ML20138D590
| ML20138D590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1997 |
| From: | Conte R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Sellman M Maine Yankee |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138D595 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705010172 | |
| Download: ML20138D590 (4) | |
Text
r f
i j
l Mr. Michael B. Sellman President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 329 Bath Road Brunswick, Maine 04011
SUBJECT:
TRANSCRIPT OF MAINE YANKEE RESTART READINESS PLAN MEETINGS
Dear Mr. Sellman:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the transcript of meetings that occurred on April 3, '1997, concerning your restart readiness plan which you submitted March 7,1997.
No specific action is requested and we will review this information in the development of our restart plan.
- If you so choose, you may respond by clarifying information or answering questions directly related to Maine Yankee's facility, processes, organization or the restart plan itself. We would appreciate knowing if you piari to respond within two weeks of receipt of this letter.
Along with inspections rrporta, the transcripts will be available on the NRC's web page (htt p ://www.nrc.g ov./O Pe@ sport s). We recently uploaded the 1996 MY inspection reports onto this web location and we will continue to do so with future inspection reports.
Should you wish to discuss these matters further, please contact me at the Region I office (610) 337 5229.
Sincerely, Richard J. Conte, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 5 Docket No. 50-309
Enclosures:
- 1. Condensed Format of Meeting Transcripts on April 3,1997 at 2:30 pm and 7:00 pm
- 2. Normal Format of Meeting Transcripts on April 3,1997 at 2:30 pm and 7:00 pm
/\\
hI Jl
- 4, 9705010172 970418 PDR ADOCK 05000309 T
PDR m
- m
. s. s s
.s
i Michael B. Sellman, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.,
cc w/ encl:
G. Leitch, Vice President, Operations M. Meisner, Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance B. Hinkley, Acting Vice President, Engineering J. M. Block, Attorney at Law P. L. Andersoni Project Manager (Yankee Atomic Electric Company)
R. Blackmore, Plant Manager L. Diehl, Manager of Public and Governmental Affairs J. A. Ritsher, Attorney (Ropes and Gray)
P. Dostie, State Nuclear Safety inspector P. Brann, Assistant Attorney General U. Vanags, State Nuclear Safety Advisor C. Brinkman, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
W. D. Meinert, Nuclear Engineer First Selectmen of Wiscasset Maine State Planning Officer - Nuclear Safety Advisor State of Maine, SLO Designee State Planning Officer - Executive Department Friends of the Coast I
t
Michael B. Sellman, President Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co..
i Distribution w/ encl:
Region.1 Docket Room (with concurrences)
Nuclear Safety Informat!an Center (NSIC)
}
PUBl.lC NRC Resident inspector MY Assessment Panel Members i
Marie Oprendek
)
R. Conte, DRP j
H. Eichenholz, DRP f
D. Beard, DRP '
i l
Distribution w/enci (VIA E-MAIL):
j D. Screnci, PAO j
W. Dean, OEDO D.1)orman, PM, NRR i
R. Correia, NRR D. Taylor, NRR l
Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS) i i
4 I
1 i
4 DOCUMENT NAME: A:MTGTRANS.403 TJ feceive e copy of this document,Ind6cete in the bon: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment /snclosure
- N" = No copy OFFICE PAO /RI 1,,
l DRP/RI
/
l l
o 7 NAME DScrenci 7 p..
RConteff/)/
DATE 04/15/97 '
04//j'/97 04/ /97 04/ /97 04/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
N 1
ENCLOSURE 1 t
4 i
I 9
MEETING TRANSCRIPTS ON APRIL 3,1997 f
t (CONDENSED FORMAT?
b 9
3 4
I l
3 i
4 1
f
RES TART READINES PLAN CzdenscIt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
l n,.
Page 3 a
1 PROCEIDTNGS
[230 P.M.)
2 MR.coNm Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. I'm Richard Conte. I'm the Chief of Reactor 4 Projects, Branch No. 5. Bill IIcht has some opening 4
5 remarks to discuss the purpose of this meeting with 4
6 Maine Yankee on the licensee's Restart Feada Plan.
.. nso m m or w nica 7
Iet me begin to introduce the staff here. All the 8 way to my right is Dan Dorman, the Project Manager for e
nucium mzomer cc asio.
9 Maine Yankm. Ile works for the Office of Nuclear e
10 Reactor Regulation, and le is a member of the Maine se 11 Yankee Assessment Panel which wasjust formed. You'll a
12 hear a little bit more about that during tle course of n
maimem or usme uxonus riu is by maan rmu mate rown comnv 13 the day, a
14 Coming closer to me is John Zwolinski who is the 15 Assistant Director in Reactor Projects, also in the a
16 Offim of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, oversceing tie a
17 licensing process for Maine Yankce.
n is 18 To my immediate right is Bill Ruland who is the 19 Chief of the Electrical Branch in the Division of i.
n.i v.u.. as i.., c p..y to u.roy.cor uo c..tu 20 Reactor Safety, Region I; and he is a member of tle n
ut.e....t. a.i 21 Assessment Panel.
n 22 Myself, I am the panel leader; and also my normal 23 Thur.d.y, Apsli s, 1997 23 function is to oversee the inspection program at Maine n
24 Yankee and Vermont Yankee and currently Pilgrim which is 25 being transferred to another branch in a couple of n
r..
2 Page 4 1 unc sTArri S$$U UU*
2 To my right is the Division Director of Reactor
$'i'l.EUi 3 Projects -- that's the other right - to my left is Bill 5III"r$"
4 IIcht who is the Division Director of Reactor Projects; 5 and he is the oversight manager for the panel.
6 To my left is - furtler left is Jimi Yerokun; and
, ' min mus umumumi 7 he is a member -- he is the senior resident at Maine 8 Yankee and also a member of the panel.
nia...: s.u.
EUUUU.
9 MR. IIEllL Why don't we go ahead and let Maine 10 Yankee introduce the folks.
11 MR. CONTE: Okay. Iet me just get the staff in the 12 back here. Rick Rasmussen is the resident inspector for 13 Maine Yankee. Gene Gunthrie is reactor engineer for 14 Project Branch 5 in Region I. And Cliff Anderson is the 15 technical assistant for the Maine Yankm Assessment 16 Panel.
17 At this point I'd like tie members at the table for 18 Maine Yankm to identify themselves, and we'll come back 19 here for Bill liehl's opening remarks.
20 MR. set.t. MAN: Okay. I'm Mike Sellman, the 21 president of Maine Yankee.
32 22 To my right is Dan Keuter. Dan is going to make 23 the presentation today. Dan is the author - principal 24 author of the Restart Readiness Plan.
n 25 To my left is Mike Meisner, vim president in THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Ramsdell Page 1 - Page 4
- pp(ot 01%
~ ~
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
CoIdenselt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 5 Page 7 1 charge of licensing. And to Mike's left is Graham I over to Dan for the meat of the presentation.
2 Leitch, vi<x president in charge of operations. We have 2
We're here to discuss our Restart Readiness Plan, 3 several members of our staff nearby to help us with 3 and this is the issues and actions that we feel anc 4 questions that come up.
4 necessary for us to take part in the restart The plan 5
MR. Hafta Okay. Iet me - Pil be very brief.
5 itself is comprehensive and comes at the issues of Maine 61he purpose of the meeting here today is a - is a 6 Yankee from three different directions. We're going to 7 meeting between the NRc and - and the folks from Maine 7 look at the plan through system assessments. We're 8 Yankee basically to get a - an overview presentation of 8 going to look at processes, procedures and programs j
9 the Readiness Restart Pian that they submitted to tic -
9 through programmatic assessments, and we're going to 10 to tic NRc with their letter of March 7th,1997.
10 look at people through department assessments.
I1 Certainly we're continuing to review that plan; and 11 Actually, the restart plan is one part of an la really I think what we want to try to accomplish today 12 overall improvement plan which has three phases to it.
13 is to get a better understanding of the - of the 13 Phase 1 is the restart plan, those actions that we 14 ovcrall plan; and I think we'll probably be asking 14 believe must be taken p ior to restart We have a lot 15 questions to get clarification. But certainly -
15 of other actions that will be taken in a short term.
16 certamly the interest is ensuring that the scope of the 16 That will be Phase 2, something within the order of six i
17 plan is sufficient to cover the issues I think that --
17 months after restart. And then over the next few years 18 that are on the table before us. The specifics of the
?? we'll be implementing improvements through our business 19 plan we'll be looking at over a period of the next 19 plan process.
30 several months with particular focus on the 20 As I said, this is really part of our improvement al implementation of the various aspects of the plan.
21 plan, so it's to our benefit. It goes beyond regulatory 33 So with that - and also we'll be - we'll be 22 requirements. We're going fo be focusing on long-term, 73 looking at some of the details on the specifics of the 23 sustainable improvements. We're going beyond the NRC 1
24 confirmatory action items and some of the other outage-24 restart guidance. We intend to address both known 15 related work that's ongoing.
25 issues and through intrusive looks at tie plant find Page 6 Page 8 1
Dut with that, we turn the meeting over to you.
I otler issues and address those as well. Tic criteria 3
MR. CONith One further - excuse me, before we go 2 also go in our opinion beyond tle regulatory compliance 4
3 to you, Mike, I just want to go through a few ground 3 requirements. Tic plan evaluates tic extent of 4 rules for the meeting. And that is this meeting is 4 condition, and also resolves underlying causes 5 betwan Maine Yankee and the NRC and subject to public 5 associated with it.
6 observation only. 'There will be no participation from 6
With that very, very brief introduction, I'm going 7 tic cudience. It is being transcribed, and that 7 to turn it over to Dan.
8 transcription will be docketed. 'There is a meeting 8
MR. KElHER: Thank you, Mike.
9 tonight at 7 o' clock at the Wiscasset Middle School to 9
What I would like to do is step through tic plan.
10 receive public comment.
10 Tic first part of tic plan is -- tlere's 10 sections 11 It's our understanding that the licensee's prepared iI that lay out how we do business in tle plan. And tien la presentation will be about an hour. But we will be 12 there's an appendices which really has the eight major 13 asking questions during the course of that, and it may 13 significant issues that we want to resolve for restart.
4 14 go an hour or two. Ilopefully, we'll be finished about 14 So I'll spend about half tic time talking about tic plan 15 4:30 or 5:00, te m're not restricted to time at this 15 itself and tien spend tic otler half of tie time really 16 point.
16 talking about t}c major issues which is wlere tle meat 17 Most of the -- it will be a question and enswer 17 is.
18 forum; and there may be some unanswered questions which 18 The purpose of tle plan obviously is to identify 19 we may formally submit in a letter subsequent to this 19 and correct any deficiencies or improvements with tic 20 meeting. And representatives of the state govemment 20 plant, wictler it be people, programs or tic plant al are lere but are in tie audience for observation only at 21 equipment itself. It's based on previously approved NRC 23 this point, at tleir request.
22 restart plans from several different plants. We tried 33 With that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Sellman.
23 to take tle best out of each of those plans and put it 34 MR. sil.twot Thanks, Rich. I'm going to make some 24 into our plan. It's also based on tic NRC Guidelines 25 very brief intmductory comments. Then Pil turn it 25 0350 for restart, but tic main thing it's based on are Page 5 - Page 8 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Ccndenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 9 Page11 I tic specific issues applicable to Maine Yankee.
I about it. I have another section on oversight, but we 2
There is a section in there on background which is 2 can go ahead and talk about it now.
3 basically de background of how we got to wlere we are.
3 Basically, what happens is the restart steering 4 It's just a summary of events over the last year, and I 4 committee assessses the overall dircetion for the 5 wasn't going to cover it in any detail.
5 restart. It's a senior Icvel committee with vice 6
The organization is really in two parts. We have 6 president and senior management levels. They oversee 7 the normal - coming down, the overall responsibility 7 not only the two subcommittees but the physical work.
^
8 for de organization is under Mike Sellman as president, 8 The subcommittee chairmen come into our Tuesday steering 9 comes down to Graharn leitch who is the vice president of 9 committee meetings, give briefings on 10 operation, and he has overall responsibility for the 10 where they are in each of the subcommittees. Also 11 restart plan, both the physical work and tle 11 members - for example, myself, I'm on the steering i
12 assessments. Coming down this side we have the plant 12 committee - will oversee and attend certain meetings 13 manager, and le is responsible for, you know, the normal 13 and judge for themselves where they're going.
14 operation of tic plant, whetler it be an outage or 14 For example, next week, next Tuesday, the full 35 non-outage; and le is responsible for the physical work 15 subcommittees are going to meet in a combined meeting 16 that comes out of the plant. Coming down this side is 16 with the steering committee and go over any open isstes 17 the restart manager, myself. And we have two 17 or directions that are concerns at that time.
18 subcommittees, tle restart subcommittee chairmen that 18 So it's all three committees are living committees, 19 look at -- one is dedicated to looking at the hardware 19 and they interface all the time.
20 issues, assessing those, and tien verifying that we're 20 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Dan, maybe you could address the 21 ready for restart, and another program manager that is 21 role and responsibility of each of the three 22 looking at tie softwam of the programs and the people 22 committees. I'm trying to distinguish fundamentally 23 and verifying that those are ready.
23 were the hardwam committee to take an action, review 24 Some of these issues, you know, for example, tley 24 it, disposition it, tien what would then be the role of i
25 might look at twice. For example, you know, the 25 the restart committx if the issue is in position or if I
Page 10 Page 12 1 hardware committa might -- like, if tlere is a teaming i it's not? Does the restart committee see everything, or l
2 bank issue on a Mon, they might look at it as a hardware 2 does it stop with one of these subcommittees? I guess 3 issue. The same issue might come over to the software 3 l've asked a number of questions if you can talk through 4 conunittee, and they look at it as a programmatic issue.
4 that.
5 So some of these things will be touched on twice, and 5
MR. KEUTER: Why don't I go through the 6 our whole intent here is to look at it from different 6 presentation because I think I'm going to explain that 7 directions to make sure we cover the issues.
7 in a little more detail when I get to the flow chart of 8
MR. CON III: Excuse me, Dan. Are all the managers 8 the process. If I don't answer it then, make sure you 9 on this chart in place? I know you're still staffing 9 ask the question again.
10 people.
10
'Ihe major elements lere, I think this would be
!I MR. KEUTER: This is in place. We actually got iI better if I showed it graphically; and I'll also try to 12 this in place before we submitted tle plan. The 12 answer your question.
13 subcommittees have been operating now since t!e first of 13 Basically, feeding into de restart committees are 14 March; and we've - the restart subcommittees here have 14 the known issues. These are identified at the top.
15 leen nreting -- they mxt three times a wcek. They have 15 These are the issues that came out of the confirmatory 16 bcen for several weeks. The steering committce meets 16 action letter. These are the issues that came out of 17 Iwice a week, and again they've been mwting for several 17 tle ISA and NRC inspections. They are the issues that is wxks. And tic plan is actually in place and working, 18 came out of the 50.54(f) response. Plus any other 19 and we had it up and going even before we submitted tie 19 issues since, employm evaluations, steam generator 20 plan on March 7.
20 inspection, any other issues that are self-identified 21 MR. !!Ein.: At some point in time are you going to 21 will feed into de subcommittees.
22 talk about tic level of oversight that exists between 22 Also, we are out there -- and these are the known 23 the restart stmring committee and the individual 23 issues; but we're also out there doing assessments of 24 hardware and non-hardware oversight groups?
24 equipment and we're doing assessments of the programs on 25 MR. KEtJITiR: This is probably a good time to talk 25 people. Now, these assessments here initiate and funnel TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdcll Page 9 - Page 12
- MAINE YANK.EE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenseltl*
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 13 Page 15 1 through de different subcommittees. All the equipment I order list, and/or n9n-hardware issues which are being 2 issues will be first reviewed by the equipment 2 tracked by our Leansg Bank action tracking system.
3 subcommittee. They're looking at all the work orders 3
So what we're trying to do is not inventing 4 iley're looking at all de - for example, the 4 anything new. We're using existing systems to work off 5 maintenance rule A.1 system, anything having to do with 5 the work, too, whether it be a work order, wicther it be 6 the hardware They're looking at operator 6 a procedure change. We are using our normal systems.
7 work-arounds. They're taking a review of that, and then 7 So what we're doing is - is supplementing through the 8 they're feeding that information back up to the steering 8 restart committees and tie restart organization our 9 committee.
9 existing organization and - and going through the 10 The same thing over here. The non-hardwam 10 backlogs of issues that we have, known issues, and also 11 committee is looking at people and programs They're 11 assessments to find any unknown issues.
12 looking at the learning bank backlogs. They're looking 12 Once an issue is complete, it comes down through 13 tt the department assessments that we're doing. They're 13 its normal management approval; and it's accepted 14 looking at the program assessments that we're doing.
14 tlere. And then it goes through one extra step which 15 And again, they're feeding that information back into 15 would be the subcommittees or tic steering committee.
16 tle steering committee here.
16 For example, all the major appendices are really going 17 So what the - what we have is a multiple barrier 17 through, you know, tir subcommittees and tie restart 18 here. We have the initial reviews being done down here, 18 steering committee. Some of tic minor work orders will 19 cnd they're being reviewed by tle steering committees as 19 mainly only be going back to a steering committee; but 20 Ocy feed that information back up.
20 ticy all won't go back to -- I mean through tie 21 MR. ZwOLINSK1: What's the direction that you've 21 subcommittee. They all won't be going back through tir 22 provided as fee as the folks that do the initial 22 steering committee unless ticre is a major issue.
23 revio? Do 'hy prioritize these items or --
23 Now,if ticre's any questions at any time, you 24 MR. KELTrER: What dry do is they compare it to the 24 know, the subcommittees come back to the steering 25 restart criteria, and I'll talk about it a little bit 25 committees just like we're going to do next Tuesday to Page 14 Page 16 i
i more here. But they're scrirning the things to see in 1 make sure everybody is in agruement of which things are 2 tiry're required for restart And dere's two parts to 2 restart or non-restart or if the conective actions are 3 it. Is it a safety or operability concem; or is it a 3 adequate.
4 regulatory requirement you know, requirement that 4
Then we go back to a final review, which I'll talk 5 will require us to be done for restart. So we have 5 about in a little bit more detail, but to make sure that 6 specific criteria that t!cy're using to screen issues or 6 everything -- an integrated reviewer looks at people, 7 potential issues and then deciding wirther it's required 7 programs, managenent, makes sure we're ready to go.
8 for restart or not.
8 Then we go through a step-by-step phase power ascension 9
Now, as far as doing the departnrnt assessments, 9 program similar to the program that we did coming out of 10 doing the system assessments, doing de program 10 our steam generator outage, sleeving outage.
II assessments, we have specific guidance and checklists 11 MR. IIEllL: I guess you're using a number of the 12 tint they go through; and those are in the attachments.
12 existing processes that - that - I guess the question 13 And what tiry'll do, you know, through the 13 that I have is what have you done to assure that there 14 committees, the combination of the subcommittees and the 14 is a level of confidence in those existing processes to 15 committecs, they'll decide what issues -- they'll 15 -- to accomplish this?
16 basically put them into one of three phases. If it's a 16 MR. KEtTTER: Well, one of the things we're doing is 17 restart issue, it will go into Phase 1. If it's an 17 our program assessments which is our existing 18 important issue but not requim! for restart, it will go 18 processes We want to make sure those processes are 19 into the short-term plan which basically we want to 19 adequate. The two main processes that we're using is 20 accomplish within six months after restart. Or it goes 20 our work order process and our Learning Bank process.
21 into Phase 3 which is our long-term plan or our business 21 We've just gone through a complete reengineering of our 22 plan.
22 leaming bank process. You know,it's a good process.
23 There's three ways we track that. We have tic 23 It's a little bit more cumbersome and complex tlum what 24 major issues that are in tle appendices. We have the 24 we'd really like to have for tie long range. But it's a 25 hardware issues which are being tracked by our work 25 good process and has a good tracking system. And it's Page 13 - Page 16 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell i
RESTART READINES PLAN CGEdensclt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 17 Page 19 1 something that's always going to improve. 'De same 1
MR. MEISNER: Iguess that's what I was trying to 2 thing with the work order process It's a good 2 say, Rich, that there will be a documented review; but 3 process. It's a little bit more cumbersome than we want 3 to the extent that we're relying on those processas as a 4 long-term, but it's a good process.
4 tracking system, a data base, something that will tell 5
We're going through and identifying the major 5 us an item exists; and we'll be able to enter its status 6 programs aad processe. and we're assessing those 6 in this data base as we go along. But it isn't those 7 programs and proxsses.
7 proa:sses that drive resolution of these items, nor is 8
MR. HEnt.: Okay. But that's being done in parallel 8 it those processes that drive the evaluation of the 9 with the ongoing work?
9 significance of those items. It's the -it's tic new 10 MR. mirER: Corn:ct.
10 overlay that Dan is describing here that ensures that 11 MR. IIEllu So I guess the question is how are you 11 happens.
12 going to address, you know, a level of confidence when 12 MR. IIEHL: Why don't we go ahead and let tiem go 13 you have a parallel review going of the program itself 13 into - maybe they'll answer some of those questions as 14 and tien a paralle! hardware activity at the same time 14 we go along. Certainly, the intrusive aspect of these, 15 it's utilizing those proxsses?
15 we'll be interested in hearing how they're going to 16 MR. KELTTER: Well, that's one of the reasons we're 16 accomplish that.
l 17 having - you know, supplementing our organization with 17 MR. KEIRER: One of tie issues that we want to 18 a restart organization. We're adding extra clecks and 18 address lere, as Mike said, is tle extent of condition.
19 balances into those existing programs and pmcesses just 19 And we want to not only look at tlese specific issues.
20 like we're adding an extra step lere to make sure we're 20 We want to see if that specific issue has any generic 21 not relying on tie process itself. We're 21 implications or makes sure we're getting all - you 22 adding anotler barrier here to make sure that those 22 know, any common causes. So again we're taking tle 23 processes -- that de physical corrective action is de 23 known issues up here. We're looking at tic root causes 24 one that we intended.
24 that come out of those known issues. We're seeing --
l 25 MR. MEISNER: Can I add something to that?
25 looking at the causal factors associated with those; and Page 18 Page 20 1
MR. IIEllU Sure.
1 then we're coming down and doing an extent of condition 2
MR. MEISNER: Yes, we're using existing processes; 2 analysis.
3 but we're using tlem primarily as a tracking mechanism.
3 Some of the things we ask, you know, as we pull the 4 So tic learning Dank which is our conective action 4 strings on some of these, is if this was a programmatic 5 process will contain an individual item. Dut the 5 issue, for example, on cable separation, do we have a 6 pro ss that really deals with tie significance of that 6 similar issue on Mon's or similar issues on oder 7 item is -- has been overlaid on top of tie learning 7 things? And based on that, then we'll go back around 8 proxss. And that's what Dan is describing, and it's 8 and either do additional assessments ifit's a people or 9 something new and in addition to the existing process.
9 e program issue or if it's an equipment issue, ask --
10 It's Oc criteria that le'll talk about in a few minutes 10 pull those strings again and feed it through here to 11 that determines whetler or nct something is a restart 11 make sure we've identified all of tie important safety 12 issue, short-term or long-term. And it's these 12 issues, not just those that are pecking above tle 13 subcommittxs that pmvide a level of intrusiveness and 13 water. So this is our extent of condition.
14 rigor in evaluating those things and ensuring that 14 We've gotten - you know, we're altmdy into this 15 they're implemented.
15 proxss. I can give you some preliminary results; but I 16 So in some sense we're using the existing processes 16 really want to -- and it's similar to what llub said the 17 but as a convenient tracking mechanism. In anotler 17 last time he was here - is, you know, the extent of 18 sense we've overlaid it with quite a bit more to ensure 18 conditions really are in the nuclear culture of the 19 that tie items that flow thmugh the process are 19 organization. What is nuclear culture? What does i
20 addressed correctly.
20 nuclear quality look like? And really what it looks 21 MR. CONTE: Is tlere a documented rev;ew of the 21 like is it's a management system, and it's a 22 work order process and tie learning process to 22 defense-inskpth system to ensure that adequate barriers 23 say -- that leads you to this conclusion that it's --
23 are in place to prevent bad things from happening.
24 t!cy're viable systems to be worked in parallel with 24 I tried to visualize here what those barriers are.
25 these otler measures?
25 'Ihe primary barrier at the top is your plant equipment.
Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Rarnsdell Page 17 - Page 20
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Crdensclt!*
RESTART READINES PLAN l
Page 21 Page 23 f
I is your plant equipment properly designed, maintained?
I organization. Again, theirjob is independent eyes and 2 Does it have the proper material, proper construction?
2 cars out there to make sure these barriers are in place 3 That's your primary barrier.
3 and working. You have your training organization. Four 4
In addition to that you have the administrative 4 of your seven barriers are people. So you have to 5 controls. And this determines how you do the work 5 ensure that your people barriers are properly trained, 6 within a nuclear power plant; and these are all your 6 qualified, and you have a training organization that
)
7 administrative procedures, your programs, your standards 7 lelps management do that.
8 all determine how you do business.
8 Then you have your mis llaneous management support 9
You have your specific procedures which are your 9 groups, all the way fmm l{R, cicmistry, other 10 specific step-by-step instructions on how you do 10 organizations, warehouse, purchasing, that lelp 11 physical work out in the plant. And this goes all the 11 management ensure these barriers are in place and 12 we/ mm work orders to test proadures to detail 12 working.
f 13 pmm.Ms to emeqency pmcedures, all of those 13 Senior management is over lere; and their job, 14 techd pocedures of how you do a specific test out 14 primary responsibility is to make sure their management i
15 in the plant. In a nuclear power plant you have 15 organization is in plam and working. And they rely on
)
16 licensed operators. Anything that can afTect the 16 independent oversight committees, NRC,INPO.anybody 17 nuclear safety or plant reliability goes to the 17 independently giving them feedback to make sure these 18 centralized control room. You have limnsed operators 18 barriers are in place and working. You also have your j
19 that maintain that control room. They make sure that 19 styletion., your industry standards down here as j
20 they have adequate equipment, status control. They 20 feedback under senior management.
21 monitor the equipment to make sure that one event 21 The other thing I would like to point out are the j
22 doesn't interfere with another event. But you have your 22 arrows. Arrows represent communication. Communications 23 ormtralized control room there as a barrier.
23 -- you know, you could have a breakdown of any of these 24 You have your first-line supervisors and 24 barriers if you have a breakdown in communication. And 25 oversight They're out making sure that we're following 25 that's why that 70 percent of the events that happen, Page 22 Page 24 1 tie procedures and making sure we have good work I the underlying cause or a contributing cause is a 2 practices, proper work environment.
2 breakdown of communication. The operations barrier, for 3
Your next barrier is your workers, you know; and 3 example, will fail if they don't know what work is being 4 that's -- your next-year equipment is your next best 4 done out in the plant due to a miscommunication. So 5 barrier. And here are your workers properly trained, 5 again, what we're trying to do is look at communications 6 motiv ted, using good work practices? Self-checking is 6 to make sure that is contributing or not contributing to 7 your - you know, your next best barrier.
7 a breakdown in the barriers.
8 And in some cases you have additional barricts if 8
So one of the things we're trying to do and 9 it's an important evolution. You have a separate from 9 that's how we define nuclear culture. Everybody in the 10 tle normal chain of command that you normally have 10 site fits into one or more of these boxes all the way 11 independent reviews. This goes from independent 1I from a clerical person who could mistype a procedure, 12 verification, QC, radiation protection, post maintenance 12 cause a failure of that barrier, to ajanitor who s s
13 testing, anything that independently verifies that 13 oil on the fioor and doesn't n: port it that contributes 14 wtetewt you did up trre is working.
14 to a breakdown in the equipment barrier.
15 What you don't see lere is management, and that 15 So what we're trying to do is what are the 16 t';ason is management is over lere. Their responsibility 16 attributes behind these barriers and then see which of 17 as to ensure that you have adequate barriers in place 17 these attributes are failing or needs impmvenent. So 18 cnd working.1 hat's tirir role. And ticy have several 18 anything that happens out there we can come back to our 19 organizations that Irlp ticm do that. They have tleir 19 nuclear culture and identify those areas that we need to 20 engineers, their technical organizations that make sure 20 improve.
21 you have technical input into your barriers including 21 Where we stand and what we've done so far is we've 22 your equipment, administrative controls, your 22 gone back and looked at the existing known problems up 23 procedures, your training. And you have an engineering 23 here. And so basically this is looking backwards, and 24 organization that lelps management do that. You have 24 this is where we've preliminarily concluded we are 25 your 1:uclear safety or QA organization, licensing 25 looking at that data. And tle boxes here indicate tir Page 21 - Page 24 TIIB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart flagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN CozdenscIt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 25 Page 27 1 areas that we need to improve. And the red means, as I again our technical programs adequacy, you know, the 2 you can read here, significant wak=w 'lhen we have 2 cable separation program, our logic circuit testing, our 3 identified in these barriers, yellow means an area that 3 UQ programs, a lot of our appendices that we've 4 we need to improve, white mean it's adcxtuate and gnen 4 identified as significant issues go back to our 5 means it's a strength.
5 engineering programs 6
And the areas that we've identified so far are the 6
Also as identified in our 50.54(f), we have 7 ones indicated here. I can briefly give you a rundown 7 wmk== in our design bases and documentation. So 8 of our extent of conditions in those areas.
8 those are the issues that make that barrier ned.
9 The first one up there under plant equipment is -
9 Nuc! car safety, this is our QA licensing program 10 we've identified an issue that we're not always getting 10 We've taken the first step there. We've combined them 11 timely design changes implemented. We have several 11 under a single officer and have a new officer. But 13 operator work-arounds that require design changes, and 12 basically what's tumed that banier red is we have a 13 that we consider a weakness that contributes to that 13 nonintrusive QA program, a QA program that hasn't been 14 barrier. Also, we have nine systems that are classified 14 able to identify some of the weaknesses before they're i
15 as A-1 by the maintenance rule. And again, those two 15 identified by other people.
16 things are the two main things that contribute to that 16 The other thing that has contributed to that in the 17 barrier being ned right now.
17 put is we have our corrective action programs We have 18
'the next barrier is administrative controls. We'll 18 several of them. I'll talk about that a little bit more 19 identified a real issue in a lot of our programs of a 19 in our appendices, but our corrective action program 20 lack of ownership of the program. There isn't a single 20 wasn't adequate to prevent similar issues from al point ownership of the program A lot of our programs 21 happening.
22 are fragmented; and mainly our technical programs are 22 Like I said, plant management, whenever you have a 23 fragmented between the Yankee organization, the 23 breakdown of barrier, you know, management is usually 24 corporate engineering organization, the plant 24 tic root cause because their job is to ensure those 25 engineering organization, and the plant itself.
25 barriers are in place and working. What we've Page 26 Page 28 I
So one of tie things we're going through now and 1 identified there is a lack of questioning attitude, a 2 we're doing a lot of working looking at over 200 2 lack of management accountability in tic ownership of 3 programs to make sure we have ownership, make sure we 3 our programs and our systems, and also a lack of 4 have adequate adequacy of those programs. 'the otler 4 self-critical, self-assessments that contribute to that 5 thing that we really contributes to this probably being 5 barrier being red.
6 yellow not red is a lot of our pmgrams are cumbersome 6
Training program, we've just come off probation in 7 and complex. So in the long-tenn, you know, this isn't 7 our technical programs; but we've also identified that 8 sonething we're going to solve for restart but something 8 technical training or engineering training is a weakness 9 we want to solve in the long-term; and we probably would 9 and contributed to cable separation, logic testing, EQ.
10 keep that window at least yellow until we simplify a lot to So again, the only thing that's keeping that is iI of our programs. And we're bringing in process iI basically one of out, you know, several programs in 12 improvement techniques through Entergy who is going to 12 ticre; and that's our technical training program. We 13 be going over our programs in the next few years to 13 have come off probation now with INPO, and that's why 14 improve them.
14 that's yellow.
l 15 Coming down to yellow down at the bottom, our higic 15 Coming over to senior management, what's keeping 16 testing identified that we have a weakness there. But 16 that red or has turned that ind was economic pressure in 17 also we - due to that weakness in logic testing, and 17 trying to focus on cost; and also a lack of resources is 18 you'll see it in a minute when we go through the 18 what has mainly contributed to that barrier being red.
19 appendice, we've done a major review of our testing 19 Yellow, independent oversight. Again, our 20 program. And so far it's looking pretty good.
20 independent oversight groups haven't been effective in 21 Coming up to the top, we've identified a 21 identifying de issues, and that's why that's yellow.
22 significant weakness in our engineering barrier, our 22 And regulations and standards, tir main reason that's 23 technical barrier. We have a lack of system engineers.
23 yellow is we haven't kept up with tir industry 24 We've never implemented system engineers in total here, 24 standards. We haven't kept up with wlere tir rest of 25 and we figure that is a significant weakness. Also, 25 tle industry is. We've become isolated, and that's why TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 25 - Page 28 i
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenseltl*
RESTART READINES PLAN, Page 29 Page 31 1 that barrier is yellow.
I to be reviewed by the restart steering committee or a
Some of the otler areas in some of the - this kind 2 aren't or -
3 of gives a qualitative look at where we are or where we 3
MR. KELTTER: Rey are, yes, defmitely.
4 MR. hem.: And what's the criteria? You know, do 4 have been. Again, this is preliminary. Again, this is 5 basically looking backwards. I would say if you're 5 these need to go from a red to a yellow to support 6 going to benchmark this to a time, this is probably 6 restart, or have you tied any correlation to these?
7 where we were January 1st, at the turn of the year, 7
MR. KEITIER: Basically what we've gone through, 8 January 1st of this year. That isn't necessarily where 8 we're going through and identifying the wmb-s that 9 we figure we are today. But this is how we're going 9 Ijust told you. So each of those we'll identify de
]
10 through and looking at our extent of condition and 10 corrective action, and from that corrmtive action we'll
!! trying to identify tie areas that we n-ed to improve, 11 determine whether we have to do that corrective action 13 not j ist the specific problems that come up.
1": before restart or not. For example -
13 Qt estions?
i3 MR. hem.: I know each piece that you rrmationed is 14 MR RULAND Yes,I have a question. In reading 1a broken down, and a lot of these th'.ngs are reviewed by 15 your rectart plan, based on what I understand of your 15 the non-hardware group as part of their process.
16 plan, right now your restart stccring committee is 16 MR. KELTIER: CorTect 17 only committed to review those items that are major 17 MR. IlEllL: And I guess it goes along with Bill's 18 actions - and I guess I'm not quite getting the 18 question is who is going to make the determination. At 19 words - A through 11 in your appendices. Are those 19 least it's not clear from the plan that -- that there is 20 major issues that you basically required your restart 20 going to be an overview determination that these are al steering conunittee to approve prior to restart? And I'm 21 adequate to support restart.
33 curious why ttese particular items which you identified 22 MR. KEtfrER: The non-hardware committee is going to 33 as significant weaknesses aren't included in that list 23 present this to the steering committee. De 24 of items that you have to have the restart committec 24 non-hardware committee is doing basically the leg work, 25 approve your actions.
25 and then it's going to be reviewed and approved by the Page 30 Page 32 1
MR. KEtrTER: Well, the restart steering committee, I steering committee. And this is going to be an integral 2 they've gone through, you know, the initial extent of 2 part of our integral assessment. We have to assess this 3 condition. Dry're going - that - if that's what --
3 as tle management team, even above de steering 4 that wasn't what we intended. As a minimum, the restan 4 committee, up to Mike's level before we reach that.
5 steering committee is going to be looking at the major 5
MR. RtILAND: Just a follow-up question on this. Of 6 appendices. Like we said, these have been in 6 course, the NRC is going to be critically involved in 7 development; but the restart stccring committm will be 7 reviewing these items, and it wasn't clear to me at what 8 looking at each of these. 'Ihe restart stmring 8 point in your process you would declare these things 9 committee and Mike himself will have to be involved in 9 ready for inspection. Maybe I didn't -- I couldn't 10 the determination of these barriers.
10 glean it from the report; but it seems to me that the iI MR. ME!SNER: Bill, said another way, the 1i burden, rightfully so, ought to be on you folks to 12 appendices are a major focus of the restart steering 12 declare these things sound and ready for our 13 committee; but as important a focus is on looking at the 13 inspection. And that's primarily the way we're going to 14 extent of de condition. And what Dan is describing 14 judge whether you're ready for restart,is not only did 15 here is -- is how we define de extent of condition.
15 you do the work, that as we come in and inspect that 16 And each of those individual items is going to be 16 work, it's -- that work is appropriate and adequate and 17 important for the steering committee to review, buy 17 it's ready for restart. And I think we will then infer 18 into and &termine that we have adequate corrective 18 based on your performance in that area whether you in o
19 action in place. So review of what you're seeing up 19 fact are ready to restart And we'll be able to judge 20 there is a key element of the steering committee's job.
20 your management in that way.
21 MR. KrtfrER. Eds is a major way of how we measure 21 And I guess I couldn't understand at what point 22 nuclear culture. Etis is a major wey of how we assess 22 these different items, A through II, are going to be, you 23 where we are and where we're going. And &fmitely, the 23 know, ready for our review, and how you're going to add 24 steering committee is going to be involved in this.
24 items to your list and then how are you going to notify 25 MR. RIJLAND: So am I learing that these are going 25 us that dese items are ready for our review?
Page 29 - Page 32 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
b i
RESTART READINES PLAN Condensclt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 33 Page 35 1'
I MR. MEISNER: Yes, Bill, we agree the onus is on us I units. And so you're competing for a lot of resource 2 for that. So that for an individual item, say, cable 2 expenditures at that same time.
3 separation - and Dan will show you later we've got a 3
MR. MEISNER: Okay, sure. We understand that. And l
4 report submittal schedule for that - that item may be 4 as far as 60 days rather than 30, we can -mahte j
$ ready for your review maybe well in advance of the whole 5 that. But by the same token, whether it's 30 days or 60 6 package And as those things become ready, or at least 6 days, there will still be some planned activities after 1
7 in our estimation ready, we'll notify you of that. But 7 we notify you. 'Ihat 60 day, that list of planned a
8 the responsibility lies with us to come back to de NRC 8 activities to be completed, will be bigger than it would I
9 and say we've wrapped up everything. We've got the 9 have been at 30 days.
10 extent of condition defined. We've got our hands around 10 MR. KELTTER: And it will become a little bit more 11 all of these major activities as well as the minor 11 clear wien we get into the schedule of the different 12 activities; and now we're acady to please come in and --
12 appendices. I want to make it clear, a lot of the 13 and take a look at it overall.
13 appendices, the A through II issues, are what feed into 14 And we'll be doing that on de docket with you 14 make these barriers red or yellow. And if we identify a 15 when - tie main impedurent to doing that, of course, is 15 new issue, another major issue, there might be an l
16 defining these unknown conditions. And that's where a 16 Appendix I or J or K; and we'll let you know as soon as 2
17 great deal of our focus is now. When we're satisfied 17 we reach that point 18 that we've got that defined, then we'll be notifying the 18 One of the things I'd like to point out is we have 19 staff of that fact. But we will provide you carlier 19 identified several of our programs have a common thread 30 than that some discrete packages or at least 20 through that, and that's a lack of ownership and single 31 notification that those are ready for your review.
21 point accountability. So as we get through our program 22 MR. IIEXIU 'Ihat's important because looking back on 22 review, like I said, we're looking at over 200 23 - on the cover of your March 7th letter tha; 23 programs. 'Ihere may well be an I or J or K.14w, not 24 transmitted to us the plan, you indicate in there that a 24 all of the actions that come out of them may not all be 25 restart plan closure report due approximately 30 to 60 25 restart, but some of tiem very likely could be.
Page 34 Page 36 1 days prior to our estimated restart date. And the i
For example, our fire penetration is an issue.
2 reality is that all along the way we're going to be 2 It's not one of the appendices because we've got 3 having to inspect tiese things; but we're certainly not 3 compensatory actions that we can do. So it's an 4 going to be in a position to commit a substantial amount 4 important issue. We could have made it an appendice, 5 of resources to a thorough review of an area until 5 but it's not going to be done before restart. That's 6 you'ic satisfied that that area is fixed and mmts your 6 why we didn't make it an appendice. But tlere might be 7 standards for performance.
7 otler issues out there.
8 MR. MEISNER: We understand that.
8 MR. IIEllL: But you will be in compliance with tle 9
MR.11011U And you ccitainly can't wait until 30 to 9 requirements --
10 60 days before you plan to restart to have this stuff 10 MR. KEUTER: Absolutely.
]
11 ready for our review because, quite frankly, we couldn't 11 MR. IIEllL: -through compensatory measures?
12 support that.
12 MR. KE1JrER: Absolutely.
13 MR. MEISNER: We understand that. As areas are 13 MR. DORMAN Dan, when you were going through the 14 complete, we'll let you know that; and we'll also let 14 barriers and talking about tie things that made them 15 you know when we're ready to ask for that 30 to 60-day 15 red, it wasn't clear as you went through there that 16 -
16 there west clear ties to the appendices. Some of tic 17 MR. IIElit.: And I would venture to say that it ought 17 issues that you talked about, like system engineering, 18 to be well on the 60 side versus the 30 side because we 18 technical program adequacies, nonintrusive QA, lack of 19 have a lot of work to do at tie tail end that - that, 19 questioning attitude and so on are - are harder issues 20 you know, we're going to work through it. And, you 20 to get your hands around. And ticy're not - they're 21 know, we're going to try to accommodate as best we can, 21 not clear that ticy're specifically tied to either 22 you know, your readiness schedule.
22 action plans or to specific restart items in tic 23 But - but the reality is that just about the time 23 Learning Bank or -- or tie work orders. And one could 24 that you're outlining for readiness, we also have 24 infer from that that some of ticse broader, softer 25 readiness of Salem n and Millstone unit -- one of the 25 issues may still be unresohrd; and ticse issues may TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason 14ckhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 33 - Page 36
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
RESTART READINES PIAN Page 37 Page 39 i still come in for restart. Could you address that a i learning bank item flagged for that? Those are the a little bit?
2 thra: categories that you've given to me how you're 3
MR. KEUTF.R: Absolutely. A lot of those underlying 3 tracking these. Or is then: another tracking mech nism a
4 causes are softer issues. You know - I lost my colored 4 for these?
5 slide now. But a lot of these are softer issues. And 5
MR. MEISNER: No, that's it. It's either in tre -
6 some of these - you know, for example, systems 6 corrective action program or the Ixaming Bank which 7 engineering, I'll use that as a good example of why 7 will hold most of the soft items, or it's largely a 8 that's red. Before we start up we will have a system 8 hardware issue in which case you've got a work order 9 engineer responsible for all of our safety systems. And 9 attached to it. Those are the two mechanisms.
10 that's what we feel we have to have as a minimum for 10 MR. RUtAND just to use this as an example, are 11 restart. After restart we're going to have system 11 you saying this particular item, to establish system 12 engineer development for our other systems.
12 engineers to a particular group of systems, you're 13 So we kind of broke that into a group. We didn't 13 calling this a restart item?
14 make it an appendice necessarily because it's not going 14 MR. KELDER: For the safety systems.
15 to be all - it's not a -- you know, a regulatory -- it 15 MR. RULAND: So how would we as the NRC know that 16 doesn't meet our criteria. But it's something that we 16 you are completed and ready to go on this matter?
17 definitely want to have in place. And not having system 17 MR. KEtnER: You come in and review. Our 21 safety 18 engireers has probably contributed to some of the issues 18 systems will all be all evaluated and have a system 19 in tie appendices. Just like not having program 19 engineer :esponsible for tiem.
20 ownership of cable separation and not having program 20 MR. RUtAND I understand that, but what I'm 31 ownership or fragmented responsibility for EQ has 21 suggesting is what is the document that we're going to 23 contributed why that is a major issue. So not cnly &,
22 have that we know that this is on your list as a restart 33 we want to solve the EQ.we want to solve the underlying 23 item?
24 cause.
24 MR. MEISNER: I think that document will be what we 35 And now tic underlying causes, all of those cannot 25 submit to you 30 to 60 days prior to our determination Page 38 Page 40 I be restart issues. Some of them will. System engineers I that we're ready to restart.
2 will be implemented for at least the safety systems.
2 MR. RULAND: And I would suggest to you that that's 3
MR. DORMAN: llow are you tracking that? Is tlem 3 not soon enough, that we have resources to plan; and, 4 namething in tic Icaming bank that flags a restart item 4 you know, we've got to decide, you know, what are we 5 for having a system engineer for each of those systems?
5 going to inspect? Do we have tic right staff to 6 And alca, in terms of the committees, how will that 6 inspect? And frankly,I don't think that's soon enough.
j 7 review be -- you know, who is going to decide and at 7
MR. MEISNER: I think we may be talking about two 8 what point with respect to this example, system 8 different things lere, Bill.
9 engineers, that you're ready to restart with respect to 9
MR. RULAND: Maybe we are.
10 tleseitems?
10 MR. MEISNER: If you're talking about wlere are tle 11 MR. KELTrER: The program itself, the fact that 11 details going to be and wlere is it all going to be 12 we've laid out 21 systems to be reviewed by the system 12 wrapped up together, it's going to be in that - in that 13 engineers is what's going to track us on that specifie 13 document we submit to you 30 to 60 days prior to 14 issue. So most of them are going to be tracked either, 14 restart.
15 you know, by an appendia:, by tic leaming bank, or by 15 As far as continuing dialogue, additional 16 work order.
16 submittals as recessary and our notification to you that 17 MR. MEISNER: Dan,if your question is will cach 17 we're ready in a particular area, those are going to be 18 and every item have some tracking mechanism and that we 18 separate and distinct documents that you'll have 19 can follow and ensure is closed out, the answer is yes.
19 available.
20 Some oill be major issues like an appendix item. Otlers 20 For instance, cable separation, like I mentioned 21 will be single-line items and the conective action 21 carly on, we'll be submitting a detailed -- a very 22 plan.
22 detailed report on that issue that will cover -
23 MR. DORMAN: I guess what wasn't clear to me is on 23 MR. IIEllL: You all have a well-defined hardware 24 a relatively soft issue like that that's not an 24 issue. Here we're talking about something that's a 25 appendix, clearly it's not a work onier,is there a 25 little bit broader. Establishing a viable system Page 37 - Page 40 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rarnsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN C=densettl* MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 41 Page 43 i engineering program for at least a certain I plan. Our plan is a plan of how we're going to expend 2 range of - of, you know, systems is a little difTerent 2 our resources to evaluate your readiness for restart 3 than - than resolving, you know, the cable separation 3
MR. MEISNER: Right. And that's what I was trying 4 issue where you have clear - you know, clear criteria 4 to say, that the scope of review,'.he scope of your plan 5 that you either satisfied or you didn't. 'De point is 5 may be - may be much different than ours.
6 how are we going to -
6 MR. IIEllu lt will be. We obviously expect you to 7
MR. KEttrER Your tracking mechanism is your CAL 7 dig into - into detail in all of these areas and to 8 So that you have to identify the extent of conditions.
8 ferret out the problems and ensure that you got lasting 9 We have to identify the extent of conditions.
9 corrective action. We're going to, consistent with our 10 MR. liElle Maybe we're getting into too explicit a 10 plans, do some sort of sampling which will include some 11 level of detail at this point in time because maybe we 11 very thorough and deep assessnents. But certainly we're i
12 can -- I guess in general what we can say is what we're 12 not going to be able to challenge every area that you've 13 looking for -- for us to be able to - to review and 13 looked at.
j 14 know when you're ready for a particular area to be 14 MR. MEISNER: Right. What I wanted to get to was 15 reviewed, I would suggest that maybe you put together 15 we'll give you as early notice as we can once we finish 16 some r, ort of a package or something that outlines the 16 an area. But by the same token, your plan is going to 17 issue and how you went about resolving it and -- and 17 be different than ours. So for us to give you advance 18 perhaps your assessments of it. And then we'll take 18 notice on the things that you plan to inspect, we need
]
19 that package of things and then go out and do an 19 to know what those are. So it would be helpful, too, 20 independent review of that.
20 for -
21 MR. MElsNER: We understand that. We'll make every 21 MR. IIEHU Well, it may be helpful for you to time 22 effort to give you as early notice as we can. We 22 what we're going to inspect. But I'll tell you what, 23 understand everybody is resource stretched, and it's up 23 you probably are going to be very surprised at - you 24 to us to give you enough advance notice. Don't 24 know, we're not going to lay out a detailed plan that is 25 misunderstand, you know, what Dan is going through lere 25 going to highlight each and every thing that we're going Page 42 Page 44 I is this is a work in progress. We're trying to give a 1 to inspect. You know, our expectations are that you 2 kind of a snapshot of where we sit now. But we're still 2 will come to us, tell us when you're ready to be i
3 putting items into those bins, you know. We're still 3 inspected in a particular area; and then we'll 4 going through the extent of condition. We don't have a 4 accommodate that as far as ping out and inspecting at 5 document now that will grab all of those.
5 that point in time as best we can wi*hin -- witidn 6
MR. IIEllb We understand that; but we're also in 6 TeSource Constraints.
7 the process right now of trying to take your restart 7
But, you know, we're not going tell you, okay, in 8 plan and decide how we're going to develop our own, you 8 order for you to restart, you know, we're going to look 9 know, assessment plan, you know. And it's -- moving 9 at this specific issue, this specific issue and this 10 tarvets are hard to hit.
10 specific issue. No, no, no, no. We're going to be iI MR. MEISNER: I agrec, I agree. And, of course, 11 looking at a broad range of things. We'll share our 12 you know, part of this is - and I think Mike said it at 12 plan with you; but that plan is going to be, you know, I? the beginning - is the approach we'n: taking we think 13 somewhat general in nature addressing tle areas that 14 goes well beyond the 0350 restart criteria. And in that 14 we'll be looking at. Certainly I would not time your 15 context, what we've put together here -- I mean, our 15 completion to our plan. You need to move forward at 16 understanding is you'll come back to us in a couple of 16 your own pace and accomplish what you --
17 wtrks; and you'll issue to us a restart plan that will 17 MR. MEISNER: No, you misunderstand. That's not at 18 he or may be substantially different from ours. And 18 all what I'm trying to say. And we will provide that 19 we'll focus on the regulatory criteria in 0350 for 19 information early to you.
20 restart. And, you know, you might have --
20 MR. IIEHL: You need those arrows, right, those 21 MR. IIEHu You have your own plan. This is your 21 arrows that communicate.
22 plan for going forward and fixing the problems that 22 MR. MEISNER: And to the extent that your plan may 23 exist both prior to restart and post restart. Okay?
23 differ from ours in a way we wouldn't anticipate, tien 24 Our plan is different. Our plan is not - is not 24.that is also useful informadon. And we need to know 25 telling you or blessing what you've put down as far as a 25 that so that we can give you advance notice in that area TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Ramsdell Page 41 - Page 44
- MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 45 Page 47 1 as well, I barriers in there to make sure those processes are 2
MR. HEHL: We will-as I mentioned when we 2 working. We're tracking them,like Mike said, using two 3 started, we havejust really begun to dig into your plan 3 main mechanisms to track them, liardware will be tracked 4 in detail. And as e do that and identify areas that we 4 by work orders and our software im by a leaming 5 have mewrns with or arcas that we think - n'll give 5 bank.
6 you comments - you know, we'll give you comments and 6
MR. CONTE: Can we hold right there?
7 things on it, in those - you know, crriainly you'll be 7
MR. KElRIR. Okay.
8 aware of them.
8 MR. CONIE: Can you give us a sense,in terms of 9
MR. MEISNER: Good, apprttiate it.
9 the work orders and the k'aming bank items, what level 10 MR. KELTIER: Okay, I'd just like to point out 10 - if those items are labeled for restart, what level iI again we're going to give you our evaluation of extent i1 of independent review will tley receive, if any, for 12 of condition, as required by the CAL Also, as we 12 closure?
13 committed tiem to the restart plan, we will also give 13 MR. KELTIER_ On work orders, you know, like I said, 14 you our short-term plan on the seme time frame. 30 to 14 we'll be going through our normal work order closure.
15 60 days before we'll give you what we're going to do 15 And work order is -- probably the best way to look at 16 after restart so you can look at that, also.
16 that is to look at the work order flow chart. 'Ihis is 17 Identification and screening, again, I just want to 17 Attachment 4 of how we're going through our work 18 emphasize that we're going through the known issues as 18 orders Basically we're talking -- all of our work 19 described; and also we're screening all of our work 19 orders are taken through our operation integrated team.
20 orders, our leaming bank issues as a minimum. Also, 20 They're evaluated and see if we need to do it for 21 we're going out and looking for the unknown issues, 21 outage if it is, it goes into a bucket. Anything that 22 whether it be plant equipment, programs or people, 22 doesn't, they're required for outage screen against our 23 "Ihese are the significant restart issues; and we'll 23 criteria. If it meets the criteria, it goes into a 24 be going through those in detail, so I wasn't going to 24 bucket. Our hardware committee looks at that, and they 25 30 through those right now.
25 agree or disagree with that; and they can add things to Page 46 Page 48 1
I did want to talk a litt!c bit about the 1 it at their discretion. So it's got two-level review 2 semening, the safety screening. What we're trying to 2 here.
3 accomplish here is look at anything that can affect 3
'Ihen it comes down to the work order owner. Again, 4 nuclear safety and make that a restart. We'm looking 4 he looks at that schedule, completes the work; and he 5 at, you know, anything that has repetitively caused 5 might see other things as he's out tlere. And again, he 6 equipment failures of our safety systems or components, 6 can bring that back and say this is a restart issue or a 7 look C3 anything that can, you know, potentially or 7 nonrestart issue, go back thniagh orrr, hardware 8 realistically cause a plant transient, power reduction 8 committee and add or subtract. So there is a review 9 or shutdown,looking at our design basis, anything there 9 within here.
10 that could cause one of our safety systems to be an 10
'Ihen it goes to the system owner. If it's a safety 11 inoperable component. Also, looking at our non-tech 11 system,it goes to the system owner. lie reviews it.
12 spec but important to safety equipment, making sure 12 'Ihis is a third level to make sure that whatever has 13 that's adequate, and also any potential injury or 13 been undone up here that that work is done and meets his 14 overexposure as our screening for safety.
14 standards. So he looks at that.
15 in addition to that, we're looking at regulatory 15 The system owner then takes it, conducts his final 16 requuements, what would cause a noncompliance with the 16 system assessment. Tic final system assessment goes 17 regulations, whether it be EQ Appliance R, et cetera; 17 through the restart steering committee. As you see 18 rw-wpliance with operating license, or failure to 18 here, there are several barriers along the way to make 19 satisfy our tech specs or effluent that would excced our 19 sure that a work order, one, is screened for the 20 regulatorylimit.
20 restart, and two, even after tie work is done and it's 21 Work completion, like I said, we're not trying to 21 got pretty well of a review besides its normal -- it has 22 invent something new. We're trying to beef up the 22 its normal review by the owner and his management team.
23 existing processes that we use normally, whether it be a 23 'lhen it goes through the system owner and the hardware i
24 work order, learning bank, design changes. And we're 24 committcc. So there am several barriers added in 25 just giving an extra level of review, an extra few 25 tlere.
' Page 45 - Page 48 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Condensclt!" MAINE YANKEU ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 49 Page 51 1
MR. DORMAN: Does tie restart steering committee I we feel everything is ready to go, we'll bring back our 2 ever get that?
2 plant system readiness assessments and go through the 3
MR. KEUTER. Not in total. What we'll do is the 3 applicable steermg committee. For tie plant system, 4 restart steering committee come back and look at the 21 4 we'll go through de hardware committee, then to the 5 safety systems. They'll have a presentation, but 5 stecrmg committee. Ifit's a program assessment, we'll 6 they're not going to go through every single item. They 6 go to the hardware committee, then to the steering 7 are going to look at it in genxal 7 committee. If it's a departnrnt assessment, we'll go to 8
Also, what you see down here is a review of the 8 the non-hardware committee and then tie steering 9 stuff that didn't make it on the list. So they're not 9 committee. And then we'll have an integrated assessment 19 only reviewing the stuff or the things that were done.
10 that is going to go and be managed by the steering 11 hey're looking at the stuff that wasn't done as part of 11 committee.
12 their assessment.
12 And tley're going to be looking not only at the 13 So the steering committcc isn't going to review 13 things above. They're going to have a licensing 14 every work order. Rat's why we have the 14 affirmation that we've done all the licensing required 15 subcommittxs.
!$ things. Bey're going to have a quality affirmation, a 16 MR. CObrm: I notice on the block here, and maybe 16 quality assuranx program that our department feels are 17 it's a figmentation of being brief, does that mean that 17 ready. They're also going to be doing a management 18 the hardware committx is only looking at the system 18 assessment to make sure the management is ready. So 19 assessment which may be a compendium of work orders; or 19 there are several reviews at the end that we're going to 20 are they looking at individual work orders?
20 be going through.
31 MR. KEUTER: What they do is the system owner,le's 21 in addition to that, we're going to be what is the 32 going to maintain a notebook. And we line up the 22 current performanx? We're going to be -- have several 23 expxtations in that notebook. And that notebook is 23 -- four milestones that we go through; and we're going 24 going to have the work that was done and the work that 24 to be looking at the performance of people, m=yment, 25 wasn't done. And he's going to take that notebook and 25 equipment. And we're going to be looking at that before Page 50 Page 52 1 review it with the steering committee. And the stxring I we heat up. We're going to be looking at it again 2 committee is going to have that list, and they're going 2 before we start up or after startup. We're going to 3 to look through. And they'll have an opportunity to 3 have a hold at 30 percent. We're going to be looking at 4 question the owner or anybody else on the committee, you 4 systems, doing systems walkdowns, make sure the 5 know, why isn't this done, what did you do about this?
5 equipment is operating and the people are up to 6
So are they gomg to look and physically take every 6 standards, maintenanx, et cetera. And again when we 7 work order and look at the work order or the work order 7 get to 90 percent we're going to stop and assess it 8 package? No. What they're going to do is they're going 8 again.
9 to have a listing that they'll go through. And it's all 9
His is very similar to the program that we went to going to be documented in the system notebook.
10 through after our steam generator failure. So it's 11 MR. DORMAN: But they are screening the ones that 1I something we've done before.
12 are determined to be non-outage work.
12 MR. YEROKUN: If you go back to slide -- I think 13 MR. KllTTER: Yes. Bey're looking at the 13 it's 9, the one of the Restart Readiness Assessments, 14 non-outage and that.
14 when you talk about plant system readiness assessments, 15 MR. DORMAN. Italfway down the page the hardware 15 do you have to have the system enginer+ing in place 16 commince is looking at the non-outage?
16 before you do that?
17 MR. KELTTER: Correct. De rounded boxes is 17 MR. KEUTER: We may not have tle permanent system 18 documentation, and the square boxes are the actions. So 18 engineer. We will have a system engineer in place. We 19 -- and there's similar -- in your attachments there's a 19 are in the process of hiring system enginxrs. That's 20 similar review proxss for not only work orders but 20 why we call them system owners. But there will be 31 learning bank, department assessment, system 21 somebody responsible for that system. It may not be the 22 assessment. %ey have multiple barriers in there to 22 guy that we end up permanently. I know there is a lot 23 make sure we hwe atkx;uate review.
23 of very good startup engineers out there that know a lot 24 Any other questions?
24 about systems. But this is the system review process 25 Restart readiness assessments, once we get ready, 25 that we go through. And wlen you look at both the TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 49 - Page 52
i MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Csndensclt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 53 Page 55 I system reriews, the department reviews and de program I in tic lists?
3 reviews is in two steps. Tic first part of it is to -
2 MR. KELTTER: Where we are right now is we're 3 to look at tle system, identify existing problems, come 3 gathering this information right here, we're putting 4 out with 'vork orders, leaming bank, proposed rnods, 4 them into the notebooks and we're staffing. And we're 5%!d g actions, et cetera, and assessing, you know, 5 hoping to have - or kick off the system walkdown 6 what is tratart, nonrestart, then doing a detailed 6 starting about mid April.
7 walkdow s of the system, then coming back to the hardwam 7
Is that about right, Paul?
I 8 commitue saying this is what I feel my system is and 8
This is probably going to be one of our limiting 9 tiese are the things I need to do for restart. "Ih n it 9 factors just because we haven't - we don't have system to comes down to de task owner completing any restart 10 engineers in place. And we're going to supplement it il actions. _Again, there is a big loop if there are things 11 with, you know, some operations people to operate.
la that fa!! Out that we want to add in or subtract out.
12 We'll take tic notebooks. We're going to get them on 13 The s ystem owner then completes a more detailed 13 shift. Operations are going to help feed into that 14 assessme nt, and this is where we're looking for the 14 assessment. But we're m,t taking credit for it right 15 unknown issues. IIere are the existing issues. Now 15 now.
16 w're gcing out and trying to find what don't we know 16 MR. IIEllL: You mentioned you're going to discuss 17 that may be we should add in. And if = have a design 17 schedules a little bit later on, and I guess maybe we'll 18 basis su nmary document, our procedures, testing 18 get into that at this point in time.
19 requiren ents, vendor information, PSAR.he's going to be 19 MR. KEITTER: We're going to discuss scledules for 20 looking at this information to make sme tiese all mesh 20 tic appendices?
21 together 21 MR. IIElIL: Right.
33 So h: is going to be doing that assessment. Then 22 Any other requests on startup and power ascension?
23 he's going to be doing a final walkdown before we start 23 Oversight, tie oversight is our line management; 24 up. Agnin, he's going to bring it back to the hardware 24 and our restart organization is our primary oversight.
35 committee. And den, you know, he's going 25 To back that up we have our plant operating review l
Page 54 Page 56
)
I to -- cs w go up in power, he's going to be walking I committee in place and reviewing what we're doing. We 3 down the system and monitoring Oc system.
2 have our quality programs department. They have l
3 Now, this is for the 21 safety systems. We're not 3 individual representation on tle stcering committee, on 4 going to be doing this for all, you know, systems at 4 both subcommittees independently looking at what each of 5 this point. We will le doing it eventually but not at 5 those committees are doing in addition to what their 6 this point.
6 normal assessments are doing. And then we have our 7
MR. IIEltu What kind of criteria - are you going 7 Nuclear Safety Audit Review Committa: that's looking at j
8 to use your Attachment 3, restart work criteria, for 8 what we're doing independent.
f 9 tiem to review tie systems in? Is that the idea?
9 MR. DORM AN: Dan, back in the barriers graph you 10 MR. KElfTER: Well, lley'll be using - for 10 talked about significant weaknesses in the lack of
!! determining whether it's a restart or a non-restart, 11 ownership accountability, questioning attitude and line la they'll be using that criteria. But we're going to have 12 management, nonintrusive QA program As you're -- as 13 a checklist for doing tie walkdowns. We have a 13 you're changing the culture and correcting those issues, 14 checklist of what dry have to review and do for their 14 could you speak to what vM you're getting out of this IS systems. It goes into a lot more detail than just tic 15 oversight?
16 criteria. The only thing the criteria does is determine 16 MR. KELTTER: Can you say that again? I'm --
17 what is restart and not restart. We'll have checklists 17 MR. DORMAN: Well, you're -- I assume you're in the 18 fc7 walkdowns. We'll have checklists for doing the 18 process of trying to make changes to de culture and 19 assessments. Again, tley'll have a system notebook; and 19 improve the ownership accountability, questioning 30 they'll be docunenting their assessment in that 20 attitude and the line managenent and improve the 31 notebook. They'll be bringing that notebook to the 21 intrusiveness in the QA pmgrams. But in the meantime, 33 committees.
22 these are your -- some of your oversight barriers in 23 MR. IIEHu llave those walkdowns started as yet?
23 this -- in this process. Ilow are you cluking the 34 MR. KELTTER: No, they haven't.
24 quality of de oversight that you're getting in diis 35 MR. IIEllu So you're still developing the criteria 25 process 7 Page 53 - Page 56 Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell l
--s ---.----- ---
- ~ _.
RESTART READINES PLAN C=densclt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 57 Page 59 I
MR. KmrEm Like we say, you know, we - for 1
MR. ZWOLINSKI: Well, I think it helps, tic 2 example, quality pmerams has representatives on each of 2 embellishment thai you've given it, Mike. But yet there 3 de committees in add. tion to what their normal routines 3 is some fluidity in many of those programs, and I think 4 arc. And some of the veaknesses that you identified --
4 there will be fluidity for some years.
5 you know, we identified some weaknesses 'He colored 5
MR. MEISNER: And is it where we want it to be?
6 ones are - basically show the areas where we've, you 6 No, not by any means. But are we making incremental 7 know, changed out. We have new people coming in from 7 progress? Definitely.
8 de outside. And you know, we're not waiting on saying 8
MR. ZWOLINSKI: And I guess who is elecking tle 9 we're - you know, evenything is perfect. Some of those 9 cleckers is kind of like de bottom line. And I think 10 weaknesses we're already addressing with those red 10 l'm learing that it's senior management that's trying to 11 barriers.
Il take tle pulse of this, whether it's management within 12 MR. ZWOUNSK1: let me try it a little different 12 tle QA group or yourselves or - or departmental 13 way, Dan. I think it was in response to the ISAT 13 managers. That's where the back is going to stop.
14 enforcement. I believe it was the February 28th memo.
14 MR. KE1JTER: Well, I'm just going to - you know, 15 You all had identified that your quality programs 15 l'd like --
16 department hadn't been functioning very well. And now 16 MR. MEISNER: That's right.
l 17 you're using some of the quality programs department 17 MR. KEUTER: -I'd like to point out here that 18 folks apparently in some oversight roles.
18 one of the things that's different lere is de working 19 So I think that you told us at one time it was 19 level of the people are good. We have a -- the 20 not -- not functioning to your expectations. Itave 20 foundation. What is changing is tic expectation. And I 21 things changed, and is that group now performing at a 21 guess to be blunt, maybe the expectation wasn't finding 22 different level? In other wonis, have you made 22 problems. And that's why you see more red up tere and 23 changes?
23 not red down here. I think we've got basically good, 24 I know that - I do sce what you've said, Dan, that 24 very good people with good standards; and what we're 25 you've changed a manager; but to change all of tie folks 25 changing is tic expectation. We've changed tic Page 58 Page 60 1 to work at a different level seems like it's going to 1 expectation now to go out and find problems, not to 2 take more than just flipping de light switch on and 2 cover them up or not to find them. What is changed is 3 off.
3 tic expectation. What is changing is this up here.
4 MR. MEISNER: You're exactly right, and we can ask 4
MR. IIEIIL: Let's get to a specific. You have tie 5 George Zinke to address that if you'd like to. But 5 QPD programs that provide independent oversight. Have 6 the - we've made -- it's difficult, as you're pointing 6 you gone out and reassessed tle quality and activity of 7 out, to change a culture and a mindset. So part of --
7 QPD7 8 past of what we're doing is laying out the expectations 8
MR. KELJTER: Are we going out? Yes.
9 that we have of our quality assurance organization.
9 MR. IIEllL: Have you? You changed organizations.
10 Now, if you recall the enforcement conference we 10 You say you have confidence in tic -- in tie people 11 had a couple of weeks ago, we spent a fair bit of time 11 implementing it. And I guess tic question is have you 12 talking about these things like lack of a questioning 12 gone out and tested that to provide the level of 13 attitude, nonintrusive QA.and giving you some idea of 13 confidence?
14 the changes that we ma(k:. We can go into that in some 14 MR. KEllrER: As part of tie department's 15 detail now, but I guess I wanted to sumrr,arize by saying 15 assessment, we have to do that. Have we done it now?
16 that we're aware of those concems; and that's why we've 16 No.
17 started making those changes, so that in the oversight 17 MR. IIElIL: Tic problem that we see is you're 18 functions for like the quality assurance organization, 18 depending on that at this point in time to be one of 19 that we're going to get a quality product out of it.
19 tinse barriers that's sitting in on these other 20 Similarly in the - in the nuclear - the NsARC 20 committees who are also assessing things.
21 committte, the safety review committee, that group has 21 MR. KElJTER: But the fact that we have the 22 been largely reconstituted and I think in the last year 22 committee is - is -- you know, it's not one person 23 or so has a new chairman and really has 23 We've supplemented tic program. Go ahead.
24 a -- has a very intmsive and questioning attitude 24 MR. IIEllL: What we're doing is we're trying u pok 25 compared to tie way it was a year and a half ago.
25 holes in this thing to see where tie weaknesses are.
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 57 - Page 60
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condensclt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 61 Page 63 1 And so -
I we find an issue, to now what extent do w have to 2
MR.zrNKE. Um not sure I can ansur all of your 2 relook at things w've already looked at?
3 questions. I'm George Zinke, manager of quality 3
And that - and that's the same thing. Since 4 puy.s. And certainly it is a valid question that we 4 quality assurance and quality inspection samples, 5 have to answer because, you know, my function did not 5 anytime I find a thing, knowmg that I'm not looking at 6 find certain things. And so we've done, you know, a lot 6 100 percent of everything, I have to assess and say, 7 of root cause and some short-term corrective actions to 7 w!!, now what extra do I have to look at? What work 8 make sure that the reasons for us not identifying would 8 may have to be redone in order to give myself assuranw 9 not prevent us from providing good oversight during this 9 again? So that's a natural part of the process.
i 10 period.
10 MR. IIElfL: See, the interest we have is because i1 We think we have done that. Completely? Not yet i1 we're almost one level removed in that proxss, we 13 So there's still some -- some things that we're doing, 12 depend very heavily on you being able to identify your 13 came checking adjustment. We have not donc like what I 13 problems because we also run a sampling of your 14 would say an independent assessment of how much we have 14 sampling. So that's - that's certainly the reason for 15 improved. I mean, I have seen evidence that we are 15 our interest.
16 providing a different kind of an oversight in the sense 16 MR. LETTCll: Bill, there is one level that's not 17 that - that t!c things that I looked at of what was 17 really described here; and that is there is a Nuclear 18 donc like over the last year was not - the reasons for 18 Committee of the Board. Reporting to the Nuclear 19 not finding things were not because the people, you 19 Committx of the Board is the Nuclear Oversight 20 know, were not qualified or were not capab!c of finding 20 Committx. Dere's a group of nationally known industry 21 that Some of it had to do with -- with r, election of 21 experts And they -- they are not in this chain of 22 what to look at. And that was -- that's something very 22 conunand. %ey report directly to the Nuclear Committee 23 casy to fix, particularly during this -- the time period 23 of the Board of Directors. And the Nuclear Committee of 24 for restart. It's not that hard to now pick things that 24 the Board of Dircctors has specifically charged that 25 are important to look at. And it's easy to pick to what 25 group, that is that Nuclear Oversight Committx, with Page 62 Page 64 1 level of depth you will look at things. So those are I assessing and reviewing this independent oversight 2 casy fixes to do.
2 function at all levels, that is QPD and the NSARC and --
3 We will be during this process assessing the 3 and independent oversight as it exists at all levels.
4 quality of oversight to make sure, wil, are we 4
MR. IIEllL: Is that ongoing, or is that scheduled 5 deceiving ourselves again?
5 for some point in time when they're going to do their 6
MR. IIEllL: Is there a feedback mechanism or 6 review?
7 something that if you find difficulties in an area you 7
MR. LETIEll: Yes. I think their next meeting is e will then be able to go back and reasess de work that 8 later this month. %ey have meetings periodically and 9 was done on an individual basis or whatever feedback you 9 during this period of time at an increased frequency.
10 have? In other words, at some point in time, you're 10 MR. YEROKUN: Just a question on that, Graham Is 11 going to reassess the quality of activities in the QPD 11 that Nuclear Oversight Committee attached in any way to la department.
12 the Restart Readiness Plan? Do they have any input to 13 MR. ZINKE: Yes.
13 the restart readiness as far as milestones, or is this 14 MR. Imitt.: I guess tic question is is that point 14 just the existing NOC that's overseeing plant 15 the point that you're tien going to go back and if you 15 activities?
1 16 find difficulties re-reiew work done by that group?
16 MR. LETIEll: Yes. We have discussed that issue 17 MR. ZINKE: Well, Ict me give you a specific 17 with the Nuclear Oversight Committee. 'Dey are 18 example. One of the activities we're doing right now 18 formulating at the moment how they and to what degree 19 relative to restart is the cable separation project, and 19 they want to be involved with the - with the restart 20 C) we have a level of oversight in that. And we're 20 plan. As I say, they report directly to tie - to tie al carefully monitoring, wil, what kinds of things are we 21 board of directors. I believe their involvement will bc 22 finding? And we are finding some things. And - and 22 fairly intense and perhaps somewhat similar to the NSARC 23 tley - some are of a nature that then we go back to the 23 committee. I also believe that they may have a 24 work group and say now we're going to have to go redo 24 particular interest in some of the cultural aspects in 25 some of what we just did. So we are assessing that as 25 additmn to the twhnical aspects.
Page 61 - Page 64 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & RamsdcIl
RESTART READINES PLAN Condenselt!* MAINE YANKEE A'IOMIC POWER CO.
Page 65 Page 67 1
Dut at the moment tleir plan for reviewing tie I out of tic confirmatory action letter and other areas 2 restart has not been entirely formulated, but it is 2 that we've expanded into.
3 under consideration by that group at the moment.
3 De first one is logic circuit testing. 'Ihe 4
MR. KELTrER But we have removed the - reviewed 4 problem here is several of the logic circuits were not 5 the restart plan with them; and originally we did have 5 adequately tested per Generic letter 96-01. And we've 6 them on here. We took them off because they're totally 6 gone through that; and the root cause of this, as we've 7 separate from what we're doing. We didn't want to feel 7 determined, is the design basis function of components 8 like we wcsc spelling out what they were going to do.
8 were not clearly defined. And we're going through and 9 We wanted them totally separate.
9 beefing that up. Test procedures required west not to MR. IIEllL: Are you - this is helpful because it 10 clearly defined. Carmet resources were not used to 11 answers one of the big holes that I had a question in.
11 develop test promdures; poor program ownenship, 12 That is what is the role and responsibility because 12 manarrent policy was to limit testing and ineffective 13 you've got about a sentence here in the plan for their 13 self-assessments. Now, these last four causes are going 14 oversight. And I guess are you going to plan to 14 to be addressed in our developing our test improvement 15 supplement this plan then, you know,in letters to us or 15 program 16 something? Is that - is that -- what are your plans
- 16 So what we're doing about this in the schedule for 17 for keeping us abreast and modifying this document?
17 this, the initial evaluation has been completed. We've 18 MR MElsNER: I think we'll be happy to expand in 18 identified 102 discrepancies. We issued the LER. We've i
19 any areas that aren't clear if you'd like us to, if i 19 conducted independent review of our evaluation. We'll 20 understood right.
20 have a final report that we're going to submit or have 21 MR. HElit.: WJ1, v.ae had talked earlier that as you 21 ready on mid April. We're developing temporary 22 come across additional - additional findings that 22 proxdures to make sme we test the 102 circuits. We've 23 require additional supplements that you communicate that 23 developed disposition identified issues, evaluated root 24 information to us.
24 cause recommendations and performed independent review 25 MR. MElsNER: Yes.
25 and performed the testing.
Page 66 Page 68 i
MR. !!ElIL: And I guess I would ask that maybe as i
So far tie testing of de 102, we've completed 70.
2 you -- as you fill in tic blanks or round out tle role 2 We have 18 that are ready to go,just waiting for plant 3 of how or whetter dcy round out tleir role, since 3 status to complete them. And 14 we're writing the 4 ticy're an independent group, that you would keep us 4 procedures for. So that will be done before startup, 5 informed of that and maybe supplement this document 1 5 and we're well on the way on that.
6 think might be tie appropriate way to do it.
6 Ben after startup -- we're using mostly temporary 7
MR. MEISNER: Yes. We can do that.
7 procedures right now. But after startup we're going to
)
8 MR. IIEllL: Okay.
8 incorporate those into permanent procedures, also going
]
9 MR. IIElIL: Go alead.
9 to develop a test improvement program by tle end of tic 10 MR. KEUTER: Okay?
10 year, and then complete any post restart actions as 11 MR. RULAND: Thank you.
Il scleduled in our root cause analysis.
12 MR. KEUTER: Well, we covered tie first half-hour.
12 So this kind of gives you a summary level of wlere 13 MR IIEllL: We're getting a lot of our answers done 13 we are. We're well on tic way, and a lot of this 14 as we go along.
14 testing has already been completed.
15 MR. KELTTER: The attachments really have a lot of 15 MR. IIElIL: I guess, let me just to clear - get 16 tic detail. It goes through tic flow charts for how we 16 clear in my own mind, because this kind of forms a 17 do tle work orders, the learning bank, tic plant system 17 pattern of what you're doing in a lot of areas,I 18 review, tie program review, tic clecklist we're using 18 think. And that is you're - you're fixing tic problem 19 for licensing affirmation, our QA affirmation. A lot of 19 that exists but recognizing that you've got some 20 tic details is in tic different attachments, and 1 20 infrastructure issues tlere that have to also be 21 wasn't planning on going into that kind of detail today.
21 addressed. And you're not -- you're going to fix what j
22 But what I did want to go into is what our 22 you can of those to support the adequate testing in this 23 different appendices are and talk about those a little 23 case, adequate accomplishment of the activity. But the 24 bit because this is really where tic meat of tle issues 24 infrastructure fixes won't occur untillike Phase 2 and 25 are. Tlcsc are tle things - tic specific issues coming 25 Phase 3, which -- in a lot of areas, right? Is that TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 65 - Page 68
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condensclt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 69 Page 71 1 going to be -
I completely done.
2 MR. KEUTER: Some of them are going to be fixed -
2 MR. KEtmR: Well, for example, there's 18 that 3 sone of them are going to be before restart. A lot of 3 we're waiting for plant conditions. I mean, some of 4 them are going to be in Phase 2. Maybe some of them 4 this testing will be done as we're going up.
5 will be in Phase 3. And you can tell, for example, 5
MR.RULAND 1 understand 6 develop a - this ore lere is development of test 6
MR. KarrER: But I think we've got, you know,70 7 improvement program. That's notjust for circuit 7 pervent of them done now. That's going to give you a 8 testing. 'Ihat's for all testing. So we looked at the 8 pretty good indication of how we're handling it.
9 extent of condition, said we need to improve our testing 9
M R.IIEIIL: You know, the reason we're pushing hard 10 program beyond just logic circuit testing; and that's 10 on this is not - you know, there's really two things.
11 going into Phase 2. But we're intending by these 11 One, w're -- we're committing resources - you know, we 12 actions here to go beyondjust circuit testing.
12 have txrn committing resources to - to look at ongoing 13 And as you can see, when we get into - I think in 13 activities. We've had certainly resident inspectors.
14 Appendix G, based on logic circuit testing, we've looked 14 71ry've been augmented by regional inspectors. We've 15 at a bigger picture and developed anotler whole 15 had those augmented by contract folks and things. A lot 16 appendice where we're looking at tech spec testing, 16 of resou.ces have gone into it so far; and - and that's 17 we're looking at IST and post maintenance testing. And 17 going to continue.
18 that's a good example of wlere we expand beyond just 18 But certainly it -- in our mind, it's a -- it's a 19 this issue. So, yes, we are looking beyondjust this 19 measure of your performance as a management team to come 20 issue.
20 forward with a package that is complete; you've reviewed 21 MR. CONTE: Excuse me, Dan. To follow up on our 21 it; it's gone through your process. And at that point, 22 previous questioning in terms of tic work orders, tic 22 you know, then we will - in addition to the work in 23 learning process and what's a restart issue, how would 23 progress looks that we'll see, you know, we're going to 24 tie inspectors identify in this Appendix A package what 24 want to take an indepth look into a lot of these 23 are tic specific items that are going to get done for 25 things.
Page 70 Page 72 1 restart?
I And I guess the point being is we don't 2
MR. KEUTER: Anything before July 15th.
2 want -- we don't want - you don't want for us to 3
MR. CONTE: And what would be a good time for tic 3 identify things that you haven't identified because 4 inspectors - wlen would you consider this package a 4 it - you know, it certainly raises questions with 5 final package for review with some exceptions to do's 5 regard to the robustness of your process. So we would 6 and left to do's from tle NRC - what would be a good 6 just caution you to be ready wien you bring these things 7 time for tle NRc to come in and look at this appendix, 7 in, not only from the resource expenditure as far as us 8 forcxample?
8 reviewing something that's not ready for closure. There 9
MR. KEUTER: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wlen wt 9 is also a reflection on the process that has to be 10 get our final evaluation report, at that point I think 10 considered. So I guess that's pan of tie thrust.
11 would be a good time to come in.
1I MR. MEISNER: Okay. We understand.
12 I've got my brains over here so - but that would 12 MR. KEUTER: Tic next issue is cable separations.
13 be o good time. I would say between -- right around the 13 Discrepancies were found in tic cable separation 14 ist of May we should be ready.
14 configurations. A program was initiated to identify and 15 MR. CONTE: Thank you.
15 evaluate and resolve discrepancies for cables important 16 MR. RULAND: You know, tic -
16 to safety. Our root cause here was inadequate labeling, 17 MR. IIEHL: Recognize that some of this stuff we've 17 drawing errors, unclear cable separation criteria, and
)
18 aheady looked at as we go along. We have inspection.
18 inadequate training of tic technical staff on cable 19 MR. RULAND: The problem with that I think is 19 separation.
20 you're basically suggesting we come in before you've 20 Our ccrrxtive action summary is we've complet;d 21 dispositioned tic identified issues.
21 our - rearticulated our cable separation requirements 22 MR. KEUTER: Like I'm saying --
22 on both licensing bases, design bases and implementing 23 MR. RULAND. And it causes - I understand what 23 criteria. We're in tic process of our verification 24 you'st saying. I'mjust saying that it causes us to 24 inspections and assessments. We're about 90 percent 25 have to dedicate some itsources before you att really 25 complete through that.
Page 69 - Page 72 TIIB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Rarnsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Condenacit!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 73 Page 75 1
h first phase which is tie sleeves, ducts and I stepped into tic classroom and had all hands training 2 conduits, we'ac compleic with that assessnent.
2 session on exactly what it meant. 'Ihat also extended 3
Phase 2, which was onginally cable trays, we are 3 through lessons learned through the inspection process.
4 98 percent through that. We've expanded that into 4 As we learned that our promdures weren't as good as 5 Appendtx R, alternate shutdown and separation. We have 5 they ought to be, confusion arose. We had to modify 6 just started on that. Again,it's an area that we've 6 them before we executed the promdure changes, and we 7 expanded into, so wejust started that. So that total 7 stepped back into training the craft and the s is - we have 33 packages out of over 500 that we have 8 inspectors, 9 left to do of Phase 2. Our main control boards, we're 9
MR. CONTE: Was the quantity inspection department to about 50 percent through that and hope it will be done 10 or quantity performanx department involved in that I
11 by tie end of May.
1I training?
12 The evaluation of the inspections, we're about 70 12 MR. NICHOLs: Yes, they were. In fact, through the 13 perwnt through that. We're planning on submitting a 13 carly stages of inspection, first phase we actually 14 report to the NRC around June 1st. And after that point 14 cicated two teams. One was an enginecrmg based team to 15 we'll be ready for you to come in and look at it.
15 do inspections. 'Ihat was Phase 1. And a separate 16 Resolution of all the di.warcies is in 16 independent team was made up of quality programs 17 progress. We're going to correct or accept as is.
17 individuals. We gave tlem identical packages to go out 18 Other work efforts, and this goes into, you know, 18 and inspect, and that's how we obtained a second 19 beyond just the specific issues, is, you know, fixing 19 verification of the information gathered from the field 20 tic labeling, hazards evaluation, closcout of field work 20 as we compared the two packages. We modified that 31 except for design changes, engineering training, work 21 slightly for tie saand phase, but quality programs was I
32 control process improvement. And then again after 22 indeed included in inspection in Phase 2.
33 startup, we'll have some things that we want to clean up 23 MR. CONTE: 'lhank you.
24 after startup; and they will be scheduled in our plan.
24 MR. KEITTER. Thank you, Steve.
33 MR. CONE: let me pursue lle angle here of the 25 The next issue, Appendix C, we discovered a Page 74 Page 76 1 need for an immediate culture change, if you will, I situation when our offsite power supplied from 115 KV 2 versus a long-term culture change. For example, tic 2 Section 69, tie voltage will not recover quickly enough 3 root cause in this area was inadequate training. And 1 3 after a plant trip wlen it's the only supply to offsite 4 couldn't Irlp noticing, and maybe it's an oversight, but 4 power after a plant trip and safety inspection prevent 5 in your appendix there is a strong commitment to 5 load sled diesel to generate auto start. The low 6 proceduralize tic Phases 1,2, and 3 of tie actual work 6 voltage condition was caused by tic auto start of a 7 and assessment of conditions on tle cable separation.
7 motor driven main feed pump.
8 Tiere is no mention of training of people using those 8
'De cause lere was we didn't have - at tie time 9 procedures. Was that done or was thatjust an oversight 9 that this calculation went through, we did not have an 10 in tic plan?
10 interdisciplinary review of calculations for tle voltage 11 MR NICllOLS: Yes, it was. It wasn't mentioned in 11 study. And we found --in this situation what we found 12 the plan, but indeed it was.
12 is that tle assumed condition, which was a - a transfer 13 MR. CONTE: Could you come to tle mike and identify 13 of two running pumps, wasn't tic limiting case. The 14 yourself, please?
14 actual start of the motor driven main feed pump was tic 15 MR. KEUTER: Tlc question as I read it is did we 15 limiting case, was more limiting; and that's what we 16 train people before we sent ticm out on tic new 16 discovered lere.
17 criteria. And that's basically on step 1, you know, did 17 Tic corrective action, we've implemented an 18 we train tic people on that new -- up lere?
18 electrical calculation design review committee.
4 19 MR. NICllOLS: Yes. First my name is Steve 19 Actually, this has been done several years ago due to a 20 Nichols. I'm tic manager of configuration management. 20 previous problem. We submitted a tech spec change.
21 For tic purposes of cable separation, I'm also leading 21 That's been completed. We're modifying tie auto block 22 up tic engineering activities on that project.
22 to block tic auto-start or and/or trip the motor driven 23 Yes, it was not mentioned in tic appendix that went 23 feed pumps. To prevent this condition, we've 24 in with tic restart plan; but indeed, as we created 24 implemented tic tech spec when we receive it, and we'll 25 inspection procedures, inspection guidance, we t!cn 25 revise tic voltage study before restart. Long-term, THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 73 - Page 76
~
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 77 Page 79 1 we'll evaluate the need for additional long-term actions I several issues here that we've identified. Back in mid 2 to improve offsite power availability.
2 '95 we kicked off a 4. wing team to look at our 3
Any questions?
3 corrective action program We had several programs.
4 D, which wasn't really part of tie confirmatory 4 'Ihey came back with the corrective actions to address 5 action letter, we've gone through an extensive steam 5 all the weaknesses The cross-functional team has been 6 generator inspection on both the primary and secondary 6 completed. We actually started implementing our new 7 side not only to meet regulatory ra[uirements but to 7 learning process the 1st of January. "Ihese are the 8 verify the conditjon of our steam generators We 8 things that it actually goes through to solve a lot of 9 really - we didn't do a root cause. It wasn't an 9 our corrective action program issues. It's up in place 10 issue. If it was a major issue, we'd have it on our 10 and working. We have several - as a - in any process, 11 plate for restart. So we made un appendice out of it.
11 we have several glitches that we have to get throuG,
h la This is kind of a summary of the inspection we're 12 some of those that we're going to complete in the 13 doing. We're doing 100 percent bobbin. Items 2 through 13 future.
l 14 8 are basically we're doing a plus point. We started 14 So we've implemented a new program at the first of i
15 that inspection today. We started pushing probes this 15 the year. 'Ihings that we've done after the first of the 16 morning. It will take about two months to get through 16 year, we weren't fully staffed when we started So 17 this process, and we'll keep you informed of where we 17 we've gone through and staffed up. We've had a third 18 are. 'Ihere's not much more we can say about it right 18 party review of our design, our corrective action 19 now.
19 design. We've had several things that we wanted to 20 Fuel failures, I guess this is a good example of 20 implement in our corrective action program to support 31 what I consider a new culture. Even though it wasn't 21 restart One of the things is to put in a field so that j
33 required, we went in and inspected our - our fuel. We 22 we can identify restart issues which is being -- is J
23 Imd fuel !cakers We found nine assemblics that were 23 completed; and we're testmg it this week. We also want 20 leaking. That included 76 leaking rods in those nine 24 to sort by department so we can get -- feed this 35 assemblies. We also inspected the nonicaking rods. We 25 learning bank into our department assessments. Also, we Page 78 Page 80 i found significant wear in those rods, and based on that I went through our engineering reorganization. So we have 3 we made a decision even shough it wasn't required to 2 to reassign all of the people into - so we can do it 3 replace all 68 Westinghouse fuel assemblics.
3 sort of by departnent.
4 The root cause lere was rod fretting. 'Ihat was due 4
'Ihere are several things that carry on in tic 5 to inadequate Westinghouse design. And contributing to 5 future past this. We're going to have a monitoring plan 6 that is we implemented this unproven Westinghouse design 6 to see how we're doing. We're going to respond to the 7 without a - you know, a pilot assembly or a proven 7 reviews. Actually we have a lot of old corrective 8 design soneplace else.
8 action program issues that are going to fced into tie 9
Our cornetive actions, basically there we're 9 learning bank. We want to make sure that we've reviewed 10 seplacing all the assemblics. We have implemented the 10 a!! of those previous corrective action programs against 1i raguirement to complete the lead assembly requirement 1I our criteria and incorporate those into the new leaming la lefore we implement a new design change - new fuel 12 bank process, and we're in the pnxrss of doing that.
13 design. We're basically going to proceed with rcracking 13 Complete our restart review, and we're well along in i
14 the fuel pool. We're going to offload the fuel by 14 tint. And then after restart, do an independent 15 February 7th. We're going to have fabricating fuel, 15 evaluation upgrading software issues at that point and 16 should be delivered around mid-June. And then we'll 16 incorporate IIR project data collection into the 17 reload the - the fuel. So that's in your handout.
17 process.
18 MR. CONTE: Excuse me, Dan. I just happened to 18 So this is a major, major undertaking. It's 19 notice that the conective action slide is a little 19 bearing fruit. We've lowered tie threshold. We have a 20 further ahead. We'll reorder it when we put this on the 20 lot of things coming in that we're in the pmcess.
21 docket.
21 Quite honestly right now though, our backlog and 23 MR. KEtHER: Okay.
22 learning process is growing; and we've got to get our 33 Appendix F, corrective action pmgram. Our 23 hands around it. But definitely all of the issues we're 24 conective action program - we've identified several 24 going to screen for restart.
25 problems with our corrective action progrant There are 25 MR. HElII.: Including the old ones?
Page 77 - Page 80 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart lingopian & Rarnsdell
---=_
l l
RESTART READINES PLAN GEndenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 81 Page 83 1
MR. KELTTER: Including tle old ones.
1 As indicated, one of tic things we're picking up 2
MR. IIDib Because (le dates here, it looks like 2 from our monitoring is the fact that some of our 3 you have the old ones. Are you going to start the 3 intermediate proo:sses need to be looked at closer 4 reviews on the 30th?
4 because we're not getting everything through fast enough 5
MR. KELTER: No. Riis will be done by tie 30th.
5 because of the large bulk of things that were dumped on 6 Actually, a lot of our reviews have already been done.
6 us all at once. Right now, for example, since January 6 7
MR. IIElIU Arc all of the old items coming from the 7 we now have in the learning bank 1,838 items. I went to 8 other various corrective action systems, all will be 8 a meeting earlier. I went in at 1,808, came out of tic 9 part of the restart screening criteria?
9 meeting with 1,838. So it's going quite quickly. Tic 10 MR. KElffER: Corr':ct, and we even have a slide for 10 items are being identified and put in.
1I that.
Ii MR. IIElIL: Iguess along those lines - I guess la MR. CONTE: What's a little surprising is the 12 along thosC lines, becauSe you are getting substantial 13 independent implementation review af ter restart,930.
13 input into this system, which is -- is good; but on tic 14 Is tlere some element of that independent implementation 14 otler hand, it certainly puts the -- tie burden of 15 before restart to assure effectiveness?
15 adequate evaluation of a large number of items. And I 16 MR. KELTTER: Tic question is we're doing the 16 guess tle question is, you know, what are you doing to 17 independent implementation review after restart, and 17 stay alcad of tle tidal wave?
18 what's the purpose behind that? Are we doing anything 18 MR. MEISNER: Well,I'm not sure we're alcad of tle f
19 tidal wave. What we're doing is trying to catch up to 19 to --
20 MR. CONTE: please identify yourself.
20 tie tidal wave right now. And in fact, we just met al MR. SilEAN: The name is Arthur Shean. I'm the 21 carlier today to identify the traditional resources we 22 learning processes manager. Interestingly enough, very 22 need to start closing out items as quickly as we're 23 shortly after we went live, we had actually four 23 generating tlem. We're doing a good job, that chart Dan 24 different assessments being made of the design in tic 24 put up on identifying new issues and driving tic 25 carly implementation of the leaming process. Those are 25 threshold down. It is a resource issue for us to close Page 82 Page 84 I tie ones we talked about in No. 3, third party design I those items in tic same way. And that's something that 2 evaluation. We had a noted individual with national rep 2 we're going to have to get our hands around in tic very 3 come in and take a look at tie design, Bill Cochoran.
3 short future.
4 We also had an organization that does a lot of root 4
MR. IIEllL: Are you doing any challenging, I guess, 5 cause activity come in. 'Ihey're doing a root cause 5 of tic system to make sure that -- that because you do 6 evaluation. And they took a look at our system to see 6 have a large number and you're not being able to close 7 if it would have been -- had the capability of solving 7 tlem out as quickly as you would like, that that doesn't 8 tie problem or identifying tic problem of an earlier 8 send a negative message to your folks as far as your 9 event, if it was in place.
9 intent to complete items?
10 We've also had the NRC cone in and do a 4500 audit, 10 MR. MEISNER: That's a real good question. We iI and we're going to Fet some feedback from that. And our 11 continue to have dialogue with people. And wlen you 12 quality programs department has done an extensive 12 lower a threshold in the system like this, you create 13 evaluation of our process.
13 the expectations on tic part of people wlen ticy put 14 "Ihe one you sa there is one that you take -- all 14 sornething in that it's going to get addressed. And 15 of those came up with basically tle determination that 15 that's a continuing point of dialogue that we need to 16 they thought the design was good and looked like it was 16 get across to people that -- that if its of quite low 17 going to be pnxtuctive. But they didn't have a long 17 significance, and tlere are a number of items in the 18 enough track record to determine whetler or not we were 18 system like that, tien we are going to have to deal with 19 going to be able to fully implement as designed. And 19 it on a priority basis; and it won't be -- it won't be 20 that's what this later on evaluation is for is to look 20 addressed tomorrow, but it will be addressed 21 at whether or not the design is being implemented as it 21 eventually.
22 was laid out. So that's the purpose of it. And we'll 22 But you're right. We need to continue that 23 be doing that as well as monitoring performanx 23 dialogue and make sure people understand that, else tic 24 indicators ahmg the way that will give us indicators as 24 system tien becomes self-limiting dowil tic road; and 25 to whether we're tracking ahmg that direction.
25 people won't use it. But we haven't seen any indication TilH REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Ramsdell Page 81 - Page 84
t MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 85 Page 87 1 of that.
I senior evaluators that have been qualified at the senior 2
MR. KEIRER: Okay. And I'd like to point out here 2 level, and there are 40 that have been qualified at the 3 that the prioritization - make sure we, you know, 3 evaluative level. Prior to us going live, tlue was 4 review and correct the important things. And we're 4 really no specific qualification requirement to be an 5 identifying a lot of things here. But, you know, the 5 evaluator. 'Ihat was part of the requirements when we 6 levels l's and 2's are as shown at the top; and we want 6 went live is to have a specific qualification before a 7 to make suae we address those in a timely maaner. But 7 person could do an evaluation.
8 that b a major -
8 MR.ZWOLINSKl: It just strikes that if an issac 9
MR. MEISNER: And let mejust add to Art's 9 goes into this learning process, you need to ultimately 10 answer - maybe he said it but I didn't lear it - like 10 get to the root. And in so doing, you may step on 11 any program, the learning process has to go through a 11 somebody's toes because you're talking about people 12 restart review on its own merits. And we need to have a 12 here,I think, as a softer side issue and to get people 13 determination, both for the process and for the 13 to buy in. And that's kind of the - tic next area I 14 dep. set that handles it, that those things are in 14 was going to flow to. This - this to me is difficult 15 shape to restart. So that in addition to the 15 times to assure that people can accept constructively 16 assessments le has talked about, that assessment will 16 that whatever problem occurred, you've identified it; l
17 occur as well.
17 and you can take appropriate corrective action.
18 MR.2WOLINSn Mike, you've kind of toucied on an 18 And thus, I see this as a struggle within tic 19 issue on which I've been taking a few notes. I guess 1 19 context of your recovery activity that - that you want 20 have one question in maybe eight parts or so.
20 to enhance or modify the culture; but yet you want to do 21 MR. MEISNER: I'll start writing tlem down.
21 it in a positive way. You don't want to do it in a 22 MR.ZWOLINSKI: Fundamentally, people are expected 22 negative way. And I think, at least my view of root 23 to be putting stuffinto tie learning process. But tien 23 cause evaluation has a potential to have a lot of 24 there is an expectation that it comes out but with tie 24 negative overtones to it if it's not haadled correctly.
25 correct prioritization I think with tle ones before, tie 25 MR. ML8ISNER: It sure does. We have a resource Page 86 Page 88 I higher tier essentially leading to root cause analysis.
I problem today, and I'!! talk about that in a minute.
2 And I go back to I think it's Page 10 in the book, tic 2 But I think one of the ways you don't get buy-in on root 3 chart wlere you show root caw at tle center of tic 3 cause evaluations is when you have sort of outsiders 4 univene of a lot of activity. And it strikes me that 4 come in and do the root cause evaluation for you. Maybe 5 that root cause box is awfi d i
/ mportant, that that 5 you have a small cadre of people, and that's all they 6 quality root cause be - N performed. Wlere do you all 6 do. So they're always outsiders to whoever they're 7 feel you're at? Do you think that you're getting your 7 evaluating.
8 arms around quality root cause evaluations today?
8 And one of the solutions to that is to broadly 9
1 mean, I see on that one chart as you go through 9 distribute tie knowledge and capability of doing root 10 January, February, March, tie numbers that are in tle 10 cause evaluations and essentially demand that if I have 11 ore category are fairly high. And if that's an 11 a problem in maintenance that's a level 1 or 2, then I 12 important contributor to tic Phase 1 of tic restart 12 identify an owner for that problem in maintenance; and I 13 plan,it strikes me that what you've doce today plus 13 require that that owner come up with the evaluators, the 14 what you plan to do tomorrow is pretty important to tle 14 trained qualified evaluators that are knowledgeabh in 15 success.
15 that an:a from that department to do the evaluation.
16 MR. MEISNER: You're exactly right, John. We've 16 And when you do it that way, you tend to find much 17 been focusing a lot of attention on that. Tic first key 17 more buy-in to tie results. People know that the person 18 to quality root cause evaluations is some quality 18 is intimately knowledgeable in tie area they're 19 training and quality people.
19 cvaluating as well as being a qualified root cause 20 Art, maybe you can jump in with tic numbers; but as 20 cvaluator. And -- and you tend to have better - better 21 I accall, you know, back at tle end of last year we had 21 buy-in overall. So that's one of the benefits of trying 22 only a handful of people that were qualified by our 22 to get a lot of people trained and certified in being 23 processes to do root cause evaluations. Today I think 23 able to do this.
24 we're pushing maybe 70 people?
24 But on the other hand. I need to tell you that even 25 MR. SilEAN: Closer to 80. Tiere are actually 39 25 though we've got people trained, there are so many other
. Page 85 - Page 88 THE REPORTING GROllP/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Condcascit!* MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 89 Page 91 1 demands on their time right now that we're having I because I think the system design allowed people to not 2 difficulty, like I said earlier, closing out these items 2 accept responsibility.
3 as quickly as we open tiem. And we do have a backlog of 3
I.et me see if I can explain that. Once an item is 4 root cause evaluations that we're trying to identify 4 identified in the learning bank, then it's up to a 5 different ways to provide appropriate resources to get 5 suggested group to accept that item.
6 those llungs started and completed because unless you 6
MR. ZWOLINSKI: Okay.
7 get tic root cause evaluation done, you're kind of dead 7
MR. MEISNER: It's not assigned to that group.
8 in the water for the rest of the process 8 It's up to them to accept it. And they can let that
]
9 MR, ZWOUNsKI: And Mike, what I hear you saying 9 accep'.ana take a fair bit of time, or they can ignore 10 sounds very good. But the translation is the 10 it entirely. And the system is not real responsive in 11 implementation; and that is - maybe a level 1 is - is 11 driving that acceptance. In fact, that's one of the 12 a little too obvious because we all think that needs a 12 things we were talking about this morning that we're 13 good root cause.
13 going to be char.ging very shortly, is when the screeners 14 But as evaluators look at these issues -- and 14 identify the significance level of something, they're 15 they're eitler 1,2, 3 or 4 -- gee, it's -- let's make 15 also going to assign an owner. It's not going to be 16 it a 3, and all I have to do is wave my hand at it, 16 that tley're going to ask for an owner. They're going 17 wiercas a 2 might require a little bit more rigorous 17 to assign an owner and ensure that right from the 18 analysis. And in the mode of having a large number and 18 beginning an issue has an owner and has some i
19 continuing to grow, will the evaluators grow a little 19 accountability and responsibility.
20 bit more less rigorous and tend to default to a lower 20 But in a situation where resourms are tight today, 31 number priority as far as the type of root cause, which 21 and we all know that, you know, we're trying to fill 22 could - could settle in? And then are - are your 22 some 100 positions here, it's not too surprising that 33 people buying this? Ase they actually stepping up and 23 unless you assign things rather than ask for people to 34 accepting the ownership of the individual issue whether 24 take on more work, that - that an issue might be pusled 35 it's a priority I or a 2,3 or 47 25 off to the side. So I think the situation will be Page 90 Page 92 i
And I know there's been some examples of about 4500 1 different ona we free up tle resource problems a bit, 2 inspection, but there's certam isolated cases at least 2 but right now we're taking the step to make sure that we 3 in which maybe ownership hasn't been totally 3 have assigned owners.
4 forthright. And to me that's some ofjust the adoption 4
MR. ZWOLINSKl: I guess I'm making a point out of 5 of a rew program 5 it because I think it has very much a direct nexus into 6
MR. MEISNER: Right. Well, before you get too many 6 your corrective action program, and corrective action is 7 questions, John, let me answer the first two.
7 a very important program. And I guess we'rejust going 1
s MR. zwouNSK!: Okay.
8 to have to observe it, maybe sit in on some of those 9
MR. MElsNER: "Ihere is a problem that if the 9 meetings to get a firsthand observation of how tic
]
10 evaluators feel overloaded that they may come up with a 10 decision making actually goes, and ultimately get -- get 1
j ii lower level priority to avoid doing an evaluation. And 1I some results coming out tle other end. You suggested 12 if we allowed evaluators to make that determination of 12 you're going to maybe retain a contractor to lelp 13 significance, then that could occur. But what we have 13 disposition some of tlese items? Did I hear you 14 is a separate and distinct group of screeners whose 14 correctly?
2 I
15 sole responsibil'ty is to identify the significance 15 MR. MEISNER: We're considering a range of options; 16 level of a particular item. 'ncy have no responsibility 16 and one is to provide some contractor assistance in 17 for Oc - the root cause evaluations; and they're 17 closing out items and doing the leg work and writing the 18 independent of any of the other organizations in the 18 memos and setting up tle training or setting up the -
i 19 plant. So Ocy're tie ones that set the -- the risk 19 tle whatever. That isn't to provide ownership to the i
20 levci, Oc screening level. And the evaluators can't 20 contractors but to provide assistance to our owners that al change ' hat once that's been set.
21 oced to close those items.
22 Your second question is - I guess -- I'd say it's 22 MR.ZWOLINSKl: Well, I guess l'Iljust close 33 are pcopic accepting ownership of dese issues once 23 that - that that area just strikes me as -- as you have 34 ticy're identified? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
24 a lot on your plate already that's very well defined; 35 And we - we have some ways to go along that path 25 but you don't want to make any more mistakes for j
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 89 - Page 92 1
l MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 93 Page 95 1 tomorrow or for the future. And thus, being tough on I hard. But we found some indications of causes or things 2 yourselves in that area is probably pretty important.
2 that we need to correct, insufficient code 3 And - and the emphasis you're providing it tends to 3 clarification, our isT program, non-participation in 4 reinforce much of what I think is in this plan that 4 industry events, ineffective review process and unclear 5 stems to be a root to the success of the plan, at least 5 m a 1.t expectations on the program development. And 6 myinterpretation.
6 this is mainly having to do with IST program. So we -
7 ML MElsNER: 'lhanks. We agree.
7 we're still asking the hard questions.
8 ML ZWOUNSK1: But the ability to drive this to 8
So this is basically in three parts, and I'm going 9 all your staff - and I guess I would even go to your 9 to cover the first part which is the tech spec tesdng.
10 contractor staff, maybe Maine Yankee employees, everyone 10 We've gone through that. We've had ABBCE come in and do 11 seemingly has to be able to get into that area with some 11 initial review and assessment, and they've identified I
12 vigor so -
12 basically 300 questions in going through. And they took 13 ML MEISNER: We agree.
13 each of the tech specs and verified that we had the 14 MR CO!rrE: Just one last question for Art. You 14 surveillance - the written st.rveillance that impicments 15 mentioned this third party design evaluation, action 3, 15 each of those surveillance requirements. 95 percent of 16 which is complete. They indicated that there just 16 these questions have to do with procedural enhancement, 17 wasn't a long lead time to judge the effectiveness of 17 the wording of the procedme, can we better word it, 18 implementation. And to give you -- does that include 18 those types of issues. Tle 5 percent that isn't in that 19 that they couldn't evaluate root causes or closed out 19 category, for example, a swing pump, where we test the 20 passages?
20 swing pump but we don't neo:ssarily test the swing pump 21 ML SHEAN: Yes, that's correct because again it's 21 when it's lined up to frame A and frame B, those types 22 almost like starting everything like a -- like a horse 22 of issues. But we haven't found anything that makes i
J l 23 race t2 one time; and everything is kind of going 23 anything inoperable or nontested.
24 through a certain sequence of activities.
24 We're doing an independent review by a different 25 ML CONTE: let's move on.
25 contractor which is tley come in and do an independent Page 94 Page 96 1
MR. KLVTER: Well, I appreciate those questions.
I review and assessment, and tley come up with any action 2 It gave me a break.
2 that comes out of that. Our resolution ofissues by the 3
This is a flow chart. This is Attachment 5. I 3 first of June and complete any additional testing by the 4 just want to point out that we are taking not only the 4 first of July. Again,5 is the same as you saw on the 5 new learning bank issues. We're taking tle old items 5 circuit testing where we're developing a surveillance 6 that haven't been incorporated into tie learning bank 6 improvement program, you know, going beyond just this 7 and taking it through tic process plus tle existing 7 one issue and saying, hey, we need to improve how we do a stuff in the learning bank that has been put in since 8 testing.
9 January 6 and taking it through the whole process that 9
As far as in-service testing, we've completed to ends up, again, we're taking the nonrestart issues plus 10 the - complete the initial review by March 31st. Is 1I the completion of tie restart issues and ran it through 1I that done?
12 our department assessments all tie way up through the 12 So that's been completed. Assess completeness 13 steering committee.
13 and scoping by -- by July 1st, isT component basis 14 Appendix G, this is basically a Llout of our 14 document completion by the end of the year and then 15 96-01 w' cre we looked at extent of conditions and asked 15 implement our -- our new code testing by next June. So 16 the hard questions about if we had this problem with 16 this goes beyond just a restart issue. We don't have 17 circuit testing, logic circuit testing, do we have 17 that many restart issues coming out of this.
18 similar issues with tech spec, in-service testing and 18 Post maintenance testing, we added that to the 19 post maintenance testing.
19 list. We're going to do assessments of post maintenance 20 So we have pulled tle string on this. This is part 20 testing. We did have -- looking back at our corrective 21 cf our extent of conditions in action. We've developed,21 action program, we did have a couple of hits on that in 22 a separate appendice. And tie root cause, well, in 22 the last couple of years. So we're going to assess that 23 actuality, we're finding that our tech spec 23 and verify the completeness of that. And that will be 24 surveillances, tley haven't found significant problems.
24 done -- that assessment will be done before restart.
25 And that's tie good rews. We've looked at this very 25 So I guess I just want to emphasize again, this is Page 93 - Page 96 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 97 Page 99 4
I a good example wlere we've asked the hard questions, I that was a startup issue.
l 3 expanded beyond just the obvious issues of circuit 2
MR. RULAN& Thank you.
i 3 testing, and assessing where we're going on all 3
MR.YEROKUN; Just a quick question on this Item 4 testing.
4 No. 8. On your list tiere it says evaluation turbine 5
Environmental qualification, some EQ components in 5 building equipment for safe shutdown. Is that an 6 the reactor building are below maximum flood icvel rad 6 evaluation process or do you plan to qualify or - at 7 not qualified for submergence Root cause is no EQ 7 least for startup I would think that's notjust a matter 8 coordinator on site, failure to maintain and upgrade EQ 8 of evaluation. It's ensuring that the equipment is EQ 9 program, station sensitivity to EQ compliance, 9 qualified.
10 inadcquate design change process to control EQ 10 MR. KEUTER: Yes. We have to ensure that before 11 attributes, and lack of EQ trair,ing.
Il startup. So basically we do the analysis in 7, evaluate la And tiese are sone of the similar root causes you 12 the analysis and make sure our equipment is qualified.
13 saw in cable separation and logic circuit testing. The 13 If it isn't, we don't start up.
14 reason I said we were yellow in training was because of 14 MR. RULAND.
O am I correct in assuming that all 15 technical training, and this is one of the feeders u.to 15 the equipment tha: needs to be qualified will be 16 that.
16 qualified, and notjust qualifiable but qualified prior 4
17 As far as our actions, perform tic root cause is 17 startup?
i 18 complete. Perform EQ program assessment is complete.
18 MR. KEUTER: Yes.
19 Fill EQ program manager is complete. Relocate post 19 Go ahead, Bruce.
20 accident monitoring equipment, review and disposition EQ 20 MR. IIINKLEY: Bruce Hinkley. I'm tic vice 21 assessment concerns, qualify and reiocate equipment by 21 president of engineering.
22 the first of July, complete turbine building high-energy 22 Tic -- specifically tle turbine building, we are 23 line break analysis by the first of July, evaluate 23 continuing in tie mass and energy release and taking a 24 turbine building equipment for safe shutdown before 24 hard look at the environment generated by the 25 startup.
25 high-energy lire break. I guess the short answer of it i
Page 98 Page 100 t
1 And tien we get into our post startup which is I will all be qualified startup may not be completely 2 review design change process, develop and complete EQ 2 accurate in that what we may do is take actions that t
3 training, EQ master list verification and evaluate and 3 change the environment versus qualify tic equipment as 4 incorporate EQ program enhancements.
4 in exhaust panels in tle turbine building and/or spray 5
MR. RULAND: Could you give me some insight as to 5 deficctors or shields around potential break locations.
6 why you think your EQ master list verification is an 6 So until we finish the mass and energy release and get 7 issue post restart?
7 the verification of the individual components, I can't 8
MR. KEttrER: Matt, can you help me out?
8 commit to qualify what I might not have to qualify 9
MR. MARSMN: Sure. I'm Matt Marston. I'm the 9 but --
10 engineering programs department manager.
10 MR. YEROKUN: I understand what you're saying, but i1 I guess the reason that we feel that that's a 1I it still means it will be qualified for the 12 tong-term issue is because we feel that we haven't 12 environment. If you're going to change the i
13 identified up to this point any instances where a 13 environmental, you're going to change the equipment is 14 component that was requinxi to be environmentally 14 what it boils down to.
15 qualified was not in the program The issues that have 15 MR. IIINKLEY: That is true. And right now we don't 16 been identi' icd is -- is - have to do with EQ 16 have, you know, enough completed information to give you 17 submergence of components that are within the program 17 a specific list and tie actions. So that's in is soape aheady. So we haven't identified scoping of EQ 18 evaluation right now.
19 as a problem area. And we felt that there were 19 MR. KEtJrER: That's what I meant to say.
20 enhancements that could be made in the EQ master list as 20 if there's no other questions, I still have six 21 far as the amount ofinforn,ation that was available in 21 slides, but that concludes my presentation.
22 the master list as well as better documentation, the 22 MR. SEW 4AN Okay. Are there any general 23 basis for the master list. But without specific 23 questions?
24 inrtances of a failure to qualify components or include 24 MR.CONm What's the status of the December 10th 25 components in tl qualification program, we didn't feel 25 response to tle ISATt Ilow does this fit into the Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 97 - Page 100
. MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
CondenscIt!"
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 101 Page 103 1 readmess report or the readmess - your readiness I something that we don't need to be aware of as far as 2 plan?
2 tle products that are being developed?
3 MR. KELTER: We've taken (12 ISAT,and we're going 3
MR. KELTER: Well, we have made a Commitment in our 4 through that and screening it, determining those items 4 submittal to in the short-term plan submit that, you 5 that are required for restart against the criteria nod 5 know, within the same time frame we submit our ready for 6 making sure those are done. Does that answer your 6 startup letter. And we'll give you a copy of that I
7 question?
7 short-term plan to let you know the things we're going 8
MR. CONE: So is it rny understanding that all of 8 to do in the short-term aller restart 9 the commitments in that document are being transcribed 9
We were not planning on docketing anythmg in the 10 into the teaming proass and work order system? And we 10 business plan, but you're welcome to review that. We've i1 will find them - if the commitment was, say, March 11 rolled that out to all of our employees as part of our 12 31st, I assume it's going to get done by March 31st.
12 employee communications already.
13 Therefore,it's being done before restart.
13 MR. ZwOUNSKI: If you go to Tab 2, which 14 MR. KEtTER: There might be some issun Jiat we 14 are -- is the NRC 0350 cross-reference, you'll see that 15 committed to date in the restart plan assuming that we 15 there is a lot of items in here that are kind of more in 16 would be in outage in tie fall. And some of those won't 16 Phase 2 than they are maybe in Phase 1.
17 perxssarily mcet the restart criteria, although I don't 17 MR. KEITER: That's correct 18 know of any offhand, that we can't meet that date 18 MR. ZWOUNSK.1: And maybe intentionally so. But 19 because we won't have the parts or something like that.
19 some issues such as address QA and - and things of that 30 But if we change any of the commitments in that letter, 20 nature, I think you'd make a lot of headway right now.
31 we will let you know and the reason for it.
21 MR. KEtrER: Now, I want to make sure you realize 23 MR. itEHl.: Yee I think that's part of the thrust 22 the short term doesn't mean it starts after restart. It 23 of the question is that in this -- in the middle of this 23 means those actions - a lot of these actions are going i
24 plan, it did not address wlether or not this scoped tic 24 in parallel with Phase 1. So a lot of those things are l 35 -- the other response. And that may be something you 25 already happening.
Page 102 Page 104 I might want to -- it wasn't clear to us wictier this 1
MR. ZWOUNSKl: In other words, many of the items 3 superseded the response or - or tic oiler response was 2 that are in this cross-reference may have already been 3 still out ticre. And I guess until we -- until we 3 initiated or will be initiated in the near term?
4 clearly understand that, I guess we're looking for you 4
MR. KEttrER: Correct. For example, if 5 to live with both until you tell us which one is - is 5 you look at effectiveness of quality assurance program 1
6 de dgn om.
6-7 MR. MEISNER: Yes, yes. Tic ISAT report is 7
MR. ZWOUNSKl: fixactly.
8 clearly an input in a feeder up tlere and a key feeder 8
MR. KEttrER: - there's a lot of things we're 9 into tle -- tic restart process. And as Dan said -
9 already doing.
10 MR. IIEllt.: Well, what's not clear is vihether or not to MR. ZWOUNSKl: Under corrective actions?
11 this - this new set of -- of criteria and actions
!I MR. KELTER: Correct.
la supersede what you indicated in that ISAT response.
12 MR. ZWOUNSKl: Yes. And this is - as far as this 13 MR. MEISNER: And we'll make that clear, Bill. I 13 day in history, this is where we're at with what's the 14 think tiere may be a few minor changes, but I'm not 14 population of Phase 2 issues? And you're estimating 15 aware of anything real major. And a lot of it has to do 15 it's about six months to complete this group of 16 with, like Dan said, with timing. When we wrote the 16 activities after restart of the plant?
17 ISAT report, we had a scheduled outage in September.
17 MR. KEtTTER: Well,if you look at Attachment 13, 18 Things have changed.
18 it's kind of a listing of what we preliminarily feel is 19 MR. ZWOL.INSKI: One of your early graphs, Dan, has 19 going to be in the short-term plan. And if you look at 20 tie three circles, Phase 1 Phase 2, Phase 3, the 20 that, you'll sm a lot of the soft issues - you know, 31 business plans, show those interconnected. I rnean,I've 21 tots of soft issues. They're not as black and white, 23 been reading this Phase I book principally or what you 22 and they're going to take longer to fix.
33 pmvided. I guess I hadn't thought about looking into 23 MR. ZwouNsKI: But some of those are going to 34 tie business pla r noending much time on Phase 2.
24 require constant maintenance in which you could probably i
is Shoald the agency have - should we be aware, or is this 25 argue, well, we've got it up and running but you have to
' Page 101 - Page 104 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
RESTART READINES PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 105 Page 107 1 pulse it periodically -
I to the licensing issues. All of those things are fair 2
MR. KEtHER: Absolutely.
2 game, and they're all going directly into our evaluation 3
MR. ZwOUNSK!: - in order to dmlare victory on 3 proxss.
4 that.
4 MR. CONTE: Can I ask a related question to the 5
There were a couple of things that maybe I didn't 5 extent of conditions 7 is there a reason why - I think 6 catch in here, issues that have been at least identified 6 the end is the appendices - why a title of the appendix l
7 in inspection reports or in previous correspondence.
7 on extent of conditions, at least from the hardware, why 8 l'm thinking of 50.59's. I'm thinking of radiation 8 that appendix was not -- was opted not to be used? I'm 9 protection. I'm thinking of some of t!e things that 9 thinking in terms of tic CA1. Supplement No.1, Part 2, 10 came out of tie ISAT enformment, stuff like that. Will 10 indicates that the issue about or the commitment to look il some of those continue to be evaluated to -- to 11 at extent of conditions. Or do you feel it's adequately 12 understand should they have their own tab; or they'll be 12 covered by the attaciunents in the rest of the plan?
13 conected as time goes on as just a part of tie - your 13 MR. MEISNER: You know what? Maybe we made a 14 learning process and corrective action program?
14 mistake. We wanted to make extent of condition more 15 MR. MEISNER: Yes. I can give you an example, 15 important than the appendices. So we made it a chapter 16 John, like a 50.59 you mentioned. We have some 16 right in the plan itself. Dat was why it was not an 17 short-term improvements that we're going to put in place 17 appendix. We thought it was more important. Apparently 18 for the 50.59 program before restart And they're 18 it didn't come across that way, but that was tic 19 primarily going to be focused on some focus training for 19 intent.
20 many people in the plant on how to research the license 20 MR. CONTE: Maybe just to me. I don't know.
21 basis to determine whether or not 50.59 applics. nat's 21 hat's why I'm asking the question.
22 where a lot of things in that program tend to fall 22 I think we're wrapping up lere.
23 through tie cracks And we also have some - some very 23 MR. KEtJTER. I'd like to point out one other 24 long-term plans that we still nxd to finn up that will 24 thing. You kind of hit on it, you know, is - you know.
25 really restructu c tie whole 50.59 process intemally.
25 this isn't an all-inclusive plan. It's something that Page 106 Page 108 i
MR. ZWOUNSK!: Do you envision any type of a 1 we want to do for restart, but one of the questions was 2 backward look to 50.59's of the past several years or an 2 why isn't all of the ISA items in tlere? Well,ISA 3 analysis?
3 items are in the business plan, but this isn't an 4
MR. MEISNER: Yes. In fact, we've donc a 4 all-inclusive plan. Ecsc are the things that we want 5 substantial amount of that. For instance, we had a --
5 to focus on for restart, and we don't feel that this 6 we had a team of six or seven people in here a few weeks 6 supersedes any of our previous submittals or anything 7 ago that did nothing but look at tle -- tic license 7 like that. His is stuff beyond that. A part of it 8 basis processes that are important to maintaining your 8 does include the stuff in the business plan, and a large 9 lianse basis. And the major focus was on 50.59 and 9 share ofit goes beyond that.
10 looking backwards at the quality of the safety 10 MR. ZWOUNSK1: Dan, I think the issue might have 11 evaluation, at the quality of the process of trying to 11 been in the December 10th response you all committed to 12 identify holes. And Maine has done some earlier looks 12 having a variety of things done at the end of the next 13 back about a year ago to try to identify the same 13 outage. And with the outzge being acalerated so many 14 thing.
14 months, some of that may not be possible to complete.
15 MR. ZWOUNSKI: In your extent of condition efforts 15 And I think, Mike, your comment was you intend to 16 and initiatives, are you all folding into that taking a 16 inform us if there's any changes in commitments from 17 look at your FSAR,your design basis documents, your 17 that Decemter 10th letter -
is 50.59 processes? Are those the things that are being 18 MR. MEISNER: Dat's right.
19 wrapped into that overall product that you'll provide 19 MR. ZWOUNSKI: -if I understand you correctly.
20 tie agency, some assessments of all of those 20 MR. MEISNER: Rat's right.
21 activities?
21 MR. ZWOUNSKI. So I think that's kind of the nexus 22 MR. MEISNER: Yes. In fact, tlere's virtually 22 of where the questions are.
23 nothing that doesn't fend into that hopper somehow. And 23 MR. KEUTER: Okay. I'm done.
24 of course, a major clement is what we have discussed 24 MR. SEi.l. MAN: Okay. Are t!ere any other issues 25 with you in response to the 50.54(f) letter in response 25 you'd like to discuss with naspect to tic Restart THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rarnsdell Page 105 - Page 108
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!*
RESTART READINES PLAN Page 109 Page i11 1 Readiness Plan?
I CERBHCATE a
We thank you for your time and attention.
2 I, Maureen lockhart-Wagner, a Notary Public in 3
MR. IIElIL: Okay. I guess - I guess real quickly, 3 and for tic State of Maine, hereby rtify that the i
4 just as I mentioned when we started this, that we're 4 foregoing promeding was stenographically reported by me I
5 reallyjust getting into the review of this ha-t.
5 and later reduad to print through Computer-Aided 6 And certainly it has helped, I think, to clarify a 6 Transcription, and the foregoing is a full and true 7 Cumber of points in this discussion. At least I think 7 record of the proceeding.
8 it's been very beneficial for us. And we will, if we 8
I further artify that I am a disinterested j
9 have questions, go beyond what we've discussed here.
9 person in the event or outcome of tie above-named cause 10 And if we feel tley're important, we'll get those back 10 of action.
11 to you. We'll make tlem part of tie - part of the 11 IN wr! NESS wilEREOF I subscribe my hand 13 docket; and we'll send you a letter with those questions 12 this day of
,1997.
13 in it.
13 Dated at Falmouth, Maine.
14 But certainly, tic -- as we also said early on, you 14 15 know, we - we do put a lot of emphasis on 15 16 the - the performance that comes out. Certainly any 16 re ryrubii.
r 17 plan is only as good as how well you execute it. So we 17 wy can.-ion e,-
18 will be looking closely at those activities as you 18 April 24,2001.
19 will.
19 30 And as we mentioned before, we'll - we'll be 20 31 developing a restart plan of our own to address those 21 32 areas that - that we'll be focusing on. But as 1 22 23 mentioned, you know, certainly don't key your activities 23 34 on our restart plan because they may or may not 24 35 correlate to tie areas that you need to focus on.
25 Page110 1
If that - I think we're done. I appreciate a certainly tie presentations that were given; and I 3 appreciate those folks that came out to observe this 4 meeting.
5 We do have the meeting at 7 o' clock tonight which 6 will be focused really on -- on getting input from tic 7 public on this - on this plan. And we'll certainly be 8 meeting again in tic near future to talk through a 9 number of issues as -- as you've highlighted and we've 10 discussed as part of our continuing process, part of tic 11 restart. So this certainly won't be tic end of tic la meetings that we'll have up Irre to discuss this. Okay, 13 thank you.
14
[5:04 P.M.]
15 16 17 18 19 20 31 33 33 34 35 Page 109 - Page 111 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
PUQLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condcaselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 3 s.
e.
1 PROCEEDINGS
[7:00 P.M.]
s 2
MR. HEHL.: Good evenmg My name is Charles Heht.
3 l'm the Director for the Division of Reactor Projects in 4 the NRC's tigianal office in PM1eMphia, and I'd like
' 5 to welcome you to this meeting. What we plan to do this
)
s
= no srms or amuca a
muciaan nsoviarons ecseitssion l
7 public with regard to the restart plan for the restart I
8 of-of Maine Yankee.
~ 9 Before we get into tie program tomght though, I se nu n v m u a m an uxoinus ri.u g
g_
gg 7g 11 NRC that are up here at the table introduce themselves.
12 MR. DOSUE: I'm not with the NRC,but Pat Dostic, n
13 stateinspector.
14 MR. YEROKUN: I'm Jimi Yerokun, and I'm the NRC 15 senior resident inspector for this site hene.
16 MR.CONHL l*m Rich Conte. My normal function is 17 Chief of Reactor Prcjects, Branch No. 5, Region 1; and l
18 l'm the panel team leader.
us......t m ai. sen wCU'Nt**MI' 19 MR.ZWOLINSKI: I'm John Zwolinksi, and I'm the a
m r.4.r apris 2, ion 2
Mkh Dhw h h Ne &m h 21 Washingan. D.C. ofTice.
22 MR. DORMAN: My name is Den Dorman I'm the NRC I.
23 Project Manager for Maine Yankee at NRC headquarters.
24 MR. RIJ1AND I'm Bill Ruland, and I'm the branch 25 chief of the Electrical Engineering branch on Region I; Page 4 I and I'm also on the Maine Yankee Assessment Panel.
ElO" EO.
2 MR. ANDERSON: I'm Cliff Anderson I'm the Region
%"i'i.,UI""i 3 I technical assistant for the Assessment Panel.
E!!' CRUS"'
4 MR. IIElit.: What we'd like to - before we get
'""^"*""
5 started in taking comments, we'd like to just take a 6 minute or two to talk about what we're doing and what
? For the st t. or M.in.:
8 We met this af temoon in a - in a meeting with -
9 between the NRC and representatives from Maine Yankee to a
so.. orar r.e.
m W abt k' Nm & N d & Wm Yde n
Ei!I."'El',..n
"' N 11 facility. That plan was - was sent to the NRC in a UU'a%li'""
N 12 letter dated March the 7th; and I believe copies of that Ei!'*! UIU" O
13 plan were put in tle public document room here in the UOIUNen.,
N 14 local area about the 11th of March. So hopefully,if UU."*"l...
0 15 you have the interest to -- to go ahead and take a look E'U.UCII.
O, u 16 at that plan, I think it certainly - if you haven't -
r if s.n. maa.re cuer se j
18 We're not going to make any decisions tonight as to 19 the adequacy of the licensee's plan. 'Ihe plan that the 20 licensee has put together is a - is a plan for a 21 process. It's a process to address the issues that are 22 known to exist, both hardware and software, people 23 programs process type of issues that have been 24 identified. It also lays out a plan for further 25 evaluations that may identify further issues that have
-THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Imkhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 1 - Page 4 7
-e-
,_m
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condensclt!*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 5 Page 7 I to be resolved in the future.
I thermal could not be demonstratcxl. For more than 17 2
After the NRC has an opportunity to - to review 2 years Maine Yankee was operating with insufficient I
3 the plan in depth, we will generate a nestart plan of 3 safety systems and was not operating safely. So e take 4 our own that will be focused on - on how tic NRC will 4 great exception to that kind of statement.
i 5 evaluate and inspect the activities at Maine Yankee to 5
Anyway, my question -
6 provide a level of confidence such that ticy would be 6
MR. !! Elf t.: Before that, you Ind one question or j
7 allowed to restart.
7 several questions. Would you like --
8 So that's - that's really where we're at right 8
MS. CllRISBNE: Oh, I was just commenting on that 9 now. This is a - this is part of our normal process, 9 statement. My question - here is my question: In 10 if you can accept plants that are shut down as a normal 10 referring to safety-related electrical cables, Appendix 1
11 process But it is part of the process for returning II B3 of Maine Yankee's Restart Readiness Plan states that, la these plants to - to its state of health, to engage 12 quote, nearly all cable separation discrepancies 13 in - in public dialogue, to get comments from the 13 discovered have involved plant modifications, end quote, j
I 14 public on t!cse plans. And you do play an important 14 and that, quote, the original construction cables and 15 role in this process. We will take your comments. We 15 circuits are assumed to be installed in accordanx with 16 are transcribing this meeting. We will - we will 16 the original criteria, end quote.
17 evaluate those comments and - and wrtainly incorporate 17 And Maurten Brown has acknowledged that at least 18 any insights that are invited into our process for 18 two and probably three recently identified cable i
19 cvaluating the sendiness of Maine Yankte to restart 19 separation ismes date back to plant construction. In 20 What we'd like to do this evening, we have about 10 20 1978 Inspector -- NRC Inspector Peter James Atherton 21 people who have signed up who want to speak. And I'd 21 identified numerous inadequately separated 33 like to see if we could hold those speechus to maybe 22 safety-related electrical cables dating back to plant 33 about five minutes so we leave some time at the end to 23 construction and which Maine Yankee declined to reroute 24 get general comments or questions that may - may arise 24 because of, quote, physical limitations. And that's out 35 during - during the discussion. We're looking at 25 of a document dated March 14,1978 entitled " Maine Page 6 Page 8 1 probably about two hours. It wrtainly has been a long 1 Yankee Response to NRC Staff Position on Fire 3 day; and we will provide an opportunity both -- if you 2 Protection," in case you want to look that up. I do 3 don't get your - your question answered tonight, we'll 3 have a copy with me if you'd like to see it.
4 certainly -- certainly be open to written questions or 4
To date NRC has bwn unable to produce 5 comments. We'll address those. We'd like to,if w 5 documentation --
1 6 could, get get all the questions on the record 6
MR. IIEllL: Is there a question in there? Do you 7 transcribed; and we will try to answer as many as we can 7 want an answer?
8 here. But if we don't get to a!! of them at the end of 8
MS. CllRISTINE: Yes. I'm getting to it, but I'm 9 about two hours, then I think we'l' look forward to 9 prefacing 11is question with this information. To date, 10 written comments.
10 NRC has been unable to produce documentation that these 11 With that, I guess we would call the first person 11 originally installed inadequately separated cables were la who 104 signed up to speak. Kris Christine?
12 correctly rerouted to comply with regulations.
j 13 MS. CliRtSUNE: Thank you. I'm Kris Christine of 13 And here is my question: Prior to restart, does I
14 Alna, and I do have a question. But before I ask it, 14 the NRC intend to require Maine Yankee to physically 15 l'd like to comment on the March 1Ith enforcement 15 inspect all safety-related cabling including that dating 16 meeting at which the public was not allowixt to speak.
16 back to plant construction and to verify that the 17 I and others take great exxption to llubert 17 corrective actians taken comply with current NRC 18 Miller's statenent that Maine Yankee, quote, was never 18 regulations?
19 unsafe, end quote. From 1978 to 1979 - or 1989, Maine 19 MR. l(Elf L: While Bill is getting the mike, let me 20 Yankee operated at a power level above 2440 megawatts 20 address that - even though it wasn't a question, let me 21 thermal From 1989 to 1995, Maine Yankee operated at a 21 just say from the standpoint of the enforcement 22 pown level of 2700 megawatts thermal And according to 22 conference on March 11, I understand your concern with 23 NRC's independent safety assessment, operability of 23 not being able to participate in that conference. But 24 safety equipment necessary to mitigate the consequences 24 - but that has been the policy of the NRC; and 25 of an accident at power levels above 2440 megawatts 25 certainly you're free to - to - te solicit permission Page 5 - Page 8 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Rarnsdcll
PUTLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN CondenscIt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 9 Page11 1 to change that policy. But normally meetings that occur 1
MR. IIElIL: No. I think the answer is tie final 2 between the licensee and the NRC,whether it be an 2 decision has not been made yet.
3 enforcement conference, whether it be a e a -m-r.t 3
MS. CHRISTINE: But at this point it does not 4 meeting such as we had this afternoon to address 4 include physically inspecting all ofit?
5 specific issues or hear the presentation of a plan, t!c 5
MR.RULAND That's correct.
6 Commission has - has determined that to have public 6
MS. CHRISTINE: Thank you.
7 participation from other than just observation in those 7
MR. HEllL: Henry Myers.
8 type of meetings is just not an eflicient and effective 8
MR. II. MYERS: My name is Henry Myers. I'm from 9 way to conduct a meeting.
9 Peaks Island. I have written many letters to tle NRC 10 MS. CHRISBNE: Well,I'm not refuting that 10 over the last year, I - frankly, I don't recommend Ii policy. IIcwever, I do and the public would like to make 11 people doing this if they really want answers.
12 a comment when we believe that tlere am statements made 12 Is it the Commission's position or does the 13 by NRC officials which are not backed up by your own 13 Commission - do the Commission's regulations allow 14 documentation. That's why I'm taking the opportunity 14 operation of a plant when that plant is not in 15 now to make a public comment on that because we weren't 15 substantial compliance of the NRC regulations?
16 allowed to address that at that time. I'm not disputing 16 MR. HEllL: Is this a question?
17 the fact that your policy does not allow public 17 MR. II. MYERS: That's a question.
18 participation.
18 MR. IIEHL: The question is that, no, the licensee 19 MR. IIEllL: Bill Ruland who is tinhief of our 19 has to comply with tic - with the - both the license 30 elecuical engineering branch can address the issues.
20 requirements and other regulatory requirements.
31 MR. RULAND: If I understand your question 21 MR. II. MYERS: Does that mean that somebody is 32 correctly, I think you said is Maine Yankee going to 22 going to make a finding that Maine Yankee is in a3 inspect all safety-related cables?
23 compliance with NRC regulations before allowing it to 34 MS. CllR!sRNE: physically inspect. I understand 24 restart?
35 from the documentation that there is going to be 25 MR. HEHL: Before Maine Yankee is allowed to Page 10 Page 12 I documentation reviewed including quality assurance I restart, they will be in compliance with NRC.
2 documents from tic 1970's. And I'm wondering if they're 2
MR. II. MYERS: Well, is somebody going to say that; 3 going to physically inspect original - including the 3 or is it just going to be something that - that kind of 4 originally installed safety-related cabling for 4 the words are that you get a feeling that this is so, 5 separation inadequacies.
5 and no one actually says this?
6 MR. RULAND: As we understand the program right 6
MR. IIElIL: We will require the licensee to af!Irm 7 now, we have -- we're - the licensce has established 7 to us that they have completed tie review. We will be j
l 8 criteris with which they're going to inspect their 8 in looking independently to determine, in fact, that 9 cables including safety-related cables. And those 9 tley have -- are in compliance with their license.
10 cables and that criteria has been established. Our 10 MR.11. MYERS: Well, when they say they've 1i division of electrical engincering branch and 11 comple'ed a review, that doesn't say that they've 12 headquarters is reviewing that - that design criteria 12 affirmed that they're in compliance with the 13 as we speak. That's to include both cables that were 13 regulations. Is there going to be a sentence somewhere 14 added or nulified since the plant was licensed and,in 14 from Maine Yankee saying we have reviewed the plant, our 15 addition, a sample of cables that were installed during 15 findings are that this plant is in substantial 16 original construction.
16 compliance with the Commission's regulations?
17 MS. CllR!sTINE: So a sample but not all safety -
17 MR. IIEHL: Well, I'm not sure what you're asking.
I8 MR. RULAND: A sample of cables installed under 18 MR.11. MYERS: Well, I've written many letters; and 19 original construction will also be examined. And we 19 l've gotten back nothing on this except hand waving.
20 haven't completely agreed yet with what tte criteria 20 And if you can't make that finding, then I've seen -
21 is. We're evaluating that. And once we evaluate that' 21 MR. HEin.: There will be a finding that they are in 22 criteria, we will render a judgment on whether that 22 compliance with their license before they restart.
33 criteria is acceptable or not.
23 MR. H. MYERS: What will the language be like?
24 MS. CHRISBNE: So in other words, all 24 What will the prototype language say? Will it be that 25 safety-related cabling will not be physically inspected.
25 we've reviewed -- we've conducted reviews as required THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 9 - Page 12
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
C2ndenscIt!*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 13 Page 15 1 and this plant is in substantial compliance with our i because he says it's safe. Other people say it's safe a license?
2 because they're willing to live next to it, and that's 3
MR. HEHU 1 don't know what the words are going to 3 why they think it's safe. "Ihat's not -
4 look like at this point.
4 MR. ZWOLINSKI: Iguess I'm trying to understand 5
ML H. MYERS: Well,is there a lawyer here that 5 your point. The burden is placed on the utility first 6 can answer that question?
6 and then on tle agency second. Firstly, the licensee 7
Ma. HEHU We di('n't bring any law)trs with us, 7 must go through this restart plan, implement it, allow 8 Ilmry.
8 the agency time to inspect section after section after 9
MR. H. MYERs: You realize I've sent many letters 9 section, issue after issue. The sum total of those j
10 to the Commission on this point, and I get no answers.
10 inspection findings will have either a negative result j
11 l've asked the Commission to respond to my letters.
11 or a positive result.
12 What they do is tiry sift them down to the staff who 12 I can't foretell the future. But ultimately, the 13 Ben defend positions which in my view and in de view 13 compendium of inspections that we perform, licensing j
14 of people I consult on this matter that is just 14 reviews that vc perform, technical evaluations that we 15 nothing. It is just getting, you know, all people like 15 perform will result in a decision from the agency 16 me off deir back. 'Ihat is the sense of tic letters 16 predicated on what tie utility has told us. And should 17 that come back.
17 tic utility provide us a letter which states that tiny i
18 So is there going to be a finding? I heard Shirley 18 feel that tley are in conformance with tic rules and 19 Jackson say that regulations must be complied with.
19 regulations that the plant is ready to restart, tley q
30 Well, I find a refusal of the NRC in any of ticse 20 recommend lifting of the confirmatory action letter j
31 letters to state that prior to operating this plant 21 that's in place, so on and so forth, tien tie burden is 32 tlxze must be compliance with regulations and somebody 22 den shifted to tie agency that are we aware of any 33 must certify that there's compliance with regulations.
23 issue that would prohibit that decision being rendered?
34 'Ile NRC presumably can make a finding that there is 24 And what I'm telling you, am I aware of any safety 25 substantial complianz with regulations even if Maine 25 concern or any regulatory concern such as not meeting a Page 14 Page 16 j
1 Yankee declines to make that finding. Somebody in my 1 technical specification or not mcrting a rule, the 2 view and I believe in tie view of your Chairman, must 2 agency would not move forward. Absent that information, o
3 make a finding that this plant is in substantial 3 the agency most likely would choose to move forward.
4 compliance with regulations prior to its operating.
4 If you look at Section 3 in the licensee's restart 5
MR.ZWOLINSKI: This is fundamental to tle way our 5 plan, you'll find that they go to great lengths to 1
6 rules end regulations are written in which tir licensee 6 essentially repeat what we say as far as regulatory 7 is competed to make a finding of tirmselves under oath 7 requirements for technical speci81 cation performance, 8 or Cffirmation to tie staff. Tle staff likewise must, 8 rules and regulations and the whole myriad of associated 9 following inspection, deliberation, ultimately make a 9 documentation that the agency would expect to be in - a 10 finding of is this plant indeed safe to operate, and do 10 licensee to be in conformance with. And they need to 11 we agree with what de licensee has provided us?
11 make - afntm they're in conformance with rules and 12 MR. II. MYERS: Saying tle plant is safe to operate 12 regulations. They also need to connrm to their own 13 is not de same as saying that the plant is in 13 criteria that from a safety perspective they've 14 compliance with iegulations because it can be safe in 14 satisfied themselves. Once they've done that, they send 15 the view of-
!$ it to us; and then the ball is in our court.
16 MR. ZWOLINSKI: To tic extent that we are aware of 16 MR. II. MYERs: I'm still asking the question.
17 tic licensce's conformance with tic rules and 17 You've --
18 regulations, we would move forward and state we would 18 MR. HEHU Maine Yankee will not restart unless 19 have no problem with the licensee restarting the plant.
19 they're in compliance with their liwnse and the other 20 if we are aware that tle licensee is not in conformance 20 applicable regulatory requirements.
31 with a rule or regulation, we would not issue that 21 MR. H. MYERs: Well, can't somebody write that 22 letter.
22 down, what you just said? Will somebody put that --
33 MR. II. MYERS: 'lhat means that if you have that 23 MR. IIEHU lt's on the transcript.
24 belief that they are in compliance with regulations, you 24 MR. !!. MYERs: No, no. let me say - I have 25 should be able to say that. Mr. Miller says it's safe 25 another thing about transcripts here - that will Page 13 - Page 16 TIIB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
PU2LIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 17 Page 19 i somebody then say what you'vejust said in writing, that I going down a road which is that you think it - I'm sure 2 Maine Yankee is in - that we at Maine Yankee as far as 2 you don't want an accident at Maine Yankee I don't 3 we know -
3 think anybody wants an accident at Maine Yankee But 4
MR. HEl!U We will in writing lift tle confirmatory 4 you do not do what the regulations require, and you go
)
5 letter, and that confirmatory letter being lifted will 5 off in some direction which does not provide the i
6 be the affirmation that the licensee is in compliance.
6 assurance - level of assurance -
7 I don't know what the words are going to say at this 7
MR. ZWOLINSKl: Ibeg to differ with you on that 8 point.
8 note. We take ourjobs very seriously.
9 MR. IL MYERS: No, no. You and I can all sit down, 9
MR. IL MYERS: I didn't say you didn't take your 10 and we know there will be little bits and pieces here 10 jobs very seriously.
1i since you can't comply with every single thing. 'Ihat's
!I MR. ZWOLINSKl: Well, you're coming very close -
12 why I use the word " substantial compliance." Your 12 MR. H. MYERS: No. I'm saying that you wing it, 13 chairman said there must be compliance. Your chairman 13 and you play it by car because you realize -
14 says - in speeches that she makes, she says there must 14 MR. IIEHL: And that's not correct.
15 be compliance. She certainly won't say it in a letter 15 MR. II. MYERS: I'll discuss that with you at great 16 to me. But are you going to require that they say 16 length about how you wing it and play it by ear.
17 something like we - to the best of our knowledge, this 17 MR. HEIIL: Mr. Bill Linnell. Bill Linnell?
18 plant is in substantial compliance with the license and 18 MR. LINNELL: My name is Bill Linnell. I'm the 19 application regulations?
19 spokesperson for Cheaper Safer Power and Maine Safe 20 MR. IIEllu Yes. We will require them to affirm to 20 Energy.
21 us that they have the plant in compliance with tic 21 1 think the Maine Yankee restart plan ignores two 22 regulations before they're allowed to restart 22 unresolved safety issues. I think it's dangerously 23 MR. IL MYERS: So you're going to say that they 23 silent on both the cost of these repairs and a lack of a 24 must --
24 proven small pipe break emergency cooling analysis.
25 MR. IIEHU l don't know what the words are going to 25 That analysis became a regulatory requirement after tie Page 18 Page 20 1 say at this point.
I Three Mile Island meltdown. Economic problems were 2
MR. H. MYERs: No. I think we should talk about 2 recently identified as a root cause of safety problems 3 this in various ways that it will be in the transcript, 3 at Maine Yankee while again the small pipe break was 4 and we're all going to carefully review what's said when 4 identified as the root cause of tie 'Ilvec Mile Island 5 this plant restarts.
5 meltdown in '79. So I think the current restart plan is 6
MR. IIEliu Ixt's pick this up later on if we still 6 about as effective as rearranging the debt shares in the 7 have time.
7 Titanic. It's as if after losing thrte-quarters of tic 8
MR. H. MYERS: let me ask you --
8 passengers, the crew of the Titanic is preparing to set 9
MR. IIEHu We don't have time at this point.
9 sail 85 years later without any lifeboats.
10 MR. II. MYERS: I'm out of time? let me say as a 10 Now, having said that, I would like to ask a 11 point of order, tlese meetings - all of these issues 11 question - a couple of questions. The - I saw today 12 are exceedingly complex, like this one. We could spend 12 the business plan with the circles and so forth. And it 13 two days speaking about this thing. Many people want to 13 seems to me that given that economic stressors was found 14 ask their questions here. Each of them has an issue 14 as a root cause of safety problems at Maine Yankee, I j
15 that will take two days to discuss. So what we're doing 15 think one of the things that needs to be included in 16 here is really not serious discussion of Maine Yankm.
16 this business plan is how much all of this is going to 17 And if you think this is real public participation, you 17 cost so that assessments can be made as to how this will 18 kid yourselves.
18 impact the economic stress factor at Maine Yankee.
19 MR. IIEllb Well, the purpose of the mceting, llemy, 19 And I guess piggy-backing on what llenry Myers 20 is to get comments on the restart plan.
20 said -
21 MR. II. MYERS: Yes, but you don't act on tiem. You 21 MR. llEHb You want to - an answer?
22 want comments. You want people to send you letters, but 22 MR. UNNELL: Yes, could you? Sure.
23 what you send back is junk; and that's what you do. And 23 MR. ZwOUNSKl: Well,ISAT had also concluded that 24 if you want to ask people, I'm not the only person that 24 there were concerns with the licensce indeed 25 thinks this. And you just kid yourselves. And you're 25 demonstrating a questioning attitude in light of what Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 17 - Page 20
i MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 21 Page 23 I was perceived as economic pressures. And you may be I that issue, that the safety concem that arose when we 2 aware that the company has allotted a significant amount 2 first found that there was concern about the adequacy of 3 of resources to the new management team to get on with 3 tie small break loCA going back to the allegation - UCs 4 the recowry of the facility.
4 filed the alle6ation, and the State provided it to the
+
5 I agree with you, there are not finances in this 5 staff. Certainly, a very important issue. Don't 6 particular document. I don't believe we've - we would 6 misunderstand. He staff did take what we thought was 7 have o basis to act on it in - any type of financial 7 quite a significant action by issuing the order which by 8 information if it was in the plan. T1e company does 8 imposmg that pour of restriction certainly bounded 9 have a business plan and probably has some of tie more 9 uncertamties that one may be able to postulate. So we 10 micrcocopic numbers that you may be alluding to. But to felt indeed we addressed the safety concern 11 your observation is accurate.
11 forthrightly.
12 With respect to not addressing the small break IOCA 12 And by the way, I think we feel very strongly that 13 issue, as you're aware, our January 3rd,1996 order 13 that should stand until the licensee has had an 14 contains a basis and rationale for assuring that 14 opportunity to look at a comprehensive integrated 15 uncertainties that currently - that would exist without 15 response to going back to 2700.
16 having that particular analysis available are bounded by 16 MR. UNNEtt hank you. I have another comment or 17 the large break LOCA analysis. And it's our 17 aquestion.
18 understanding that tie licensee doesn't have an 18 In terms of tie steam generator inspection, is this 19 intention today to explore going beyond tic 2440 that 19 inspection going to use the plus point probe, 20 they're curmntly ordered to operate for quite some 20 essentially the same probe that was used in 19957 21 time, on into 1998 or beyond. So the issue of small 21 MR. zwouNSD Ec licensee -- Ell, they're going 22 break LOCA is really not a technical concern to tic 22 to use 100 penrnt bobbin coil and then to a limited 23 staff at this time.
23 scope 20 percent - a less percentage with - with plus 24 MR. LINNELL: Well, as a follow-up, my 24 point probe. So as Bill just said, the answer to your 1
25 understanding is that what went wrong at Three Mile 25 questionis yes.
Page 22 Page 24 1 Island was that there was a - essentia!!y a small break 1
MR. IIEllL: Yes. That's typical is that you go in, 2 IDCA and that the segulations that grew --
2 you sample a certain number of tubes; and if you find 3
MR.zwouNsn Yes.
3 defects, tien we have a criteria that expands that 4
MR. UNNEt.t.: - as a result of that or what we 4 sample out, you know, and provides additional defects.
5 lenmed fmm that, if you will, was that you can't rely 5 And we have to do larger samples and larger samples 6 on a large break tDCA to bound your small break.
6 until you find a problem.
7 And so the - the path that the NRC S ms to be 7
So t!e answer is yes, it's going to be used. And 8 taking is that - is to repeat history and to use a 8 we've got folks that --
9 large pipe break LDCA, which is a pre-Eree Mile Island 9
MR. DORMAN They're doing 100 percent bobbin coil 10 regulation, to justify the operation of Maine Yankce at 10 inspection with basically the whole steam generators, 11 any power level. And - and 1 -
11 all three of tiem. For tic plus point probe, ticy're 12 MR.ZWouNsn Ixt me help you. Maybe you're not 12 doing inspections in some of tle most vulnerable 13 aware that the licensee does have an analysis using a 13 regions, around the eggerate intersections; and they're 14 pre-1980 code. His is the cc 1977 version of a small 14 doing 100 percent in the plus point with the steam 15 break LDCA code that tley have used and have relied upon 15 blanket region which is the tightest U-bends in the 16 for the last cycle of operation. So - and by the way, 16 tubes in the centers of tie steam generators.
17 the results of that code are - are dependable and -
17 Tley're also - on tic 30-inch sleeves that were 18 and significantly less than the results from the large 18 installed on the last outage, they're doing 100 percent 19 break LDCA code which is additional affirmation that the 19 plus point cleckover of those sleeves with 20 percent 20 large break LDCA code indeed bounds Current operation in 20 checkover of the smaller sleeves.
21 2440.
21 MR. LINNELL: Thank you.1 guess my --
22 MR. UNNF.IL Okay. I understand - you know, I'm 22 MR. DORMAN: Depending on tir results of those, 23 not a physicist.
23 tley may -
24 MR. ZWoWNsu Mr. Linncil, I'd be more than happy 24 MR. LINNELL: Right, I understand that. I 25 to continue to walk you through step by step. But to 25 understand that.
Page 21 - Page 24 TilB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopisn & Ramsdell
i FUILIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 25 Page 27 1
Am I correct in my understanding - I've seen the I contrary to Chatrman Jackson's statement that compliance 2 h-t that Maine Yankee brought down to Washmgton on 2 issues are safety issues. Your Chairman seems to be 3 tie 26th of March to talk to the NRC about the steam 3 trying to assure us and advise her staff that only 4 generator inspection. And in there it talks about - 1 4 adherence to regulations and not subjectivejudgments of 5 understand ticy'll be looking at 199 - the indications 5 safety opined by individuals will provide us with a 6 in de free span of 1995. So those are -- am I conect 6 solid foundation for determining safety. At the 7 in my understanding that those are defects that were 7 February 14th legislative hearing in Augusta,ISAT 8 spotted in 1995, and now we're going to look at tiem 8 leader Edward Jordan inappropriately commented that he 9 again?
9 wouldn't mind living near this plant. But the hearing to MR. DORMAN: They're going to be looking at those 10 was convened to inform Maine lawmakers of the standards 11 again, as I recall, with both the A current and tle plus 11 for and the standards of safety at Maine Yankee, not to i
12 point to benchmark the performance of the plus point 12 hear which region Mr. Jordan might inhabit. Agam at 13 against the eddy current on established defects, yes.
13 the March lith meeting Maine Yankee was told they need, 14 MR. I.INNELt.: Okay. Thank you. Now, you don't 14 quote, to set the bar higher, end quote.
15 have to comment on this; but I just want to point out 15 Just a few exampics will suffice to show that tle 16 because this is a public meeting that when they did tie 16 NRC set the bar too low to begin with: The rapidly 17 sleeving operation, Maine Yankee -- I don't recall them 17 approved but not discredited relap five-way code and l
18 mentionin6 anything about indications in the free span 18 Maine Yankee's continued failure to comply with post l
19 areas of the steam generators. And they were adamant 19 Three Mile Island action plan, tic previously h-ted 20 that this -- that the repairs in 1995 would be a life of 20 but only recently addressed u.ble separation issue, or 1
21 the plant repair. And they put that in on their own. I 21 the recent guilty plea of NRC project manager Edward 22 (km't expect you to comment on that. This is between me 22 Trottier to leaking confidential investigatory 23 and Maine Yankee, or the rest of us and Maine Yankee.
23 information to Maine Yankee.
24 1 hank you. That's all I have.
24 Regardmg the cable separation issue, NRC claimed 25 MR. ItEHt.: peter Christine.
25 at the March 11 meeting that the recent cable separation Page 26 Page 28 1
MR. CHRISBNE: My name is Peter Christine. I'm a 1 issues are not the same ones as those raised in 1978 by 2 private citizen. I'm from Alna, Maine. I also have 2 NRC Inspector Peter Atherton. That statement was made 3 some comments on the March lith meeting after which I 3 when the NRC could not even locate the Atherton report 4 would like some of your comments on an exchange that I 4 in its files.
5 heard today at your meeting down at Maine Yankee. And 5
William Beecher, a spokesman for the NRC, claimed 6 l'd like to clarify what I saw as a misunderstanding 6 that the Trottier transgression was an isolated 7 about your role in tle restart and what h*ike Meisner 7 incident. Ilow can he possibly know that? I'd like to 8 felt was your role vis a vis his corporation in the 8 know why does the NRC repeatedly adopt a defensive 9 restart.
9 posture or seek to assure us of safety by means other 10 First my comments on the March 1Ith meeting. In 10 than strict compliance with regulations? The NRC cannot
!I the past few months NRC staff members made public 11 he excused by claiming that Maine Yankee must regulate 12 comments which I believe reveal that the NRC is 12 itself and the NRCis but an auditing agency 'lle NRC 13 unwilling to prescribe for itself the very medicine it 13 is also an enforcement agency. And as tle NRC has been 14 recommends for Maine Yankee. The agency will not fam 14 saying to Maine Yankee, we willjudge your actions, not 15 the fact that its disregard and unspoken contempt for 15 your words, so is the NRC in the case of, physician, 16 its own regulations have contributed to Maine Yankm's 16 heal thyself.
17 current problems. While Maine Yankee is advised to 17 Now, today at the meeting down at the plant there 18 prove its resolve with actions and not with words, the 18 was an exchange that I think reflects a little of this 19 NRC seems to hide behind words that confound or explain 19 confusion of tie roles and responsibilities between the 20 away its own reasons for inaction.
20 licensm and the - and the agency. Mike Meisner asked 21 At the March 1Ith meeting between the NRC and Maine 21 you, Mr. Ilehl, I believe, to let him know when your 22 Yankee, ilubert Miller did say that the plant had never 22 inspection might commence and what you would be 23 been unsafe. Ilut since it was Maine Yankce's failure to 23 inspecting. And I thought appropriately in response you 24 conform to safety requirements that put the plant in its 24 said that, no, excuse me, but your plan is your plan and 25 current shutdown, Mr. Miller's statements then were made 25 we will then come down and inspect it according to what THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIngopian & Ramsdell Page 25 - Page 28
l MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 29 Page 31 l
1 1 we see fit is our plan, you called it. Now, to me that I the activities they how to complete, period.
2 showed that both Maine Yankee and the NRC are still' 2
MR. CHRISTINE: I would also like to draw your f
3 " - '- -
=h each other as to what role they si.vuld 3 attention - I'm sorry, the rest of the audience may not 4 both play in this process. It seems that Mr. Meisner 4 have this - but on one of the slides that was presented 5
5 assumes that you sie his partner in restarting. Now, to 5 here today, the slide was titled Nuclear Quality / Safety j
6 your credit, you said no, we haw our own plan. You do 6 Culture. It was a flow chart. And I would put to you i
7 yourjob, and we'll come see if you've done it 7 that you could probably best spend the li nited NRC j
s corseetly..
8 resources in proving through your actions and not words 9
And you also continued to say - I'm obviously 9 of your strength of will in regards to enforcement in 10 shortening this exchange a little bit - but you also 10 that one of the weak areas was regulations in standards 11 went on to say that - that they needed to complete it 11 which directly affected senior management Now, that 12 in full because your resources were stretched and you 12 would be regulations and standards as interpreted by the 13 didn't want to essentially have to' keep coming back, 13 licensee. But the licensee will only determine the 14 that you wanted certain things down and you believed 14 regulations and standards by how high you set those 15 that some of their timetables weie a little short in 15 standards. And I think tiere's a lot of room for 16 time.
16 improvement on your part in that regard.
17 Now, on the surfaa that seems heartening. It 17 MR. HEllL: Appreciate the comment. I think we have i
la seems that you were saying this is yourjob. We're 18 standards that are appropriate; and I think there's no 19 going to come and review you latet. But I believe you 19 doubt - and tlere is no inconsistency in what the 20 said it for all the wrong reasons because on the heels 20 Chairman is saying. Compliance with regulations is a l 31 of that you quoted that your - or you said that your 21 fundamental necessity. But, on the other hand, even as 33 resources would be stretched. And I don't believe 22 Mr. Myers pointed out, you know, at 66 miles per hour 23 that's the proper response. I think your response 23 and the speed limit is 65 miles per hour, ere you unsafe 24 should be one of we are the regulators. You will adhere 24 at 66? I mean,if you're in violation of the law, we 25 to a high standard. And then we'll come by; and if you 25 are certainly going to fully and completely expect that Page 30 Page 32 I do not pass that standard, you will fail and you will I the licensee complies with the letter of the law. And a not restart. It should not be a matter of your agency's 2 when they don't, well, if they identify it and comst
)
3 resources being stretched that defines your role to 3 it and it's consistent with our enforcement policy, 4 licensees.
4 we'll give ticm credit for identifying and correcting 5
MR. HEllL: And once again, it certainly points out 5 it. If we have to identify it and correct it, then 6 that perhaps the difficulty sometimes in communications 6 we'll take tie appropriate enformment action which we 7 tw-that - that certainly I don't think was the 7 have done in the past and will continue to do in the 8 intent. I don't think it was the intent on Mr.
8 future.
9 Meisner's part to imply some so:t of partnership. And I 9
MR. ZWOIJNSKl: 'llcre are a couple of other issues to don't think - and I certainly know it wasn't my intent to that I'd like to address. You may have read or be aware 11 to indicate that the primary reason why we wanted them
' 11 that tle agency has bcen going through essentially a i la to finish these plans was bmause we were stretcled with 12 reevaluation ofitself as far as lessons leamed from 13 _ tight resources Now, I think that's in my opinion 13 past activities at the Millstone facility as well as J 14 certainly a gross misinterpretation of those words at 14 here at Maine Yankee. We've sent a report to the 15 the best.
15 Commission with recommendations on a wide number of 16 Certainly, Maine Yankee will have to complete their 16 lessons leamed that we feel the agency has accrued over 17 actions briore we come in and look at tiem; but we have 17 tie past year, year and a half.
18 been looking at things as we go along. 'Ilere are 18
'lhe Commission I believe is going to adopt much of 4
19 certain mings that have to be looked at in process, and 19 those imninw.dations, and they come from a variety of 20 we' e doing that right now. But it's a reality of life 20 sources Intemal investigations and intemal 21 that we have stretched resources it's a reality of 21 evaluations within the Office of Nuclear Reactor 22 life that we have major inspection activities at a lot 22 Regulation and recommendations from the field offices.
33 of facilities. But we are expending tie resources that 23 So there is a lot of change that's going out in the 24 need to be expended to ensure that when Maine Yankee 24 context of,indeed, some of the problems of some of 25 restarts, they're ready to restart, they've completed 25 these facilities rest on the shoulders of the agency; i Page 29.- Page 32 -
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rainsdell 1
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Osadenselt!" MAINE YANKEB ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 33 Page 35 1 and we'll be as assertive, as aggressive, as probing as 1
MR. DORMAN l'm not aware that any of the issues 2 we should have ban. And I think the report card in so 2 that have been raised currently go to fire protection 3 many words is we were not living up to the expectations 3 conzrns. They're electrical separation concerns. For 4 that our new chairman has set for ourselves. And to ter 4 cxample, between power - there are some train 5 credit, she is essentially chattmpng us to live up to 5 separation concerns; but I'm not aware that those go to 6 what Mr. IIchljust referred to. Let's get on with 6 fire protection concerns.
7 assuring that licensees comply with all rules and 7
MR. IIEHL: 1 think the bottom line is that the -
8 regulations.
8 that I don't think there's anything that we know of that 9
1 would like to address the issue that you also 9 at this point in time that changes tie tottom line which 10 raised with respect to a large set of notes that the 10 was indicated on March 11th; and that is that tiese are 11 staff has received from - from an individual living in 11 different issues. These are issues -- the Atlerton 12 the area. I would like Mr. Dorman to address that.
12 letter was an issue having to do with tle design in 13 MR. DORMAN: I guess particularly I want to address 13 general of fire protection type of activities; and what 14 the comments you made regarding Mr. Miller's comments on 14 is being found now has to do with electrical separation 15 March 11. You made an assertion that the staff couldn't 15 of cables which is a different issue.
16 find the notes at that time, and I can assure you that 16 MR. CIIRISTINE: Why do you separate electrical 17 t!c staff did have the notes at that time. Both 17 cables then?
18 headquarters and regional staff had the notes at that 18 MR. IIE!!L: It's a different issue, because there 19 time.
19 are many other reasons besides fire to separate t'ese 20 h basis of Mr. Miller's comment at that time with 20 cables.
31 tle issues in the notes were different from issues that 21 MR. CIIRISTINE: You're protecting tle redundancies 32 were brought up at Maine Yankee. The comments on cable 22 by separating tie trains; are you not?
23 separation in tic notes go to the design basis of 23 MR. IIEllL: You know, the difference is 34 separation of trains and cable trains. The issues that 24 that -- that what Mr. Athenon was looking at was 35 we were aware of as of March lith have come out of -
25 whetler the original design of the facility was such Page 34 Page 36 I the current reviews were issues of individual cable I that these cables were separated to address fue 2 issues that arose from modifications where the licensee 2 protection issues. What they're finding now is the 3 *nade some change to the plant, installed a new cable.
3 implementation of those design standards -- you know, 4 Most of these were -- at the time of the March lith 4 the design standards weren't bad. The design standards 5 comments, all of the ones that I was aware of were 5 called for cable separation. We teamed more after the 6 installed since 1978; and they were - it was a separate 6 Brown's Feny fire, and the implementation of new 7 issue.
7 regulatory requirements reflected that in requiring 8
So to say that -- to say that the -- that the 8 facilities to make changes to accommodate a range of 9 concems that are being dealt with now were the concems 9 fires and things. But the original design was there to 10 that were raised in 1978, the issues that were being 10 separate cables.
I1 addressed now didn't even exist in 1978.
I1 The implementation of that design requirement is 12 MR. GIRISTINth Excuse me, but you're using the 12 what tley're having problems with now. People didn't do 13 word issue when you really mean the word example. De 13 what they were supposed to do when they installed some 14 overarching issue is cable train separation of 14 of these cables. And they're having to go through and 15 redundancies to ensure fire protection. That is the 15 search out each and every one of these; and they're 16 overarching issue. Whether you're talking at~ut a 16 going to fix them.
17 modification that's -- in fact, I believe it's even 17 MR. RtRAND: Irt me -- I wouldn't argue 18 worse if at one time you had that -- tle media pointed 18 with - I think your assertion that if you do separate 19 out that trains must be separated to provide fire 19 cables it's going to help you from a fire protection 20 protection. %en you go about making modification and 20 perspective, I'm not going to argue with that. Rat's 31 don't take advantage of that lesson teamed in a prior 21 true. It will. But the primary thrust of the cable 22 date.
. 22 separation issues right now are not ftre protection 23 So the issue - tie basic issue of cable separation 23 related. But you're right. It does address fire 24 is tie same. If cables weren't separated, somebody 24 protection if I separate cables, and it's going to 25 hasn't learned from a past issue.
25 help. No question about that.
TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 33 - Page 36
m l
l MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 37 Page 39 MR.DORMAN Let mejust briefly go to I
MR. ANGIER: Fred Angier, Alna.
2 what - what we're doing with this subject. 'Ihe staff 2
Some of what I was going to say might be a bit 3 has taken those notes and are comparing them to the 3 redundant, but I think it's 1-r&t to have a general 4 position that the staff took at the time. 'Ihere's a lot 4 overview of the steam generator issue which I would like 5 of correlation between those notes and what the staff-5 to discuss.
6 the positions that the staff took at the time in those 6
In recerat weeks in preparation for the inspection i
j 7 areas. _ What we're looking at is the differences. We're 7 of Maine Yankee's tlwee steam generators, Mame Yankee 8 going back and looking at what the position, what the 8 officials have stated that they plan to inspect 65 miles j
9 seasons may have been why the staff did not require all 9 of tubing within the generators themselves. The 10 of the thing
- that Mr. Atherton felt should be required 10 inspection is being touted as w-Asive in scope.
11 of a licensee. We plan to complete that review in the 11 Since the three steam generators house a total of over r
12 next month or so.
12 170 miles of tubing made largely of a controversial 13 We've also asked the licensee to take a look at -
13 alloy, loconel 600, known to be susceptible to cracking, t
14 at these notes coiup.sai to the fire protection program; 14 I question how the inspection of only one-third of the 15 and we anticipate that they'll finish their review in a 15 tubing can be considered comprehensive. Reinforcing my 16 month or so. We expect that in another public forum 16 concern is the fact that in the past potentially 17 such as this, probably in the late May or June time 17 dangerous cracks have been discovered and repaned in l
18 frame, we will incorporate that issue into a public 18 parts of the steam generator tubes not recent - not-19 meeting and seport back to you what we have found to 19 recently sleeved.
4 20 address this issue. And if we find we have to do 20 It hn also been reported in the media that Maine 21 something, we will artainly address that.
21 Yank now expects a number of repairs within the steam 22 MR.CIIRISTINE: "Ihank you.
22 nererator tubes will be necessary Maine Yankee 23 MR.ZWOLU4SKl: You can be assured that if there 23 of ficials, however, contend that up to 20 percent of the 24 are any issues that are id:ntified that have not been 24 steam generator tubes can be plugged without affecting 25 satisfactorily resolved, we would expect the licensee to 25 cither the safety or the efficiency of the plant. In Page 38 Page 40 1 indeed resolve those issues prior to seeking approval to 1 1995 Maine Yankee officials put a maximum number of 2 restart the facility. So that would be the thrust of 2 plugged tubes for efficient and safe operation at 9 3 the agency's position as far as bringing closure to this 3 perxnt.
4 4 entire matter.
4 Question, one, do you agree that Maine Yankee can p
5 MA. CHRISBNE: Thank you. I would just credit you 5 operate safely and efficiently at 100 percent power with 1
6 with your lessons learned effort. I would hope that 6 10 to 20 percent of their tubes plugged; and what does 7 that would extend to embody your Chairman's words that 7 that - and does that percentage include the 17000 l
a compliance issues are safety issues and prevent any 8 tubes already sleeved?
9 father disservice to the public by having 9
Two -
10 representatives of your agency engage in what are 10 MR. IIEHL: Well, let's start with question one and 11 entirely personaljudgnrnts about the safety of the 11 make sure we can work our way through these, sir.
12 plant and not professional opinNs. I believe Mr.
12 Fundamentally, the licensee will not be allowed to 13 Miller's comment did a great disservice by implying to 13 return to 100 percent power until they have made 14 the public something other than complianoe. It was a 14 substantive changes to the plent and addressed a vancty i
15 pasonal judgment on the safety and the past safe is of technical concerns that have evolved over the last j
16 operation at Maine Yankee.
16 year plus. And as I said earlier, that would be the 17 MR. HEHt.: No. I don't think that's a personal 17 1998-1999 time frame. Right row the licensee, should 18 judgment. I think that's a professional jtxigment; and 18 they solve their problems, they could request going back 19 it comes based on a knowledge of the issues associated 19 to 90 percent the level at which the order that we 20 with the facility and a knowledge of the - of the 20 issued on the generator in '96.
21 heensing process for these facilities. I take very 21 MR. ANGIER: Would it be safe for Maine Yankee to 22 muda exception to your characterization cf that. I 22 operate at 90 percent power with 10 to 20 percent of i
23 think you've - you're kind of out of time anyway.
23 theh tubes plugged?
24 MR. CHRisDNE: Thank yo.l.
24 MR. DO.1 MAN I think that there are some things 25 MR. HEnt.: Angier.
25 that we have to continue - we have to look at. They
. Page 37 - Page 40 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rannsdell
PU2LIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 4i Page 43 1 have a request for operation at reduced reactor coolant 1
MR. HElIU It won't be speculative as to any 2 system flow which would in fact restnct power to 2 decisions we come up with because it will be based on 3 something less than 100 percent if reactor coolant flow 3 our engineers' analysis as to whether there's sufficient 4 was less than their current tech spec minimum of 360,000 4 flow or not.
5 gallons per minute - per hour. De issue that would 5
MR. ANGIER: 'Ihank you. 'Ihe second part of my 6 cause that flow to be reduced, obviously, would be the 6 question is - and this is somewhat bothersome to me.
7 plug in tie sleeves of the tubes. I can't recall the 7 After only eight months plus or minus of operation after 8 exact numbers involved; but it seems to me that about --
8 operation at 90 percent power since the completion of 9 somewhere around 10 percent plugging they would get into 9 the 1995 sleeving operation claimed, as Bill said, by 10 that - that much flow reduction.
10 Charlie Frizzle to be a life of tic plant repair, why iI MR. ANGIER: Do you still contend that - there was 11 does Maine Yankee assume repairs to the steam generators 12 some talk when dese steam generator tubes were being 12 will be necessary? Ilow long have they held these 13 sleeved -- what's your basic ratio for sleeved versus 13 assumptions, and what does that say about the overall 14 plugged?
14 state of the steam generators which are already among 15 MR. DORMAN: I don't know that off the top of my 15 the most degraded and retrofitted generators in the 16 head.
16 world. And I would say tley are the most retrofitted 17 MR. IIEHu We didn't bring our steam generator 17 generators in the world. There's not much doubt about 18 experts with us tonight. We're trying to focus on 18 that.
19 getting comments on the restart plan. Now, certainly in 19 Dese questions become even more relevant in the 20 order for tiem to - to operate the plant with plugged 20 light of the fact that Maine Yankee does not have and 21 tubes beyond what is allowed in the technical 21 never has had an NRc approved model in effect for a 22 specifications at the current time, they would have to 22 small break loss of coolant accident wlether it's at 23 come in for amendment. %ey would have to make a safety 23 2400 or 2700. Maine Yankee does not comply with post 24 argument complete with analysis. We would have to 24 nrce Mile Island criteria at 2400 or 2700 megawatts -
25 review that argument and approve that prior to ticm 25 2440 or 2700 megawatts. And if - if they do, I would Page 42 Page 44 1 operating at that point.
I like to see some proof of it.
2 Certainly a lot of this is -- is at this point 2
MR. IIEHu Well, I think we've already addressed 3 bypotletical based on tie fact that tle inspections --
3 the small break tDCA previously. I think we indicated 4 tic reinspections of tic steam generatorjust started 4 there was an analysis that was done.
5 today. And we'll be monitoring that inspection 5
MR. ANGIER: But that's a pre-%ree Mile Island 6 activity. We have inspectors that will be out here 6 analysis.
7 looking at tic monitor and looking at tic results of tic 7
MR. IIEHU And that analysis --
l 8 inspection.
8 MR. ZWOUNSKl: Well, it's the same thing that 9
MR. ANGIER: And I want to go on to tle second 9 we've already --
10 question; but I just want to reiterate, in tic past, you 10 MR. ANGIER: As far as I know, it doesn't matter 1i know, I've leard tle rule of thumb back in 1994 was 1I whether it's a 2440 or a 2700.
12 1-to-7 ratio of plug to sleeve. And then we heard 12 MR. ZWOUNsKl: And if you look at what was 13 assertions of 31 - or 31 -- excuse me - 35 to 1. It's 13 required by the staffin new reg 0737 both 2K330 and 31, 14 all over tic place, and there doesn't seem to be any 14 you should be aware that the industry as a whole 15 consensus. And I realize it's plant specific sometimes, 15 literally took through the 1980's and early into the 16 but tic divergence there is quite large.
16 1990's to come into conformance with both 2K330, the 17 MR. ZWOLINSKl: The fundamental issue is tle 17 generic aspects, and 2K331, the specific aspects. His 18 reactor coolant flow, and tlere is some tech spec 18 licensee implemented what they thought was their 19 requirement on that ihw. Tiere is a tech spec change 19 approved 2K330 and 331 method in Cycle 14 which took 20 request for tie staff requesting a slightly reduced 20 placx in the 1994 time frame. So up until that point in 21 flowrate in anticipation of some number of tubes having 21 time, ticy had been relying upon codes that had been 22 to be plugged.
22 found acceptable by the staff.
23 But this is all very speculative. "Ihe licensCC as 23 MR. ANGIER: I appreciate your time. Let me just 24 well as ourselves have little or no idea will this plant 24 reiterate though, what is it about the Maine Yankee 25 incur one or two to be plugged or a much larger number. 25 design that leads to findings that the regulations TIIH REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 41 - Page 44 i
i
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenseltl*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 45 Page 47 1 associated with 'lhree Mile Island action items 2K330 and I restart.
2 2K331 are superfluous or otherwise need not be complied 2
I want to address those competence issues because 3 with O 2440 nwgawatts for - but not at 27007 I mean, 3 l'm not technically qualified to deal with those other 4 I don't - there doesn't seem to be a cicar 4 issues. But the confidence issue is what I'm concerned 5 explanation.
5 with and one I think the public is concerned with.
6 MR. DORMAN: 'Ihe order nxluired them to provide a 6
If we go back to the ISAT report, the ISAT team 7 small break WCA evaluation model which is 2K330 and 7 only looked at I think four of the systems in Maine s 31. 'Ihey've provided one, and that's under stali 8 Yankee And tien they only looked at - they didn't 9 review But the basis for the operation at 2440 as 9 look at those systems completely. 'lley took vertical 10 stated in the order is that the pre-TMI small break wCA 10 slices I think was one of the terms used. So in other iI analysis for 2440 has sufficient margin from the peak i1 words, ticy did a partial review of selective systems at la flying temperature from de large break wCA analysis 12 Maine Yankee, tie idea being, as I understand it, that 13 that covers the uncertainties for not addressing the 13 the methodology was such that by doing ticse partial 14 issues associated with nil. So that margin covering the 14 reviews of a few systems, they could get a picture of 15 uncertamty provides confidenm that for operation of 15 the plant as a whole and draw conclusions of the plant 16 2440, that large break wCA analysis is binding.
16 as a whole.
17 MR. ANGIER: Dut that sounds like an r.csumption.
17 MR. IIEIIL: Let me stop you right there and just 18 ML ZWOUNSn "Ihat's analysis of the large break 18 comment real quickly on that. The process that we go 19 IDCA and analysis of the small break wCA. And you'll 19 through in an inspection is that we certainly expect tic 20 find the small break IOCA results are in the order of 20 licensee to - to have these systems built -- designed, al 1350 degmes rcr; and the large break wCA are in the 21 built and constructed and operating consistent with what 32 order of 2,000, quite a substantial differenx.
22 the design is supposed to be. And we look at tie 33 MR. ANGIER: Thank you for your tirne.
23 process all tle way along.
34 MR HEnt; Nigel Calden.
24 But the vertical slice type of activity is - is 35 MR. CAtDEN: Nigel Calden,also from Alna. My 25 really to challenge tie system. We look at the specific Page 46 Page 48 1 family and I moved into this area five years ago. We I system; and we look all the way from the original design 2 did so with the knowledge that dere was a nuclear power 2 through the operation, tie testing, how it's maintained, 3 plant down the road, and we did so without any qualms 3 procedures associated with all of that aspect but not so 4 whatsoever. Since that time the plant has taken a 4 that - you know, we're not drawing necessarily an 5 hammering. Public confidence is at an all-time low, and 5 inference that because of the four systems we looked at 6 tic ngulators are also taking a hammering.
6 and if we didn't find problems with the four systems 7
But I'm somewhat more optimistic than some of the 7 that we had an inference that all of them were -- 1 j
8 other speakers I believe what's going on here tonight 8 mean, you could draw some of that; but we're really 9 is part of a process that is working in a clumsy sort of 9 looking to identify where are the weaknesses and where 10 way. And if we look at the last couple of years, we see 10 are the vulnerabilities that exist. And then we'll turn
!I that the NRC has implemented its ISAT investigation iI those over and expect the licensee to go the rest of the la team. They've put Maine Yankee on the watch list.
12 way and look at the rest of the systems. And then we'll 13 'lley've fired Ed Trottier for collusion with Maine 13 come back and look and see how well they did theirjob.
14 Yankee manaBement. We've got this meeting here tonight, 14 But that's the process.
15 and there are people at least listening to us for a 15 MR. cat. DEN: And that's the issue I want to addmss 16 change So I think there is some sort of movement 16 because had you in those inspections that you've 17 hae. And as we've heard, the NRC is self-critical as 17 performed given the plant a clean bill of health, from 18 well which is a substantial change from a couple of 18 my ocrspective, I think I would have found that adequate 19 years ago. So there is progress here, but it is clumsy 19 to extrapolate from that and say that the plant has a 20 and it's erratic.
20 clean bill of health. But you didn't. You tumed up 21 And I'd like to take this a step further in light 21 numerous problems, some of them quite serious, many 22 of anne of the comments that the chairperson opened the 22 areas in which the plant violated its licensing basis.
33 meeting with. And I quote, you said that the process -
23 So I think it's bad to draw the other extrapolation from 24 tle restart process is designed to provide a level of 24 that, that if you subjected the rest of the systems in 25 confidence such that Maine Yankee can be allowed to 25 the plant to the same kind of scrutiny, you would show Page 45 - Page 48 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rarnsdell
PULIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 49 Page 51 I up a whole series of more problems. And you'vejust I owner of the plant, tie licensee, to maintain that 2 said that you're basically relying on the licensee to go 2 facility.
3 from those systems through tle rest of plant and do 3
And in this case, there's been some problems 4 ticir work. And from my perspective and I think from 4 dere. But the reality is that - that, you know - and 5 tic perspective of any other people in the public, 5 you can mrtamly - you can certamly make your case to 6 that's certainly not adequate. Diis licensee does not 6 Congrez Make your case - you know, I'd love to have, 7 have tie history and tie track record that wouldjustify 7 you know,10 times tie resources I have so that I could 8 that level of confidence in tie way tley're going to do 8 come in here and do 100 percent review of everything in 9 those investigations.
9 the plant. But I don't. I can't.
10 MR. ZWOLINSKl: As tic licensee stated in their
' 10 MR. CA1. DEN: But you understand what I'm saying.
I1 December 10th response to ISAT,it was their intention i1 You'vejust told us that you've got to re-establish your 12 to move forward doing a limited vertical slice to the 12 confidenz in the plant and in the way they run it.
13 remainder of tie systems. Ucy have done that. We are 13 MR. mnu.: Absolutely.
14 inspecting that which tie licensee has completed. Ticy 14 MR. CALDEN: But equally you're public servants.
15 intend to go on with even more inspections, greater 15 We've got to re-establish our confidence in the NRC; and 16 depth, more detail. After ticy're done, we'll follow 16 we're looking at an extremely spotty record here over 17 that up with our own inspections.
17 the last 20 years, in fact, and some uncertainty on our 18 MR. CALDEN: But, sir, there's a big difference 18 part that this is a real change of response or is this 19 between tirir doing it and you judging ticir results and 19 just a temporary littic thing until the plant is up and 20 you doing it, from my perspective and I think from tic 20 running again and then these things can be shoveled 21 public's perspective. Tiere is a very big difference.
21 under de carpet once again.
22 MR. IIE1IL: And I un&rstand that. But tic reality 22 MR.zwo 2Nsri: There were a few data points that 23 of tie situation is we can't go in tlere and review 23 came up in our meeting this aftemoon. I don't know if 24 every system. We - we have to rely to a certain extent 24 you had ar. opportunity to attend or not. The licensee 25 on tle licensce's process. And that's part of this 25 has implemented what we call a low threshold /lugh volume Page 50 Page S1 i restart plan. It's a method of us regaining confider.cc 1 reporting system in which they've encouraged everybody 2 in some of ticir programs and processes that they put in 2 that works for the company and their contractors to use 3 plax to identify and resolve deficiencies. And that's 3 a certain computer program to enter any type of safety 4 part of what we're going to be looking at. We have a 4 concern And they reflected that I think the number in 5 whole list of items that are restart, you know, enteria 5 that inventory has grown to over 1800 items with the 6 and restart work the licensce has identified. As we 6 projection that it will continue to grow. That's -
7 said coming in here, we're going to come in with our own 7 that's some evidence that the licensee is taking much to 8 plan to monitor and to go in and challenge their system 8 heart that came from tle ISAT itself, that came from 9 and see how robust it is, to sm how well it finds 9 some of the things that you've just articulated to problems and resolves them. And ifit doesn't, then 10 associated with being placed on the watch list and under 11 they're not going to start up. You know, we have to 11 very close scrutiny by tie folks here at this table and 12 have confidenx that not only that they -- you know, 12 many of tie inspection teams that we will have at the 13 that they fix the problems that were already 13 site. It's an integrated activity in which we're 14 identified. We have to have cordidena that they can --
14 looking for any comments that you may have with respect 15 tley can have an active program that can find additional 15 to the licensce's plan of attack. Is it - is it from 16 pmblems and sesolve them.
16 your view the type of plan that you would expect this 17 You know, these are complex facilities, very 17 licensee to provide us; or are there things that we 18 complex facilities. Ticy're run by a lot of people.
18 should be looking at that from your perspective we have 19 You know, and -- and tiere are going to be errors made 19 missed? And give us tle benefit of your insights to the 20 in the performance of people. There's going to be 20 facility that when we do issue our plan that we'll 21 errors made in the performance of equipment. We feel, 21 inspxt against, you'll know it's our plan; and we'll 22 you know, and we have reasonable assuranw when we 22 share it with you.
23 license tlese facilities that they're designed such that 23 MR. CALDEN: Well, clearly we cannot have that sort 24 t!cre's enough defense in depth to accommodate those 24 ofinput. We don't have the technical skills or the 25 errors that occur. But we also rely very leavily on the 25 expertise. We are relying on tie NRC.
Tim REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 49 - Page 52
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 53 Page 55 1
MR.ZWOUNSKl: Well, much ofit is quite readable 1 investigation being involved in the steam generator 2 and it does not get into a lot of technicalissues. It 2 inspection. And that is certainly a controversial area 3 goes gets much more into pro ss and programs. So you 3 dere.
4 may find that it's somewhat enlightening that de 4
l'd like tojust ask you in terms of the steam 5 licensee has at least established a game plan to get 5 generator inspection, in terms of the thickness, when 6 after their own lealth.
6 you get up into the area of the drill plates and the 7
MR.CALDEN: Okay. Well, I thank you for your 7 horizontal - the upper horizontals which are areas that s efforts.
8 are most susceptible to corrosion damage and that sort 9
MR. IIEllL: Thank you.
9 of thing, you know, what's the thickness, what's de 10 MR. CALDEN: Ihope they continue in a fairly 10 degree of - can you tell us what the degree of 11 vigorous fashion.
11 corrosion is before you say that this steam generator is 13 MR.ZWOUNSKI: 'He burden is on the licensce; 12 not safe to return to service? Any idea on that?
13 you're right.
13 MR. IIEIIL: Well, there's an established criteria 14 MR. CALDEN: I think from the public's point of 14 for through-wall percentages.
15 view the burden is on tie NRC.
15 MR. DORMAN: I think tic - I can't recall if it's 16 MR. IIEIIL: I fully agree with that. We are 16 specifically in Maine's tech spec. But typically the 17 certainly under de burden. But I'll tell you what, I 17 tech specs require that if through-wall thickness is 18 think we have - we have, I think, some of our best 18 degraded by 40 percent or more, that de tube has to be 19 people working on tie issues at this plant; and we're 19 plugged or the repair -- tie degradation --
20 going to get to the bottom of the issues. And - and 20 MR. IIEi!L: And that criteria is developed based on 31 the reality is that the plant is not going anywleru 21 testing that's done with those type of --
33 until we have tic confidence that it can be safely 22 of -- whatever tle condition exists. Those tubes are 23 done.
23 subjected to first testing and have to demonstrate a 24 MR. CALDEN: Thank you.
24 certain robustness in being able to withstand any, you 25 MR. !!ElIL: Mr. Brack, or H. G. Brack.
25 know, anticipated transient pressures even with that Page 54 Page 56 1
MR. DRACK: I have a couple of quick questions here i degraded condition. So that -- that's the basis of the 3 on tie restart. In terms of tie steam generator 2 criteria.
3 inspections, my understanding is Mr. Douglas Whittier is 3
MR. DRACK: But I think I'd like to make the 4 going to be the outside contractor supervising that. Is 4 general observation that I believe the steam generators 5 that correct? Did I hear that in the news someplace?
5 are the Achilles heel here of the restart. When you 6
MR. HDID I have no idea.
6 have had 60 percent of your tubes showing degradation 7
MR. DORMAN: I guess it's not my understanding he's 7 and crxking, circumferential cracking at the tube base, 8 an outside contractor 8 and then you return this piece of equipment to service 9
MR. DRACK: Didn't he just -- a little musical 9 and you have these upper plates that are nonamenable to 10 chairs here - change a position? Ile's no longer with 10 repair, I think that's a pretty controversial subject 11 the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
1I area. I'm definitely uncomfortable with that return of 13 MR. DORMAN: I guess I can't speak to that for 12 this steam generator to, as the flyer at the front of 13 certain, but my understanding was he is still a Maine 13 the building there said, without being replaced. I 14 Yankee employee.
14 think that's a very controversial move here to do this 15 MR. BRACK: But anyway he's involved with the steam 15 repair and now again to return this same degraded piece 16 generator?
16 of equipment to use again.
17 MR. HDIL: We do our own - we do our own review.
17 MR. ZWOLINsK!: *The agencyjust simply doesn't want 18 They ocriainly can hire anybody they want to do tie --
18 to get into hypotheticals. We need to see the licensee 19 MR. BRACK: Decause I'm somewhat bothered by the 19 go in and inspect. And the results of the inspection 20 fact that he was involved with Ed in terms of soliciting 20 will dictate the course of action to be taken by the 31 and receiving tie Office of Investigation report that 21 licensee and then by the regulator.
23 was o part of the Department of Justice investigation.
22 MR. DRACK: But it strikes me in terms of the 23 And I certainly would kind of worry about his being 23 comments tonight in general, I think everyone here would 34 involved in terms of here is a person that - with much 24 be quite surprised if you didn't return to service. So 35 involvement in the controversies that are under 25 I think there is a sense of we will soon --
Page 53 - Page 56 TiiE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart lingopian & Rarnsdcll
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN C=denscIt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 57 Page 59 1
MR. IIEi!L: Listen, tlere is no -- there is no 1 14th. 'Ihis issue was raised by the subcommittee. And 2 predisposition for returning this unit. I mean, tley're 2 Mr. Flanagan referred to artain contractual 3 going to have to -- they're going to have to 3 arrangements that do exist in which them is some 4 demonstrate, you know, that they can meet the 4 arrangement. The agency does not have the details of 5 requirements. You know, if you're getting an idea 5 the meeting.
6 that --
6 MR. BRACK: Do you have any feeling yourselfin 7
MR. BRACK: Okay. Well, let me just get on to my 7 terms of the difference between let's say a new facility 8 rext question. I'll accept that as far as you've stated 8 and an aging facility such as Maine Yankee in terms of 9 that; and you've made that clear, that that component -
9 vibrations? Is this something one would expect -
10 where you stand on that.
10 MR. IIEHL: Our understanding of the fuel failure 11 Anotler question lere in terms of the - tle 11 mechanism really had nothing to do with whether it was 12 restart readiness report, one thing that bothered me, 12 in Maine Yankee or any other plant. It was a problem 13 and that was in Section 3 or S3, and that is tic grid to 13 with the design of the -- the eggerate supports around 14 rod fretting in tie fuel assemblies. And I have a 14 these fuel elements.
15 question about that.
15 MR. BRACK: So wherever Westinghouse fuelis,it 16 First of all - and Uldis isn't lere tonight, and I 16 may be susceptible to this.
17 don't see anybody from the licensee that could answer 17 MR. HEllL: Exactly. It needs to be addressed, and 18 this. But in terms of this being Westinghouse fuel that 18 it's being addressed. Our concern in that matter is 19 is suffering tle grid to rod fretting, is it old 19 with regard to tie integrity of tie fuel rods in i
20 Westinghouse fuel assemblies and not some of tic other 20 inferring that --
21 fuel assemblies?
21 MR. BRACK: That it won't happen again?
1 1
22 MR. ZWOLINSKl: Yes, you're correct. It is only 22 And then I have another question here in terms of 23 Westinghouse.
23 tic March 13th 9614 inspection.
24 MR. BRACK: In oller words, tlere is no grid to rod 24 MR. ZWOLINSKI: I'm not sure - you're - you said 25 fretting with any of tle otler --
25 it won't happen again. I'm sure that the licensee and Page 58 Page 60 1
MR. IIEltt.: Old or new.
I Westinghouse are attempting to resolve this issue. But 2
MR. DRACK: - in any of tle existing -- in other 2 to predict the future as to whetler it will or will not, 3 words, what's going to now be coming up here - is 3 one would expect that this issue would be addressed.
4 another process. His is a new issue for me as I read 4 But I can't -- I can't sit here in front of you and just 5 your reports, and I haven't run across this grid to rod 5 attest that it's -- it's not going to happen.
6 fretting before. In terms of specifically what was 6
MR. I!EllL: But tle issue of fuel rod leakage is not 7 causing the leakage in the fuel assembly and to reali:re 7 a new issue, and it's not unique to --
8 that you have such a severe problem with this, this is a 8
MR. BRACK: Sure. You've had extensive problems 9 whole other safety issue ice, and I'm concerned 9 with that in tic earlier days of the operation of the 10 MR. ZWOtlNSKl: Do you understand what the licensee 10 plant.
I1 is doing to address that issue?
II MR. IlEllL: But that's why we put limits on the 12 MR. DRACK: Well, you're removing the fuel; and 12 activity level of the coolant, to limit that amount.
13 this is a pretty expensive little accident we've had 13 And wlen it gets to a certain limit, the licensee has to i
14 here. In terms of when you add up the costs of the old 14 take measures to reduce it eitler by eliminating the 15 fuel, the costs of tic new fuel, the costs of disposing 15 fuel that's leaking or --
16 of the old fuel, it is quite high. So I understand that 16 MR. BRACK: I'm aware of that. Anyway,it's 17 some of it is being replaced.
17 certainly a disturbing issue here on top of all the 18 MR. ZWOLINsKl: And the licensm I'm sure is 18 other controversial safety issues.
19 workin6 with Westinghouse to secum additional fuel, and 19 Anyway, I have another question on the 9614. In 20 I undorstand that fuel can come on site in the June time 20 the 9614 -- tie inspection report is March 17th, I 21 frame. And whatever contractual arrangements the two 21 believe -- they discuss the incident last year witn 22 parties have -
22 the -- the discrete particle of fission product that was 23 MR. DRACK: We'll find out who pays later.
23 discovered in tic chair. And I was familiar with that, 24 MR. ZWOlJNSK1: In fact, someone earlier nontioned 24 but I had never seen tie radiological incident. report 25 the meeting before tie state legislature on February 25 that pertained to that. And I see they gave us the TILE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart 11agopian & Ramsdell Page 57 - Page 60
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
CondenscIt!*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 61 Page 63 I inventory in that section of tie inspection report. And 1
MR. BRACK: I'djust like to make the observation 2 we have 218,000 micro-cunes in de chair, and I was 2 that in terms of all your radiological incident sports, 3 quite surprised wlen I saw that. And I would like to 3 I think they shed light on the situation plan. Dese 4 point out to you gentlemen lere tonight that that had a 4 reports am not available for tle most part. As you 5 major 3.3 years,1996, brings you back to 1993. And 5 know -
6 referring to State of Maine Nuclear Safety Report to the 6
MR. IIElIL: All of our inspection reports are 7 117Q State Irgislature by Uldis, who is not here 7 available in the public document area.
8 tonight, on Page 11,le gives the - tic liquid -
8 MR. BRACK: Not your radiological inspection 9 release of liquid and fission - liquid and fission 9 reports.
10 activation products for 1993 as only 180,000 10 MR. IIEllL: Tic radiological inspection reports are 11 micro-curies. And that means flere was more 11 in the -
12 radioactivity in that chair than you released - or 12 MR. DORMAN I think Mr. Brack is referring to the 13 Maire Yankee released in the same year that it 13 licensce's radiological incident report, which we don't 14 originated from - from tie reactor.
14 have those.
15 And I would just like to make a point lere; and 15 MR. BRACK: Well, anyway, tie charge to obtain 16 this raises anotler area, anotler issue, that I think is 16 cight of them from the NRC was $500. So you do have 17 very important here in terms of your radiological 17 them in your possession.
18 surveys of what's going on in and around the plant.
18 MR. IIEllL: We don't normally keep - I'm not sum 19 Dis particle in tie chair is definitely not included in 19 what you're referring to. If you're talking about the 20 your release inventory for that year. It exceeds the 20 licensce's incident reports -
21 total release inventory.
21 MR. BRACK: I'm talking about the ones that are 22 MR. IIEXIL: Yes. I don't know the numbers 22 referenced right here in your inspection report. In 23 involved. We weren't prepamd to -
23 otler words, this RIR, tie number being you give us 24 MR. BRACK: Well, tle numbers are kind of important 24 96-14.. That's not a number from the tooth fairy.
25lere.
25 Dat's an NRC number, isn't it?
Page 62 Page 64 1
MR. IIEIIU 'That's fine. Let me finish. I gave you MR. YEROKUN: let me try to clarify that question 2 the opportunity to finish. In fact, this week we are in 2 on the RIR. 'Those documents are licensed documents. We 3 fact inspecting. We do that on a regular basis. We 3 do have access to review those documents during the 4 inspect the radiologic controls of this facility. And 4 inspection process. 'Ihe numbers on the -- that back up 5 you're absolutely right. A few years back there were 5 those documents, we use those during our inspection 6 significant problems in the radiologic control area that 6 process; and we do write in our inspection reports 7 we fined the licensee for, and there were a number of 7 assessments of the situations described in these RIR's, 8 issues involved. I don't know what the numbers are 8 We don't have the RIR's for public -- available for 9 there. And we can certainly give you some information 9 public view because they are not our documents although 10 with regard to that.
10 we do have acess to those documents during our i!
MR. BRACK: Well, the information is in fact right i1 inspection procrss.
12 here in 96-14. And I think it's interesting because it 12 MR. BRACK: Okay. You have access, but I don't 13 certainly makes it obvious that in terms of the 13 have access. And I'm looking for the information in 14 reporting by the licensee, you're not picking up all the 14 them that's very controversial.
15 pathways here for emissions by the plant. You know, you 15 MR. YEROKUN: 'llcre are lots of documents that the 16 have your liquid pathways; and you have your gaseous 16 licensee has that we have access to during our 17 pathway. 'lle chair pathway is a new pathway.
17 inspection process that we don't --
18 MR. ZWOUNSKI: I would at least debate 18 MR. BRACK: 'That do not end up in the document 19 that - I'm not real familiar with the issue. I think 19 area.
20 you have overstated to some extent the significanx of 20 MR. YEROKUN: Absolutely. And with respect to 21 this particular particle of the chair.
21 inspection reports, the background information that's 22 MR. IIEllU In any case, the chair never left the 22 obtained during the inspection process and information 23 dte; so it's not a release factor. In any case -- and 23 that's from the R1R's are published in the reports 24 I think your time is probably up. If you have 24 MR. BRACK: What you're saying is -- we've been 25 additional questions -
25 through this before, but the issue is not really Page 61 - Page 64 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Rarnsdell
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN CondenscIt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 65 Page 67 1 resolved because of the content of those RIR's which I told.
3 tells a lot about Maine Yankee and what is going on.
2 MR. IIElit; Thank you for your comments.
3 And this isn't an issue that's going to go away.
3 Abbot Metcher.
4 MR.CONm Thank you for your comment.
4 MR. I't.CICIIER: Um Abbot Metcher from Bath, 5
MR. BRACK: Thank you for the time.
5 Maine. And I'd just like to make a few comments in a 6
MR. IIElit.: Mr. IIall, David IIall.
6 little different tone. Of the available major power 7
MR. IIAt.L.: Pm David llall from West Bath. I think 7 sources, pressurized water reactors and boiling water 8 an important element in a Maine Yankee restart is 8 reactors like Maine Yankee, have far and away the 9 adequate NRC oversight to make sme Maine Yankee is safe 9 less - least impact and tle least public health impact 10 to operate And I'm hopeful that the NRC is changing 10 of -- of, as I say, of major viable sources, basically f
11 its ways and will do the job it should. In the past I 11 fossil fuels. There's not much more water power left in la had leard that the NRC was more interested in promoting 12 Maine. So we're talking a - a low environmental and a 13 nuclear power than in protecting tle public. %en that 13 low public health impact and by a whopping margin.
I 14 was confirmed to me at a public hearing at tie Wiscasset 14 The industry throughout the world of this type of 15 Middle School a few years after Erce Mile Island. He 15 reactor, there are over 400 plants with over 8,000 16 NRC was at one table on the stage, and Maine Yankee was 16 operating years of experience, very scrutinized; and 17 at another table on the stage. They appeared to be 17 they have a very safe record. And the same is true in 18 having a love feast between tiem while the common enemy 18 tids country. And to say people aren't doing theirjob 19 was the public. His is a fair number of years ago.
19 is not wholly correct. You have to put it in overall 20 Not so very long ago, whistle-blowers in the 20 perspective. Nuclear power plants are being built in 21 nuclear power industry were feeding infonnation to an 21 other parts of tie world, and here is a technology that 22 individual who was feeding this information to the 22 started in this country; and I'd like to see it stay in 23 public. %e VRC hauled this individual into court in 23 this country. As I say, it -- it is a -- a way of 24 order to find out who these whistle-blowers were so that 24 generating electricity with a much lower public health 25 they could be punished for spilling the beans.
25 and -- and environmental impact than our other available Page 66 Page 68 1
A few years ago I attended a meeting of citizen i sources.
2 monitoring groups. At that meeting there was a man who 2
Maine Yankee has been very good for Maine. Maine 3 had been high up in the nuclear power industry and was 3 is a state in this country which is high on tie tax 4 still friends with high-ups in the industry. lie felt 4 scale and is low on the family income scale. And Maine
$ that the NRC was failing to protect the public safety.
5 Yankee with its low cost electricity has mitigated some 6 Ile was hoping that concemed citizens and the nuclear 6 of these poor standings of Maine in the national 7 power industry could work together to develop safety 7 cconomy. Maine Yankee's being down has already hurt 8 standards since the NRC was failing to do its job. In 8 Maine economically. And we read about some of the 9 certain circles the NRC was taken to mean nobody really 9 impacts in other parts of the state. It's ironic that 10 cares.
10 the arguments that you have here today and I've heard 11
%e fact that the NRC has taken the current Maine 11 for tie last 20 years go all over the lot. They go up 12 Yankee whistle-blower seriously and is looking at 12 and down and around in circles and everything else when 13 additional problems at Maine Yankee is an indication to 13 people don't stand back and -- and take a good look at 14 me that the NRC is changing its ways, it makes me 14 what Maine Yankee has done and what we hope it will do.
15 hopeful that the NRC will protect the public after all.
15 What we want to do is -- is keep our money in Maine 16 So I'm quite hopeful at this point that things are 16 producing electricity and not sending it out ol Maine.
17 changing.
17 his country imports over half of its oil; and if we 18 I would also,just to add a thing, that I'll be 18 don't have Maine Yankee, why, we're going to import more 19 interested to hear and find out what happens,is I'll be 19 oil and we're going to burn more coal.
20 very interested to see what happens in regard to the 20 So we wish Maine Yankee and we wish the NRC success 21 inspection of the steam generators because I've received 21 in this whole process, and get Maine Yankee back on the 22 from a reasonably decent source that the company that 22 line if everything works out okay, and get all the 23 developed the sleeving process has determined that it 23 advantages that go with it, low cost power, low 24 does not work. And so I'll be interested to see when 24 environmental and low public health impact.
25 they check things out if that bears out what I've been 25 nank you.
t Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 65 - Page 68
l MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN l
Page 69 Page 71 1
MR.HEHu Edward Mycrs.
I people were raising in their requests to speak and 2
Ma. E. MYERS Edward Myers from South Bristol.
2 assessed that some of the speakers that did speak were 3 l'm only very, very distantly related to lienry Myers; 3 raising issues similar to Mr. Blanch's.
4 but I -I may bejust as dangerous.
4 MR. E. MYERS: I think the question has been 5
My first question relates to that gentleman called 5 answered This still does not speak to the fact that 6 Blanch. I thought he was a wild eyed whistle-blower and 6 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told three members of i
7 ought to go to a psychiatrist, as we usually send them.
7 Congress that Mr. Blanch would be allowed to speak.
8 And then I met him, and he's quite calm and extremely 8
But let's move on to - I do have three questions 9 intelligent and very analytical. And he was not 9 on the sta-tup plan.
]
10 allowed, as we understand it, to speak at the Rockville 10 First, Mr. Sellman in his presentation on March 11 meeting of February 9th. A number of us in this county 11 1Ith, part of the printed program listed what he 13 called Tom Allen, our new Corp, and Olympia 12 entitled as seven timeless principles: Practice 13 Snowe, and who is the third Congressman? Oh, yes, John 13 ownership, improve staff confidenx, equipment, complete 14 Baldacci of Bangor. All called the NRC,and they were 14 outages technically accurate, operate conservatively and 15 assured that Mr. Blanch would be allowed to speak.
15 practice self-critical behavior. I am a columnist for 16 Mr. Blanch was not allowed to speak. And this 16 the Island Institute's newspaper, The Working 17 counds a lot more abrasive than it is. The NRC is a 17 Waterfront." We discussed this at our stafT level, 18 creature of Congress Did you,in fact, lie to Congress 18 decided that these were not principles but minimum 19 in the form of the Maine Congressional delegation? Yes 19 common sense, and that when any of us set foot in a work 30 or no?
20 boat, we look - we could look at those seven as
]
21 MR. HEHU I guess with regard to Paul Blanch and 21 minimally common sense. Does the pressure alarm ring I
33 his speaking permission, I know that there is a response 22 when we tum up the heat? Is the bilge pump working?
33 that's being developed on that point.
23 is the water coming out of the exhaust? Is the bilge 34 MR. ZWOUNSKt: When - when our Commission is 24 empty? Is there not oil there? This is simply common 25 petitioned to have na individual speak before it, one, 25 sense.
Page 70 Page 72 1 the Commission has to, following its own rules, ask i
Where do you go from there is the question that I 3 itself - in this particular instance they invited the 2 ask, and it concerns me. I'm -- I -- as I've put it,1 3 utility to speak as well as the staff. They had to ask, 3 guess it sounds rhetorical; but the March lith meeting 4 in light of certain petitions that were coming before 4 did not inspire confidence in the lay public.
5 the agency, could certain individuals speak. The 5
And a second part of that question, Mr. Sellman 6 Commission directed the secretary's office to allow 6 also at the March 1Ith meeting said that he was going to 7 certain members of the public to speak. And I'm not 7 make every effort -- and I honor that -- to be ready to 8 wre I know all the reasons, but a Mr. Shadis that lives 8 start up on -- in mid July. Mr. Meisner, the record 9 here in Maine, a Mr. Linnell who lives here in Maine, a 9 will show, said about five minutes later that there are 10 Mr. Connors that is a resident of Maine, were a!!
10 22 safety systems which require an in-depth evaluation 11 ellowed to speak. And then a gentleman by the name of 1I which he hopes to complete by the end of December 1998.
la David Lochbaum, representing the Union of Concerned 12 This -- this I found simply appalling, that people with 13 Scientists - this is the association that initially 13 the aplomb and expertise of you people sitting there 14 brought forward the allegation which led to the order 14 plus the public had to listen to a plan to open in July 15 l've referred to a couple of times in January of '96 --
15 when 22 safety systems by the report of the vice 16 was invited to participate.
16 president of Maim Yankee Atomic were not going to be 17 And 1 - from my vantage point, it appears that the 17 inspected fully for another 18 months.
18 secretary's office was prejudicial towards resicknts 18 MR. HEHl : Well, I guess, you know, we'll certainly 19 from the State of Maine or individuals that had a vested 19 be looking at -- at that aspect of the plan. The March 20 interest dinctly. And I think that - that that's how 20 1Ith meeting was - was a meeting to discuss enforcement 31 Mr. lechbaum was included. But absent a discussion with 21 issues; and it looked at issues that occurred over a 23 the secretary,it seems to me that that was the 22 long period of time. It certainly was a day, I think, 23 rationale tha.t was probably applied.
23 of reckoning for past performance problems.
24 MR. DORMAN: I think one other consideration that 24 MR. E. MYERS: Sir, I'm 80 years old, and I did not 35 went into that is - was they looked at the issues that 25 bring my hearing aid. I did bring it to the March 11 j
Page 69 - Page 72 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 73 Page 75 1 meeting, and I leard very cicarly Mr. Sellman and Mr.
I 20 systems, that ticy will be system ready in assessment 2 Meisner; but I cannot hear you. Pm sorry.
2 before restart. We're going to have to go through and 3
MR.llEHU let me speak closer. W March lith 3 look at tle adequacy of those system readiness 4 meeting was an enforcement conference It certainly 4 assessments; but by their plan ticy're going to be 5 with a forum for us to - to I guess take reckoning of 5 addressing those to the criteria of safety regulatory 6 the issues that have occurred over a period of time.
6 compliance that Jolm mentioned.
7 And I agree with you, that was certainly a meeting where 7
MR. E. MYERS: 'Ihank you, but I beseech you to look 8 a number of issues were discussed that were not -- not 8 at tle record of the March 11 meeting.
9 very flattering to the past performance of Maine 9
MR. DORMAN Yes. I will go back and look 10 Yankee.
10 at that. I guess my recollection without looking at 11 We are going to be evaluating, certainly, the scope i1 tic - at the transcript would be that that - that that 12 of their restart plans. "Ihere are some clarifications 12 1998 target goes to documentation issues. But I will go 13 with regard to what is intended with the 22 system 13 back and look at that.
14 reviews. Part of that is included in the plan. And I 14 MR. IIEllL: Well, we're not here to defend the 15 would - I would encourage you to take a look at that.
15 plan. We're going to have to evaluate it and make our 16 They're really kind of different issues. 'Ihey're apples 16 decisions on it.
17 and oranges to a certain extent with regard to the 17 MR. E. MYERS: 'Ihe record will show that comment 18 issues associated with systems where there are problems 18 was made to a lay person five and three-quarter miles 19 and tie broader reviews that we're doing across a lot of 19 cast-soutleast - that's nautical miles - from the 20 plants in that tiese are reviews that are being done in 20 plant. A statement like that is quite unnerving because 21 response to requests that went across hre were a 21 the end of December 1998 is 18 months.
,22 number of plants. It's not a reflection that -- that 22 Now, my final question, sir -- and I'm not being 23 those systems are not capable of performing their 23 sarcastic, I'm really being quite concerned - the NRC 24 functions; but it is a plan to go out to methodically 24 budget was initially based on a goal of 1000 nuclear 25 walk through these systems and - and address whatever 25 plants by the year 2000. Tic budget, if I remember Page 74 Page 76 I issues come out of those.
I rightly, in achieving that goal was $500 million a 2
MR. ZWOLINSKl: I would ask you to look really at 2 year. 'Ihere are now 109 plants in operation or just a i
3 one page of tic licensce's restart plan. This is Page 3 fraction of a percent over 10 tercent of what the 4 Attachment 3-1. It's tic Restart Work Criteria on their 4 announxd goal was. You have made several references 5 safety screening and tic regulatory requirement 5 this evening to strained resources. It would seem to me 6 screening. And -- and note how -- or at least what 6 that your resources per plant have been approximately 7 tlese words are saying. We're going to be inspecting 7 multiplied by 10 in the two duwim of the $500 million 5 ticsc systems; but note how the licensee is trying to 8 budget and the decline and occasional fall of the 9 address tic systems in totality as far as repetitive 9 nuclearindustry.
10 failure, equipment problems, reductions in raargins, so 10 MR. HEllu Yes. I appreciate your comment.
l 11 on and so forth. Many of tic very issues that you're 11 That's - certainly we're in the process - all of us 12 alluding to right now tic licensee will be addressing to 12 have to belt tighten. We're doing the same thing in the 13 some extent. Will tie licensee have addressed every 13 federal govemment, tightening belts. And we've 14 issue on every system to the nth degree? They haven't 14 downsized this agency along with other agencies. I 15 sponsored that to us. What ticy're saying is there is a 15 apologize again. I - we have downsized this agency, no 16 certain threshold that ticy will meet, and that's what 16 doubt about it. And I appreciate your - your 17 we're assessing against. It goes far beyond tic 17 observation. ht's interesting. I wasn't aware that 18 regulatory requirements for this facility.
18 we were funded for 1000 plants, you know,5500 million.
19 MR. E. MYERS: 'Ihat is within tle time frame of the 19 And, you know, under Atoms for Peace, electricity was 20 startup?
20 going to be too cheap to meter, too. So those 21 MR. DORMAN: I guess I would point your attention 21 projecticos I guess went hand in hand.
22 to two otler parts of tic plan. One is Section 8 on 22
'Ihe only reason I bring up resourxs is just you 23 restart readiness assessments, and on Page 20 it talks 23 have to recognize that the NRC was never designed to be 24 to tic plant system readiness assessments. But what i 24 a 100 percent cleck everything that the licensee does.
25 wanted to point to is a listing in Attachment 6 of over 25 You know, we license these plants by looking at the THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 73 - Page 76
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
CondenscItl*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 77 Page 79 1 organization's - not only the plant and how it's built I clse that hasn't had a chance to speak or ask a 2 but b the organization structured and with the people 2 question, I'd like to give somebody else tie 3 with the appropriate qualifications to - to nm the 3 opportunity. Okay?
4 plants wil. And when we find they don't, you know, we 4
Go ahead.
5 go out and we - w shut them down. We hammer them with 5
MR. McKEEN: My name is Jonathan McKeen. I'm from 6 eivil penalty actions. Ifit's - ifit's wrongdoing on 6 Damariscotta.
7 the part of an individual that's criminal, we enmmally 7
Do steam gencrutor tubes cost somethmg like $20 s prosecute people. You know, we try to use the tools we 8 million to repatr7 Maine Yankee is pledging to spend 9 have d hand.
9 something like 40 million to take care of all the 10 But I'm just trymg to point out that if the 10 problems that they have. We're spending I don't know 1I expectation is that the NRC is going to come out and do 1I how much per day for replamment power in the past few 12 e - you know, a top-to-bottom 100 percent review of 12 years that ticy've been down. One of the problems cited 13 cach plant, we can't. We just can't.
13 by ISAT was economic pressure. And the decommissioning 14 WJ can go out, and we can do I think a very 14 costs are estimated to be over $500 million 10 years 15 thorough and reasonable job that will provide, I think, 15 from now, and I think they have 1.4 million saved for 16 the assurance and confidence that this plant can be 16 that -- I mean 140 million saved.
17 restarted safely - can be restarted safely. 'Ihere 17 Does it make financial sense to reopen; and if so, 18 ain't no guarantees. Okay? We're going to have to look 18 won't financial pressures and economic pressures that 19 at the plan. We'll take your comments. We'll 19 are cited by the ISAT team stiff be there?
j 20 mcorporate that in, and we'll design an inspection plan 20 MR. IIElIU I think it's a fact of life that in the 21 which w will share with you. Okay? We'll make it 21 environment that the electric utilities are -- are going 22 publicly available. That's fine. And then we'll be 22 to be operating in in the future with -- with 23 back out here again to talk some more as we get closer 23 deregulation, being able to buy your electricity from 24 to o time when things are - are progressing along. And 24 the lowest cost source, those are all issues that 25 if tiey're getting close to restart, we'll be back.
25 certainly raise concerns with regard to what is going to Page 78 Page 80 1
MR. E. MYERS: Thank you very much for your 1 be the future impact on these facilities that - of that 2 patience and fairness.
2 activity. And w are evaluating that currently. We're 3
MR. IIE!IL Okay. We're drawing to the end of our 3 looking at -- at how the companies are structured.
4 two hours, but I would certainly open the floor for a 4 We've got a group in our headquarters that are looking 5 period of time.
5 at certain aspects of that.
6 MR.11. MYERS: Can I ask a question here?
6 But the reality is that what we have to focus on is 7
MR. IIEliu Yes. We'll open it for another 20 7 how the plant is performing, how it's performing from a 8 minutes or so for some questions.
8 safety standpoint. Is the licenze -- are they 9
MR. II. MYERS: llave you identified documents that 9 providing sufficient resources to maintain the equipment 10 demonstrate resolution of cable problems identified by 10 important to safety? You know, are they providing ii Atherton and then adjusted subsequent NRC documents?
11 appropriate resources both through personnel, plant, 12 It's my understanding the documents dated subsequent to 12 process standpoint? That's what we have to look at.
13 Atherton's notes describe or address problems along the 13
'lhe economics of Maine Yankee you're going to have 14 lines that Athaton seemed to be discussing. And then 14 to - you know, that's an issue that you have -- that 15 it's not clear though wlere the documents are that 15 they'll have to resolve with their -- with tleir 16 address resolution of those prob! cms that seemed to be 16 shareholders. You know, we're going to be focused on 17 raised by Atherton and then raised subsequently in other 17 performance. And if the plant can bring their 18 NRCdocuments.
18 performance to the point where -- where they can 19 MR. DORMAN: Okay. I think all I can say at this 19 restart, then that's going to be their decision from an 20 point is we're reviewing considerable history in this 20 cconomic standpoint. We're going to be focused on the 21 area, and we'll be back in June to talk more about that.
21 safety aspects 22 MR. !!. MYERS So if I ask you, I think there is an 22 De mindful, I mean we're not -- we're not unmindful 23 April-April-23 of the pressures that exist because it's 24 MR. ItElIL llenry, could I ask you to - we'll stick 24 not - it's not isolated to Maine Yankee. There's a lot 25 around a few minutes after; but if there is somebody 25 of other facilities that certainly experienx some of Page 77 - Page 80 TIIB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN CondenscIt!"MAIND YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 81 Page 83 1 tic same pressure and - and have experienced similar i making plenty of money. So it's not resource 2 problems to Maine Yankee. And we're - we're 2 deprivation but rather a choice of where to place those 3 aggressively pursuing those facilities, also. But -
, resources.
4 but our charter is really focused on the performance.
4 We are deeply conxrned, given tle reputation of 5
MR. MORRILL: rdjust like to offer a few comments 5 the Entergy company as a very ambitious company and one 6 this evening. A lot of people don't know me. My name 6 which applied in New York State to run one of their 7 is Brian Morrill. I live in Wiscasset and have for 7 nukes based on a production incentive, which was one of 8 seven years.
8 the sticking points in the contract down there, that 9
I have over 30 years nuclear experience in aircraft 9 that production incentive, that cost-saving incen'ive 10 carriers, cruisers and submarines. I want to identify 10 may be part of the contract that Entergy has with 11 that I have given an objective viewpoint, if you would, 11 the -- whatever the stell of the Maine Yankee Atomic 12 to looking at tie NRC, to looking at tic conunents that 12 Power Company is. And we are precluded, however, from 13 Maine Yankee has had. I've Icard tiem from both sides 13 knowing what that contract looks like.
14 of tie house. I want to identify to the general public 14 My understanding is that Entergy refused to give it 15 and -- that tic NRC has been more than fair Tley do 15 to the Utilities Committee of our legislature. The 16 not compromise on issues. Ticy look for tic 16 contract was negotiated and then shared with NRC at a 17 technicalities of issues. They tend to maybe work with 17 February 12th meeting which was purportedly a public 18 Maine Yankee. I hope tley do.
18 meeting. Ilowever, NRC's understanding of what is public 19 1 want tie issues identified and resolved. Nobody 19 and ours is quite different.
20 has all tic information about everything. Ticse 20 Because of Friends of the Coast's involvement on a 21 gentlemen come with many years of experience. Maine 21 number of these issues, we have been plaad by order of 22 Yankee has many years of experience. Both can learn.
22 the executive director of the NRC on the Maine Yankee 23 Tic point is to get tie issues resolved.
23 mailing list. We received notice on February the 14th 24 I have two - two beautiful young grandsons in tle 24 that tlere would be a public meeting on February the 25 area. I have no qualms about Maine Yankce. I think 25 12th. The notice we received was dated February the Page 82 Page 84 1 about a nuclear submarine decision that I made may have i 10th and postmarked February de lith.
2 put your grandsons down aboard. I made sure that tie 2
1 -- this is the one solid point of criticism that 3 decisions that were made were right. I depended on the 3 I have for NRC, that a -- this does not constitute a 4 guy who was doing the fluid systems to make those 4 public meeting. You cannot have a public meeting unless 5 decisione conectly. You can't be -- have all the 5 you have public notice. The simple fact that the doors 6 knowledge about everything. The thing is to identify 6 are unlocked down in Bethesda, Maryland -- excuse 7 the issues and apply all the knowledge that you can to 7 me -- Rockville, Maryland doesn't make it a public 8 get the issues resolved. And I think these gentlemen, 8 mceting. And, in fact, the doors were locked for half 9 both at tle NRC and Maine Yankce, are doing an excellent 9 of that meeting. The half that they were locked during to job. Thank you.
10 was tie so-called proprietary infonnation half of that 11 M R. IIEllL: In the back, I don't know if you had a 11 meeting which is basically wirn they talked about 12 chance to speak.
12 money.
13 MR. SitADIS: We have a kind of shopping list here 13 We feel that that is a safety issue. We feel that 14 of issues that are related, I believe, directly to the 14 if tle production incentive and the cost-saving 15 startup and its ultimate sanctification by NRC.
15 incentive is still there, that what we are cruising for 16 Speaking for Friends of tic Coast, which is a small 16 is a repetition of the Charles Frizzle style of 17 kical organization but we've been involved in tie NRC 17 management which is going to put us short on 18 process we've filed one 2.206 petition, have another one 18 maintenance, which is going to put us into a situation 19 on the way. And we are involved with the Perry Island 19 where we question the safety of tic plant again.
20 group, on tic Westinghouse case, and other actions 20 I also want to mention that when NRC - excuse me 21 throughout New England and across tic country.
21 -- when Maine Yankce first began operations, Yankee 22 Going to root causes, which seems to be a favored 22 Atomic Electric Company held its license; and they did 23 terminohigy, in the ISAT report one of the root causes 23 so until about 1981. This is questionable because in 24 of all of the prob! cms at Maine Yankee Atomic seem to be 24 transcripts of a meeting with NRC,the president of 25 penny pinching. We know that the company itself is 25 Yankee Atomic Electric and tie president of Maine Yankee TillI RIIPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Ramsdell Page 81 - Page 84
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 85 Page 87 1 disagreed, one following the other, about who =ctn=lly i Irre - Maine Yankee is undertakmg with Entergy is no 3 held the beense at that point. But when tie um., sent 2 different than you would find at many utilities.
3 Icem was moved, there was a license amerviment. In fact, 3
MR. SHADIS: I understand that, also. And in fact, 4 when the plant manager changed his residence from 4 I understand that from the transcripts of that meetmg 5 Ma===r4=were to Maine and changed where he drew his 5 that some of that prompting was actually there. But 1 6 psycheck from Yankee Atomic Electric to Maine Yankm, 6 want to reiterate that when Charlie Frizzle tock over 7 thac was a license a T L-at.
7 m---
mt of this company,it required a license 8
But NRC has changed the rules in the interim where 8 "->-k-.t. and that is a matter oficcord.
9 we have an entirely new management team that has come in 9
So I feel that what a license amendment would have 10 to give the - the company an entire new look. I 10 done for us is it would have provided us with the 1i understand we're putting catfish in the chowder now 1I opportunity to open up Entergy's records to the public la around here. It's changed. It's difTerent. It's a 12 for public scrutiny to see what kind of a cat it is that 13 company from 1200 miles away. And yet NRC has not 13 we're getting. And now wiiat we have is we have a 14 required a license amendment.
14 company from away that proclaims itself to be a good 15
'Ihis is a big problem for us in terms of viewing 15 company, and they may well be. But we don't know that, 16 this whole changeover in safety-related terms. I 16 and we don't have access to the information.
17 wonder - that's like number one on the list; and I 17 MR. IIEIIU Before you go on, is there anyone else 18 wondered if maybe you would care to address that.
18 that has a question that would like to -- to get an 19 MR stElru What is the question there?
19 opportunity before we close?
30 MR'SIIADIS: Okay. I'm glad to get that on the 20
'lhere are still other people involved. I think 21 record. I would like to move on to some more technical 21 you've had probably the equivalent of five rninutes that 23 issues if I may.
22 we gave other people.
33 MR HEliu Was there a question in there to 23 MR. S!!ADIS: The rest are all technical issues.
24 answer?
24 l'm sorry I can't share t!rm with you.
25 MR. $11ADIS: I don't think so. I don't think so.
25 MR. IIEllu You're more than welcome to share them.
Page 86 Page 88 i l'm telling you that we have a problem. And if that i If you'd like to give them, we'll enter them into the i
2 doesn't have a question mark at the end of it, then 2 transcript.
3 we'll put an exclamation point at the end of it.
3 SEN. CAREY: Mr. Chairman and members of the 4
MR. IIEliu No, I mean, it's just that we centainly 4 Commission, my name is Richard Carey. I am in the 5 in tle meetings - you know, we attempt to make public, 5 Senate in the State of Maine, and I chair tie 6 you know, notices on meetings that occur. We typically 6 legislative Utilities Committee.
7 try to notice those well ahead of time. I don't know 7
Mr. Shadis has been given some misinformation by 8 what happened specifically with regard to this mmting, 8 someone, possibly on the committee, because the 9 but certainly the meeting notices are also available 9 committee has never asked for the contract between 10 from other means aside from getting the written notice.
10 Entergy and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company. As far 11 You can go on the Intemet and get all the meeting 11 as the ownership is concerned, the committee is not la notixs. You can get all of the information available 12 interested in the change in management. We would be 13 there. You can call in and get a summary of the 13 interested in having obviously a new license if there 14 meetings and things. There are many other ways to do 14 was a change in ownership. Thank you.
j 15 that.
15 MR ZWOLINSKl: Should there be a change of l
16 MR ZWouNSK!: 71e staff has analyzed the initial 16 ownership, obviously Maine Yankee would be required to 17 paperwork documentation between Maine Yankee and Entergy 17 make application to the agency.
18 and satisfied itself, independently of the utility and 18 SEN.CAREY Exactly.
19 Entergy, that a license amendment wasn't necessary 19 MR.ZWOUNSKl: 'lhat indeed would be thoroughly 20 MR. SilADIS: Yes, sir I understand that, but I do 20 reviewed, and obviously we would work with the State in 21 understand that it's a complete shift of gears from the 21 coming to closure on an issue such as that.
32 previous history of this plant's license and 22 SEN. CAREY: Thank you, sir, and I appreciate the 33 responsibilities being shifted. So I - I do want 23 opportunity to square that up.
24 to -
24 MR. ZWOUNSKl: Okay.
25 MR. ZWOUNSK1; The activity that they're taking 25 MR. IIEllu Anyone else who hasn't had an Page 85 - Pcge 88 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart lingopian & Ramsdell l
\\
PUBLIC MRRTING/ RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 89 Page 91 l
1 opportunity to speak?
I And finally, your answer earlier on the small break 2
Go ahead. Bill, go ahead.
2 toCAhia= was that there - the licensee has some
[
3' MR.LINNELL: 'Ihank you. Bill Linnell. A quick 3 aortof analysiswhichjustifiesthatthe-thelarge 4 follow-up question.
4 pipe break and so forth. And I'mjust wondering if we 5
I unerstand that Maine Yankee is looking at some 5 couldjust request a copy or an executive summary or 6 sort of cloetropisting promss in the steam tubes; and 6 something. I know that I - I can't speak for Henry 7 I-Ijust would have a request. You don't need to 7 Myers; but I think he would feel a lot better if these s explain it now he== I don'_ want to use up all of my a was some sort of analysis provided that explained it or t
9 time and yours. But I'm wondering - I would like to 9 justified it or rationalized it or something, and I.
10 request if you could get some - I'd like some sort of a 10 certamly would feel better, too, if that's possible.
11 - sont of a summary of wheie this process has been 11 MR.zwouwsKt: I can provide you a number of 12 used. And again, I don't expect you to rattle it off 12 h-=*e that have been generated by the staff that 13 the top of your heads but, you know, where it's been 13 addresses this very issue head on.
l 14 used, when, to what extent,just so that we can get an 14 MR. uNNEti: Great, thank you very much.
15 idea that this is a proven technology. The reason I ask 15 MR. HEHL.: Five minutes?
16 again is because we were told that the sleeving was a 16 MR. H. MYERS: I'd just like to leave this question 17 proven technology that would last the life of the plant, 17 for the record about the.whether there is a hment 18 and now we're finding that they may not. So I'd like 18 trail that begins with Atherton and ends with a document 19 just a request for that information.
19 that describes what was raised by Atherton in subsequent 20 MR. DORMAN I can briefly comment on that. The --
20 NRC documents. I'd just like to leave that for the al the NRC has not approved this before for any plants in 21 record. You cannot point to the series of h= ats f
i 23 this country. It has been used,in my understanding, in 22 startin6 with Atherton tracking through subsequent NRC 33 Canada; and we are sending some of our people up to 23 documents and then back and to Maine Yankee and endmg 24 Canada to look at the application there. We're also 24 with something that says this issue is closed?
35 sending them down to - to the developer of this 25 MR.ZWOUNSK!: Mr. Myers, the NRC staff tonight Page 90 Page 92 I procedure, Frematome, to look at their procedures for I committed to you, the public, that we would come back in 2 inspecting the - the - these electric sleeves when 2 May or June and discuss all the issues associated with L
3 they're installed. And we have a substantial ways to go 3 fire protection, concerns raised by Mr. Atheiton and l
4 before we'st going to be prepared to approve this 4 other technical issues in a fonun mmerhing along the 5 process if that's where we end up.
5 lines of this in which we would make presentations to at 6
MR. UNNEu; Take your time. 'Ihank you.
6 least disposition the issues that we're aware of and the 7
Another quick request. You know, again I return to 7 status of issues as the licensee proceeds in the 8 this mot cause of economic stress. And, you know, I 8 recovery.
9 think that whenever some of these projects are -- Maine 9
MR. H. MYERS: let mejust say why I think this is 10 Yankee talks about these projcets. I know historically 10 significant. Namely, Atherton raised issues that i1 the NRc has focused on, and appropriately, technical 1I subsequent NRC documents seem to confirm that certain of 12 issues and so forth, safety issues proper. But now that 12 these questions raised by Atherton were indeed real 13 economics has sort of jumped into the safety arena, I 13 questions. Then Maine Yankee was asked to do certain 14 would - please take this request back to you to 14 things in response to this. So documents go along in 15 Washington. I would ask that when some of these 15 the spring of 1978, and then as far as I know there's 16 projects are being contemplated by Maine Yankee, certain 16 nothing subsequent to that that says tiese issues are 17 repatrs, that tie NRC Simply request cost estimatesjust 17 closed. Now, that's just a factual thing. If tie 18 - just so that some of these things we could start 18 documents are these --
19 putting in perspective because - and I think given the 19 MR. DoRMAN: 'lhat's not correct 'There is an 20 impact of economics on safety, that it may be arguably 20 inspection report on the fire protection program at
- 31. very much in your purview to - to request that kind of 21 Maine Yankee that was issued roughly in January of '85.
i 32 information just so we get an idea of what kind of a -
22 I believe the number is Inspection Report 8411. At the 23 you know, what kind of an impact it may potentially 23 back of that inspection report there's about a two and a 34 have. And then, of course, we'd like you to share that 24 half page listing of documents back and forth between 25 with the public.
25 the licensce and the staff from April of 1978, right 4
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rarnsdell Page 89 - Page 92
- MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUTLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 93 Page 95 I after Mr. Atherton's notes, up until the time of that 1 issue is perfectly clear, 2 6aeelaa. That's a larg portion of the h=entation 2
MR. IL MYERS. Weu, that's - well, I -
3 that we're - that we're looking at to find the answers 3
MR.ZwouNSn And I'm sorry that we've been 4 tojust the question you're -
4 unable to effectively communicate. We can agree to 5
MR. H. MYERS: Okay. So it's in those documents?
5 disagree We can do that, or we can continue to write 6
MR.DORMAN So I think the answer at this point is 6 letters back and forth.
7 we are certainly taking that question and following it.
7 MR. IL MYERS: No. This is not - this one is not 8
MR. HEln : And part of the time it takes to do that 8-9 is because unforttraately documents that far back don't 9
MR. ZWOUNSn And I'm not defending my own 10 exist, you know, in our ekctronic retrieval system. We 10 personal position. I'm defending the position of the 11 have to go back and search through hard copy records 11 agency.
12 that are archived and things, and it just takes time.
12 MR. IL MYERS: Well, the Commission refuses to even 13 MR. H. MYERS: But there is a litt of documents 13 address this. I hope you could convey to the Commission
]
14 that if you track through those documents you will be 14 something that's quite disconcertmg about this whole j
15 able to say yes or no or maybe to this, whether or not 15 process.
16 the Atherton issues were resolved.
16 MR. ZWOUNSn "Ihe Commission was fully informed j
17 MR. DORMAN-I think I can commit to yes, no or 17 of all the activities undertaken by the staff-the 18 senior staff of the Nuclear Regulatory -- Office of 18 maybe.
19 MR. H. MYERS: 'Ihen let me say on this question -
19 Nuclear Reactor Regulation when we were develeping the
]
20 on the small break LOCA question which I've - again, I 20 order.
1 21 don't - I'm not asking for an answer to this now. But 21 MR. IL MYERS: let me say -- this isn't your fault 22 I have sent many letters And what I get back is -- I 22 - but I've read the transcripts of Cnmminion meetings 23 have Gxplained why - I've explained many times why 1 23 on Maine Yankee. Aad except for the Chauman, the
- 24 thought 'he - the answer provided did not really 24 Commission shows virtually no interest - the 25 address my question. I've gone through this with some 25 commissioners themselves - I don't know about their Page 94 Page 96 I number of other people, some of whom are more amateurish I staffs. But I looked at the questions put forth by the 2 on this than others, some of whom are qt.ite expert on 2 commissioners -- I hope you'll convey this to them by 3 this. But the gegnt - there is general 4 - at 3 way of the transcript. But I looked at the questions 4 that my questions have not ban answen:d on that.
4 they asked which were very -- basically they were 5
And I suggest a method of doing that would be to 5 nonquestions except for the Chauman's.
6 appoint someone on the NRC staff - I mean, this would 6
So the commissioners themselves cannot be 7 C3 least stop the letters from me - that I could 7 up on these Maine Yankee issaes. So I think they look j
8 discuss this with and lay out my concems and - and 8 at - you know, I believe that they are not really 9 continue to do so until it's -- it gets resolved one way 9 serious about all of this public participation because 10 or anoder or we just agree to disagree because as it 10 it they were, they would handle things differently.
I1 stands now, I and the people I consult with do not iI On things like the license amendment issue, there 12 believe this question has been resolved, the question 12 are a lot of people that think there should be a license 13 being that the NRC staff allowed Maine Yankee to operate 13 amendment. And at least you could come up here and have 14 at 3440 without compliance with the post 'Ihree Mile 14 a meeting and let people think -- talk about - just on 15 Island small break trA requurments and without having 15 that one issue. Send the lawyers up here and let people 16 gone through the proxss that is required by NRC 16 say why they think a license amendment is or is not 17 procedures if a plant is to be allowed to operate 17 required. Maybe it's not required. Maybe it is. I 18 without - out of compliance with the safety 18 have my views on that, and I know a lot of other people 19 regulations.
19 do; and there's no real opportunity to discuss this with 20 MR. ZWouNSn Well, your assertion is absolutely 20 the NRC people who think no license amendment is 21 false. The order is very clear. I'm sorry that you 21 necessary 22 don't find our answers responsive to the questions that 22 MR. ZWOUNSK1: If there is a question in your 23 you've posed before the staff. I'm the gentleman that 23 comments, we'll get back to you on it.
24 is responsible for that particular area of working 24 MR. IL MYERO Well, no, there are many questions 25 issues as they come across my desk. And I feel the 25 in my comments. You don't -- you just decide - you're Page 93 - Page 96 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 97 Page 99 1 up tlere. You decide that, well, this guy sounds like a i
On tie steam generators, primary side, tle NRC asks 2 lunatic; and I'll - and I'll just lesve it that way.
2 of Maine Yankee Atomic to review its FSAll with respect 3 And that's how it gets left because tlere's no one in 3 to steam generator isolation in tic event of a steam 4 tie absence of Congressional interest in this subject 4 tube rupture and because they had a - a half-hour 5 which is -- there is no Congressional interest in this 5 isolation period which would have allowed the steam 6 subject. And in tie absen<c of this, you can just say 6 generator to become loaded with an awful lot of water.
7 whatever you want to say. I have no way of getting 7 And tie - in tle FSAR, tle scenario tley projected, tle 8 answers to ticse things.
s - the bounding or limited - limiting conditions were 9
MR. ZWOLINSKI: I strongly beg to differ, that our 9 a two-ended break. "Ihis way ticy felt that if tte tube 10 Commission has stated -- and this is all five 10 section dropped out, tlere would be no resistance to tic 11 commissioners have stated very forthrightly that 11 water flow as they have maximum flow; and that's what 12 openness and public responsiveness are just absolutely 12 ticy were looking at.
13 mandated and expected of all of us on this panel from 13 But in terms of tie overall effect or possible 14 here on forward. It is a very significant issue in tic 14 effect on -- on lealth and safety, this would not be the
. 15 baseline end of our agency that I alluded to earlier.
15 bounding scenario. Tic bounding scenario would be one 16 To tic extent that each commissioner has ticir own 16 in which you had a single break and -- a single full 17 agenda and interest and tic degne of involvement that 17 break and a partial break, in otler words, a hinging of 18 ticy have with particular plants, each commissioner sets 18 a broken steam tube in which case we could expect it to i
19 ticir own agenda.
19 swing around and wipe out oiler tubes.
20 MR.11. MYERS: I agree. I didn't say -- it's not 20 Tley -- ticy analyzed tic -- tic broken section as 21 your fault that ticy set ticir own agendas. But tic 21 tapping against oiler tubes, tie impact of tie water; 22 fact is except for tic Chairman, ticy display virtually 22 but ticy did not look at the possibility of a hinge 23 no interest in Maine Yankee. Just read tle transcript 23 break. And Ijust want to point that out to NRC, tic 24 of tic questions that ticy ask and tic fact that tley 24 possibility that if you're reviewing that pasticulr.r 25 denied Paul Blanch --
25 section of the PSAR, that would be something to look Page 98 Page 100 1
MR. IIEllL: We're not going to resolve this.
I at.
2 MR. II. MYERS: We're not going to resolve anything 2
Secondly, on the secondary side, the upcoming 3 because you can just do what you want to do because the 3 generic letter on tie steam generator inspection refers 4 citizens do not have any way of affecting this agency in 4 to some experiences that they had in Europe. And tiry 5 the absence of our Congressional people leaning on the 5 were particularly concerned with tle partial drilled 6 Commission to do something. And our Congressional 6 tube support plates. At Maine Yankee sometime in the 7 delegation is simply uninterested in this matter except 7 past, in tie mid 1980's, I believe, this problem came up f
8 tiry don't want to have an accident. Rat's where their 8 that there were stress ca msion and cracking in one of 9 interest begins. %cy want Maine Yankee to operate if 9 the par.ial drilled tube n heir method of 10 possible, and ticy don't want an accident. And they 10 dealing with this was to sever the connection of that i1 want you to assure them that there won't be an 11 partial drilled tube support sheet to the side of tie 12 accident. And if you assure them, that's all they 12 steam generator itself and allow it to float free 13 want. But tle first accident that occurs, I guarantee 13 together with the tubes that it was bonding.
14 that they'll be up tere pounding on the table saying why 14 And I suggest perhaps in the turbulence of the 15 did you allow this to happen?
15 steam generator and with the -- tie more recently 16 MR. ZwOtlNsKl: Dank you for your comments.
16 focused on stress corrosion Cracking in the tubes that 17 MR.11011t.: I think we're going to draw the meeting 17 if you have them flexing as a unit free of the side of
,18 to a close. If you want to submit your comnents in 18 the steam generator, you may be having problems. I hope
!;9 writing,just give them to -- we'll have them 19 that that is one of tie steam generators you're going to 20 transcribed in. But we've gone on here now -- we will 20 be looking at.
21 give you live more minutes, but at 9:32 we're going to 21 Also on tie secondary side, there is a lot coming 22 pull the plug.
22 out of Europe on the stress corrosion cracking in the 23 MR. SIIADIS: I appreciate that, and I recognite the 23 steam genemtor vessel itself,in the transition zone 24 lateness of the hour. Irt me just run through the 24 where it begins to curve in toward the top. And I don't 25 shopping list here 25 know that that's what ticy're going to be looking at, Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Page 97 - Page 100
[JAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Page 101 Page 103 1 but m'd sure like to have dem looked at, at that I commentary lere and projections or whatever. But when 2 possibility.
2 you asked for comment on the restant, I thought you 3
Primary piping Friends of the Coast raised an 3 wanted to talk about issues that might come up -
i 4 issue with - with NRC in tie 2.206 which was rejected.
4 MR.HEHu Absolutely.
5 Men this plant was built and they were welding the 5
MR. SHADIS: - with rtspcCt to Oc restart.
6 primary piping in place, the foundation welds were 6
Ma. Haru But there comes a point two and a half 7 discovered to be cracked. These are microfissures.
7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> plus into the discussion where I think we - I 8 "Ihme are a few thousandths of an inch in length, their 8 think we're at a point where -
9 depth. At the time it was investigated and determined 9
MR. sHADIS: Okay.
I 10 that there was not a mechanism for propogation of these 10 MR. Hatu l m happy to take the comments. We will i
11 cracks. And tley decided instead of grinding tiem out 11 certair,1y review the comments. They don't go into a 12 which would simply cause more problems than simply 12 black hole. I think e've responded to - you know, you 13 welding them over, ticy simply welded them over.
13 may not always like the response; but I think for tic 14 When this was investigated by NRC in tesponse to 14 most part we respond to everything we get.
15 our 2.206 petition, ticy did not determine what the weld 15 Okay. I certainly do appreciate everybody's 16 material was in those founciation welds; but they did get 16 participation tonight and patience. And, you know, we 17 a response from tie licensee with regard to the 17 will be mceting again probably in - in - and we'll 18 incidence of in-plant in-service inspection on these 18 advatise it well ahead of time to let you know, but 19 welds. And as far as I can read in ticir response, the 19 as - as tie need arises. I'm not sure what the next 20 welds closest to the reactor vessel itself have rever 20 milestone point would be down the road. But we'll 21 had b-service inspection. And I think while tie -
21 certainly advertise it; and - and there will be an 33 while the reactor lead is off, we urge NRC before 22 opportunity for additional meetings before there is a 23 allowing tic plant to restart to make certain that I'm 23 final decision for restart.
24 wrong about that. I think that would be right in line.
24 So I thank you all for coming.
25 There is a lot of new material out on sensitized 25
[9:39 P.M.]
Page 102 Page 104 I stainless steel. Some of tie stuff came from the 1
2 materials section of NRC recently, the recent generic 2
3 letter. I spoke to people on tic reactor side, and tley 3
4 said not in a reactor. It won't happen. You don't have 4
5 tie limited conditions. I got a call back from peopic 5
6 on tie materials side. "I1cy said, oh, yes, you need 450 6
7 degrees Fahrenleit over a period of six to eight weeks.
7 8 Sounds to me like you could have - that that's bounded 8
9 by tle pressure and duration that you would have on tie 9
to primary side.
10 11 So we're begging you, take a look at this issue Ii 13 again and see if w don't have something tlere.
12 13 Secondary piping -
13 14 MR. IIEllL: Can you - how many more do you have?
14 15 MR. SIIADIS: Well, I thought what you guys 15 16 wanted - let me just ask you -
16 17 MR. IIEi!L: What we wanted were comments on tie 17 la plan, and certainly I think we'w gotten a lot of good 18 19 comments. I would ask you to -- to provide us with 19 20 those in writing; and we'll certainly try to address 20 21 tlem. But we're not going to be able to address those 21 22 in -
22 23 MR. SilADIS: I'll be glad to do that. ]just 23 24 didn't want this to go offinto a black hole of space.
24 25 And as you know, you have entertained political 25 Page 101 - Page 104 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell
PLELIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenselt!" MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
Page 105 1
CERDFICATE 2
J, Maureen In:khart Wagner, a Notary Public in -
3 and for the State of Maine, hereby certify that 4 fongoing promeding was stenographically reported by me 5 'and later reduced to print through Computer Aided
~
6 Transcription, and the foregoir6 s a full and true i
7 record of tle proceeding.
8 I further certify that I am a disinterestal 9 person in the event or outcome of the above-named cause 10 of action.
II IN WITNESS WIIEREOF 1 subscribe my hand 12 this day of
,1997, 13 Dated at Falmouth, Maine.
14 15 16 tenny rum 17 wy communnm Exp' 18 April 24,2001.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Page 105 - Page 105 l
1 i
i t
l ENCLOSURE 2 i
MEETING TRANSCRIPTS ON APRIL 3,1997 1
)
(NORMAL FORMAT) 1 I
l i
e I
j i
_