu g,a;a X;);
so cae7ep. s,-.7-Q '-' s fi.)
ec 4 n !'
,,., & a. c-qsonsom),,;..?L S*d*Pawd,AEy
r~
Ftic #
wr 02/23/93 NRC DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION TEAM STP DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.1 Please respond to the following information requests individually and separately to facilitate access and use of this information.
1.
APM administrative Practices Manual 2.
FSUG Filing System User Guide 3.
HM HL&P Manuals (Listing) 4.
HRP Human Resources Procedure 5.
IP Interdepartmental Procedures (Listing) d 6.
ISEG Independent Safety Eng Group Procedures j
7.
MCM Management Committee Manual J
8.
MOP Master Operating Plan 9.
NGP Nuclear Group Policy 10.
NSRB Nuclear Safety Review Board Procedures 11.
PAP Plant Administrative Procedures (Listing) 12.
SQAP Standard Quality Assurance Procedures (Listing)
)
13.
OPEPO1-ZA-0002, Rev 03, Plant Engineering Procedures 14.
STP O&M and capital improvement badgets by department for the past 3 years and planned for next 2-3 yr.
j 15.
Staffing; permanent and contractor positions by department for the past 3 years.
16.
List all action items in response to NRC findings / initiatives, including status.
'17.
Copy of all industry reviews and reports, e.g. JUMA', related to plant performance / safety.
18.
Departmental weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports for last 2 yrs.
- 19.. Performance indicator-(PI) reports for last 2 yrs.
i w
4 20.
Telephone directories ( 4 corporate and site) 21.
Position descriptions and resumes of management and supervisory personnel.
22.
Plant staff suggestion system program description and procedures.
23.
Fitness for duty program 24.
Listing and schedule of regularly scheduled meetings.
25.
Training schedule for 1993-1994,- technical and nontechnical.
26.
Corporate and plant policy statements regarding nuclear operations, safety, maintenance, engineering, management, corrective actions and quality verification.
27.
Charters and reports / min'..tes for past 2 years for the Nuclear Safety Review Committee and any corporate board of directors committee related to safety.
28.
Management / Supervisory changes, with dates, titles, and names for last 2 yr.
.~
29.
Documents governing any existing corporate, site and departmental improvement plans or programs.
30.
Long Term (e.g. five-year) business plans (corporate and site).
31.
Listing of onsite and offsite committees not listed above and copies of minutes for the last 2 years.
32.
Procedures and processes for monitoring, evaluating, and implementing (as appropriate)
NRC and industry experience feedback.
33.
Procedures governing corrective actions and quality verification.
34.
Description of the corrective action processes used including:
problem identification, problem review, root-cause analysis, resolution, trending, and resolution implementation.
35.
List of both open and closed corrective action items, such as:
station problem reports, deficiency reports, corrective action reports, deviation reports, quality action reports, material deficiency reports, or any similar program / initiative.
For each category, reports should be 2
listed by system involved.
36.
Failure analysis and trending program descriptions.
37.
Failure trend reports for the last 2 years.
38.
Corrective action audit reports for the last 2 years.
39.
Self-assessments and completed within the last 2 years.
40.
SSFI type evaluations performed by the licensee during past 2 yr.
41.
Listing of site and corporate initiated QA audits and surveillances, by department, during past 3 yr.
42.
List of QA deficiencies for last 2 yr (resolved and still open).
43.
Lists; EQ Master List and Q List.
44.
Major modifications, maintenance, tests and surveillances planned for each unit during the scheduled unit 2 outage (spring 1993).
I 45.
L'isting of preventive and corrective maintenance backlogs.
46.
Listing of procurement procedures.
47.
Preventive maintenance master index.
48.
Listing of policies, procedures, and documents relating to the following:
IST and ISI programs Tagouts, jumpers and lifted leads Motor operated valve operation and testing i
49.
Samples of a work request and a modification request 50.
List of electrical single line drawings 51.
List of P& ids 52.
List of LERs for last 2 years 53.
List of Service Requests for last 2 years 54.
List of System Health Reports for last 2 years 3
.0 4
showing i
55.
List Operating Experience Reports for last 2 years, status of action items j
l 56.'
Set of P& Ids (reduced size) 57.
Set of Elec. Single Line Drgs.(reduced size)
- 58. ' Set of EOPs (block diag. preferred) 59.
Portions of PRA/IPE showing systems contributions to core damage frequency
. 6 0.
FSAR (onsite only) 61.
. Tech. Spec. (onsite only) 62.
List of HPES reports for past 2 yr 63.
List of post trip review reports for past 2 yr 64.
PORC minutes for'past 2 yr j
65.
List of various plant operations logs 66.
Copy of procedure for determining equipment operability 67.
Copies Operating Experience Reports for last 2 years 68.
List of plant LCOs for past 2 yr 69.
Checklist for. rounds by nonlicensed operators 70.
Control room equipment OOS list showing all additions and deletions for past 12 months.
71.
Position description for all engineering / design management and supervisory jobs (corporate and site).
l 72.
Resumes of all engineering / design management and supervisory personnel (corporate and site).
73.
List of all work control procedures including onsite control of contractors i
74.
List of all temporary modifications, showing status (including date of installment, date when modification was to be overdue, etc.).
-4 75.
List all permanent modifications (for last 3 years), showing 4
s
- r date of installment and status (you may want to sort by system).
76.
Summary listing of backlog of engineering / design items, showing status, man-hour estimates required, and prioritization for completion.
77.
List the breakdown of total number of personnel assigned to the plant (separately for various engineering / technical support disciplines) for the last three years, based on annual reporting date or equivalent.
78.
List all planned changes in engineering staffing levels and bases for the same.
79.
List all engineering / design administrative procedures and policies.
80.
List an index of all plant engineering drawings.
81.
List an index of all design documents, (i.
e.
products) including calculations, analyses, safety evaluations, etc.
i 1
i t
4 5
i N
43 l
SOUTH TEXAS DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION TEAM i
'l ENTRANCE MEETING
'l l
MARCH 29,1993 l
i l.
m :.-..-.-.--...--...--.
South Texas Project Diagnostic Evaluation Team i
Bill Hehl Michelle Smi[
l.
Team Manager Admin. Assistant Region I AEOD i
1 l
Larry Nicholson Walt Rodgers Ronald Lloyd Henry Bailey OPS / Training Maint./ Testing Engr. Suppor t Mgmt. 8 Org.
Region i Region 11 AEOD AEOD John Thompson Pete Prescott Sada Pullani Alan Madison Team Member
- Team Member
- Team Mernber
- Team Mernber AEOD AEOD AEOD AEOD Chris Caldwell Bruce Bartlett John Darby Brian Haagensen Team Member Team Member
- Team Member Team Member 1
Region V Region ll1 Contractor Contractor Bob Haag David Schultz Frank Wadsworth
-- Team Member
- Tearn Member
- Team Member
! Aegion 11 Contractor Contractor
( <,
l l
i DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRAM BROAD-BASED AND INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF SAFETY l
PERFORMANCE l
OVERALL PROGRAM GOALS IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE TEAM OBJECTIVES ASSESS SAFETY PERFORMANCE EVALUATE PROGRAM QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS 1
)
EVALUATE MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND PRACTICES DETERMINE THE ROOT CAUSES OF IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS i.
i i
i DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRAM l
SPECIAL FEATURES OF A DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION l
EDO APPROVES THE TEAM AND EVALUATION PLAN i
TEAM INDEPENDENT OF SIGNIFICANT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT PERFORMANCE BASED PLANT AND CORPORATE OFFICE ACTIVITIES ARE EVALUATED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS ARE USED EXTENSIVELY ROOT CAUSES FOR PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS ARE IDENTIFIED e
NRC CONTRIBUTING CAUSES ARE IDENTIFIED l
l
i i
i DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS t
PLANT SELECTION e
DISCUSSION AT THE NRC SENIOR MANAGERS' MEETING i
SALP DATA PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (PI) TRENDS i
INSPECTION REPORTS SENIOR MANAGERS' PERSPECTIVES e
SENIOR MANAGERS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS i
e EDO SELECTS THE PLANT (S) FOR A DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION l
i Y' - -
- -- =.
i l
l i
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS 4
i I
FUNCTIONAL AREAS EVALUATED t
PLANT OPERATIONS TRAINING MAINTENANCE I
i e
SURVEILLANCE AND TESTING i
i i
ENGINEERING SUPPORT i
i r
i e
MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 1
l 1
I i
,',....,.-,.7-,-,--,--,_,----..--~---~,
- - - - ~ -. - - - - - - -,. - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' - - - -
9 " '~ "
4 4
1 i
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS i
SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENT REVIEWS OBSERVATIONS l
PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS i
I i
i r
G.
_.2
1 DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS MANAGEMENT / STAFF INTERVIEWS e
50-75 FORMAL INTERVIEWS l
e USED TO UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE:
i TECHNICAL PROGRAMS WORK PROCESS l
PERFORMANCE ISSUES i
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES l
l e
CONDUCTED BY ALL TEAM MEMBERS e
CHAIRMAN TO WORKING LEVEL e
INTERVIEWS ONE-TO-TWO HOURS EACH e
SCHEDULES BASED ON INTERVIEWEE AVAILABILITIES i
0
i DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS COMMUNICATIONS OF TEAM OBSERVATIONS AND FINDING t
TECHNICAL j
I j
DAILY FEEDBACK BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AREA COUNTERPARTS DAILY FEEDBACK BY TEAM MANAGER STP POINT OF CONTACT i
e INFORMAL " EXIT" AFTER 2 WEEKS TO REVIEW STATUS OF TECHNICAL FINDINGS l
INFORMAL " EXIT" AFTER THIRD WEEK TO REVIEW STATUS OF i
TECHNICAL FINDINGS SAFETY ISSUES SUCH AS THOSE AFFECTING EQUIPMENT OPERABILITY WILL BE IDENTIFIED / RESOLVED PROMPTLY WITH REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT r.
l l
i l
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS i
l COMMUNICATIONS OF TEAM OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS i
TECHNICAL; MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION: ROOT CAUSES e
FORMAL EXIT ON INTEGRATED RESULTS ATTENDED BY NRC SENIOR MANAGEMENT i
e EDO TRANSMITS TEAM REPORT AND REQUESTS RESPONSE ITEMS OF NONCOMPLIANCE l
e IDENTIFIED BY REGION THROUGH REVIEW OF THE TEAM REPORT o
REGIONAL FOLLOW-UP PER NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY t
i 9.
l i
l DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCESS DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION SCHEDULE i
l OVERALL SCHEDULE i
i l
ENTRANCE MEETING MARCH 29,1993 l
DET ON-SITE MARCH 29-APRIL 9,1993 APRIL 26-30,1993 i
i j
FORMAL EXIT MOTING MAY 26,1993 l
DET REPORT TO EDO JUNE 11,1993 1
DAILY SCHEDULE j
NORMAL WORKING HOURS 7:30 AM-6:00 PM l
SHIFT COVERAGE
[AFTER HOURS TBD]
COUNTERPART FFEDBACK 4:00 PM j
NIGHTLY TEAM MEETINGS 5:00 PM-6:00 PM TEAM MANAGER FEEDBACK 9:30 AM le.
_ - = -
l.-
a ENTRANCE NOTES - 3/29/93 THANK YOU MR. HALL AND MR. SYKORA FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THIS ENTRANCE MEETING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO INTRODUCE YOU TO THE TEAM MEMBERS, DISCUSS THE PURPOSE 2
AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION, EVALUATION TECHNIQUES l
USED, EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND SCHEDULE, ESTABLISH l
COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS AND PROTOCOL, AND SOLICITE YOUR ASSISTANCE IN EXTRACTING THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT, FOR BOTH SOUTH TEXAS AND THE NRC, FROM THIS EVALUATION.
SO, LET ME BEGIN BY INTRODUCll4G THE TEAM:
2 (slide #1a)
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING LARRY NICHOLSON - TEAM LEADER, REGION I JOHN THOMPSON, AEOD (BETHESDA, MD)
MAINT N NC AND EST N WALT RODGERS - TEAM LEADER, REGION ll PETE PRESCOTT, AEOD BRUCE BARTLETT, REGION 111 BOB HAAG, REGION 11 ENGINEERING SUPPORT l
RON LLOYD - TEAM LEADER, AEOD SADA PULLANI, AEOD JOHN DARBY, CONTRACTOR i
DAVID SCHULTZ, CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION l
HENRY BAILEY - TEAM LEADER, AEOD ALAN MADISON, AEOD BRIAN HAAGENSEN, CONTRACTOR FRANK WADSWORTH, CONTRACTOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - MICHELLE SMITH, AEOD ON FEBRUARY 12,1993, MR. JAMES TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS FOR THE NRC, INFORMED HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY OF THE NRC'S INTENTION TO 1
PERFORM A DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION AT SOUTH TEXAS.
^
J 1
l THE DECISION TO CONDUCT A DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION AT SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT RESULTED FROM DISCUSSIONS AT A i
RECENT MEETING OF NRC SENIOR MANAGERS. AT THAT MEETING, i
THE NRC CONDUCTED A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE REGULATORY l
AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE HISTORY OF SOUTH TEXAS, AS j
WELL AS OTHER LICENSED NUCLEAR FACILITIES. DURING THOSE
{
DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT ADDITIONAL l
lNFORMATION REGARDING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT WOULD BE l
NEEDED FOR NRC SENIOR MANAGEMENT TO MORE FULLY j
EVALUATE OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE.
WITH THAT BRIEF INTRODUCTION IN MIND, LETS MOVE ON TO A l
BRIEF JISCUSSION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRAM.
l (slide #2) i THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRANI IS STRUCTURED TO l
PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE l
PERFORMANCE AND TO AUGMENT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY j
THE SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE j
(SALP) PROGRAM, THE NRC'S PERFORMANCE INDICATOR j
PROGRAM, AND THE VARIOUS INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BY NRC i
i HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL OFFICES. THE ASSESSMENT IS INDEPENDENT IN THE SENSE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE l
LICENSING, INSPECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES.
l THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRAM IS TO ENSURE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY THROUGH INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE AT SELECTED REACTOR FACILITIES.
)
THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROGRAM ARE TO:
EVALUATE, IN A PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY-ORIENTED FRAMEWORK, THE ACTIONS AND INVOLVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND STAFF IN SAFE PLANT OPERATION.
IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN SAFETY PERFORMANCE.
I I
- ~
(,
i j
DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENT l
PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES AND THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL i
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
l l
DETERMINE ROOT CAUSES OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS.
(slide #3) j A FEW OF THE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE FEATURES OF A DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. THE DET MEMBERS ARE SPECIALLY SELECTED, I THINK FROM AMOUNG THE BEST THE NRC HAS, AND THE TEAM WORKS DIRECTLY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT.
PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS, WHICH I WILL TALK MORE ABOUT LATER, ARE USED EXTENSIVELY TO GATHER INFORMATION.
AS INFORMATION IS COLLECTED, THE TEAM WILL WORK TO DETERMINE THE ROOT CAUSES FOR NOTABLE PERFORMANCE WEAKNESSES.
AND PERHAPS EQUALLY UNIQUE, THE EVALUATION WILL ALSO BE LOOKING FOR NRC CONTRIBUTING CAUSES, (slide #4)
IN MY INTRODUCTION I MENTIONED THAT SOUTH TEXAS WAS SELECTED FOR THIS EVALUATION AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION AT A RECENT MEETING OF THE NRC'S SENIOR MANAGEMENT. THIS NRC SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING, WHICH OCCURS TWICE-A-YEAR, INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE AT SELECTED FACILITIES. AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS AT THE JANUARY 1993 SMM'S MEETING STP WAS SELECTED.
(slide #5)
AS ONE MIGHT DEDUCE FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF THE TEAM ORGANIZATION, OUR PLAN IS TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE IN THE FUNCTIONAL AREAS DEPICTED ON THE SCREEN. IN EACH OF THESE AREAS, WE WILL BE GATHERING INFORMATION FROM WHICH WE CAN ASSESS BOTH YOUR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.
l-r:.
3 l
(slide #6) i WE BEGAN THE INFORMATION GATHERING PROCESS SEVERAL WEEK AGO BY REVIEWING A WIDE VARIETY OF DOCUMENTS.
DURING THE ONSITE PHASES OF OUR EVALUATION, WE WILL BE l
SUPPLEMENTING THOSE DOCUMENT REVIEWS WITH INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS OF WORK IN PROGRESS.
l AS PART OF THIS EVALUATION, WE WILL BE DOING A VERTICAL SLICE TYPE ASSESSMENT OF AN IMPORTANT SAFETY SYSTEM.
i THROUGH AN IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF THE MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL j
AND INSTRUMENT AND CONTROLS ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEM, WE 4
HOPE TO GAIN INSIGHTS INTO THE AREAS OF COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION, AND INTERFACES: ASIDE FROM ASSESSING THE i
SYSTEM'S ABILITY TO PERFORM ITS INTENDED FUNCTION. THE ESSENTIAL CHILLED WATER SYSTEM HAS BEEN CHOSEN FOR THAT 3
REVIEW.
IN ADDITION TO THE VERTICAL SLICE ASSESSMENT, WE WILL ALSO BE DOING WHAT WE CALL CASE STUDY REVIEWS OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF SEVERAL OTHER SYSTEMS.
(slide #7) 1 4
AS I HAVE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, MANAGEMENT AND STAFF INTERVIEWS ARE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS EVALUATION.
l THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER INTERVIEWS PERFORMED l
AND AT ALL LEVELS OF THE ORGANIZATION. NOT ALL WILL BE l
lNTERVIEWED, BUT SOME OF YOU WILL BE INTERVIEWED MORE THAN ONCE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS EVALUATION. WE RECOGNIZE THE STATUS OF THE UNITS AND WE ARE SENSITIVE TO j
THE RESOURCE IMPACT OF THESE INTERVIEWS. WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO MINIMlZE THE IMPACT, BUT THESE INTERVIEWS ARE, AS I SAID, A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE DIAGNOSTIC 4
EVALUATION PROCESS. WE WILL BE WORKING THROUGH YOUR j
l DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION SUPPORT TEAM TO SCHEDULE THESE lNTERVIEWS.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WE ASK TO INTERVIEW, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO FEELS THEY MAY HAVE IN-SIGHTS THAT WILL ASSIST THE TEAM IN GAINING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT.
1i' l
1 ENCOURAGE EACH OF YOU TO BE OPEN AND FORTH-RIGHT WITH THE EVALUATORS DURING THESE INTERVIEWS, SHARING YOUR IN-j SIGHTS INTO THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ACTIVITIES AT STP.
(slide #8)
WE WILL BE SHARING OUR ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND FINDINGS WITH OUR HL&P COUNTERPARTS AS THEY EVOLVE. ANY ISSUES INVOLVING OPERABILITY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY COMMUNICATED l
TO HL&P AND THE RESIDENT INSPECTORS FOR FOLLOWUP AND RESOLUTION.
l WE PLAN TO HOLD AN INFORMAL " EXIT" AT END OF EACH ON-SITE j
PERIOD. THESE MEETINGS WILL B6 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUMMARIZING THE STATUS OF TECHNICAL ISSUES TO ENSURE WE HAVE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING. DURING THE 2-WEEKS l
BETWEEN THE ON-SITE PERIODS WE WILL CONTINUING THE i
EVALUATION BACK IN BETHESA,MD. WE RECOGNIZE THAT APRIL i
9th IS A COMPANY HOLIDAY, SO AGAIN WE WILL BE WORKING WITH YOU TO MINIMlZE THE IMPACT ON YOUR PEOPLE.
(slide #9)
THERE WILL BE A FORMAL EXIT ON THE INTEGRATED RESULTS OF l
THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION. WE ARE CURRENTLY TARGETING MAY 26th AS A LIKELY DAY FOR THE FORMAL EXIT. THE l
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION REPORT IS SCHEDULED TO BE TO THE EDO BY JUNE 11th, SO I WOULD EXPECT YOU WOULD SEE IT l
SHORTLY AFTER THAT TIME.
i THIS IS AN EVALUATION, NOT A COMPLIANCE INSPECTION. WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN-SIGHTS INTO PERFOMANCE. THERE WILL BE NO NOTICES OF VIOLATION IN THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION REPORT. HOWEVER, THE NRC WILL EVENTUALLY EXERCISE ITS REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY WITH REGIONAL FOLLOW-UP OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ISSUES.
l
\\
5
(
(slide #10) i FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU THE DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION SCHEDULES. I THINK I HAVE COVERED MOST OF THE l
ITEMS ON THIS SLIDE SO AT THIS TIME I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS MIGHT HAVE ON ANY OF THE THINGS I HAVE COVERED.
(QUESTIONS) f BEFORE I TURN THIS MEETING BACK TO MR. HALL FOR HIS l
CLOSING THOUGHTS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT ALL OF US ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING TO KNOW YOU AND YOUR l
ORGANIZ ATION BETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE I
CAN BE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS TO YOUR ORGANIZATION FROL1 THE IN-S!3 HTS GAINED THROUGH THIS EVALUATION...BUT A LOT DEPENDS ON THE OPENNESS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE l
TEAM. THE TEAM IS DEDICATED TO GIVING SOUTH TEXAS A VERY THOROUGH AND FAIR EVALUATION.
THANK YOU...MR. HALL YOU HAD SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS.
i i
I i