ML20148K018
| ML20148K018 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8803300461 | |
| Download: ML20148K018 (171) | |
Text
- ~
4
, i
,. 6 t
\\_.
.i l
-(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i
Title:
Discussion /Possible Vote on Rancho Seco Restart (Public Meeting) l Location:
Washington, D.
C.
l i
i Date:
Tuesday, March 22, 1988 s
Pages:
1 - 113 i
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8803300461 080322 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
k 1
D I SCLA I MER 2
3
.w 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 3
3/22/88 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
'N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observat on.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
/"
12 inaccuracies.
s, 13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may l
21 authori=e.
23 24 25
s 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON RANCHO SECO RESTART 4
5 Public Meeting 6
7 8-Nuclear. Regulatory Commission
~
9 1717 H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
11 Tuesday, March 22, 1988 12 13 The Commission met, pursuant to Notice, at 14 10:00 a.m.
15 16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
~
17 18 LANDO W.
ZECH, JR.,
Chairman of the Commission 19 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner 20 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Commissioner 21 KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner 22 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner 23 24 s..
25 s
2 1
NRC STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
Chilk W.
Parler 4
C.
Wilcox C.
Andognini
+
5 A.
Taylor E.
Smeloff 6
R.
Byrne J.
Kehoe
~
7 J.
Firlit D.
Keuter 8
J.
Vinquist J.
Shetler 9
J.
Taylor T.
Murley 10 F.
Miraglia J.
Martin 11 T.
DiAngelo G.
Kalman 12 13 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
14 i
15 G.
Holahan 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e '
3 A. +
1 PROCEEDINGS br 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 Today the Commission will hear from the Sacramento Municipal 4
Utility District and from the NRC Staff about the Rancho Seco
.n 5
Nuclear Generating Station which has been shut down since 6
December 26, 1985.
Depending on what we hear today, we may or n
7 may not authorize restart.
In other words, we may or may not 8
vote today depending on what we hear today.
9 The plant remains shut down under two confirmatory e
10 action letters.
The investigation of the over-cooling event 11 which preceded the' extended shutdown identified significant e
12 weaknesses in both the plant physical condition and the 13 management of the plant.
The Licensee has upgraded the Rancho 14 Seco plant significantly and has made numerous changes.in plant 15 management and staff.
+
w 16 At the last Commission meeting on Rancho Seco, we 17 heard of the Board of Directors' commitment to doing things
~!
18 right and to support Mr. Andognini in preparing the plant for 19 restart.
We understand that the SMUD Board has been weighing 20 its long-term options for Rancho Seco, deciding whether the 21 plant should operate or not.
We want to make clear that while i
22 the Board's decision whether to operate Rancho Seco stresses 23 economic factors, our concern is safety, not economics.
If 24 Rancho Seco operates at all, it's imperative that it operate 25 safely.
There can be no compromise in that principle either by
4 1
the utility or by the NRC.
Safe operation must take priority q# :
2 over utility economic objectives.
If safety requires a 3
shutdown, the NRC will require that the plant be shut down.
We 4
would hope you would do so, too, if necessary.
~
5 However, in my view, high safety performance goes
~
6 hand in hand with long-run economic plant operations.
A safe 7
plant is a reliable plant; a reliable plant is an economic 8
plant.
But from our point of view as regulators, safety must 9
take precedence.
Our concern is safety, and we expect safety 10 to be our first concern, but of course not the only concern.
,l 11 And we expect you to feel the same.
This must extend from the 12 boardroom to the control room throughout your organization.
i
]
13 So we're looking forward to hearing from the 14 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Board of Directors on its 15 commitment to safe operations and to hearing the NRC Staff's s.
16 evaluation of the Licensee's commitment and readiness to 17 operate Rancho Seco safely.
1 18 Do my fellow Commissioners have any comments to make i
19 before we begin?
i 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I would just make the
]
21 comment, Mr. Chairman, that I'm cartainly going to be listening 22 with great interest to, as I'm sure you and the rest of my j
23 colleagues will, to see if we can try and gain an understanding l
24 here as to just how the governance of this facility is going to 25 be running and working in the months and particularly the i
WN
m..._
5 1
projected 18 months ahead.
And that has been a major concern 2
of mine over the years and I cannot say that those concerns 3
have been alleviated based on what has been occurring in the e
4 last several weeks and months.
5 So that remains a major concern of mine, and I would u.-
6 like to have some focus here on that issue, if we may.
t e
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Any other comments?
8 (No response.)
9 All right, Mr. Wilcox, you may begin.
9 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd u-11 like to make sure that we do hear about how you are going to 12 come to a uniform view of what you really feel should happen y
13 and will happen, and I think our big concern, certainly my l
l-r i
14 concern, is that I seem to be hearing different voices 15 representing parts of the organization as to the commitment to 16 the future.
And I hope you will address those questions which 17 Commissioner Bernthal has talked about as organizational or 18 managerial divisions within the entire SMUD organization, as to l(
19 what you really want to accomplish and how you will guarantee 20 that it is accomplished.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Wilcox, you may begin.
22 MR. WILCOX:
Thank you, Chairman Zech, and fellow 23 Commissioners.
Good morning, my name is Cliff Wilcox, I appear 24 as the President of the Board of Directors of the Sacramento i
]
25 Municipal Utility District.
Please let me introduce my fellow j
i w,
.m
j 6
i s) 1 colleagues on the Board and the staff that have joined us at 2
the table.
t 4
3 To my left is Director Smeloff; to Director Smeloff's l
4 left is the General Manager, Mr. Byrne; and to Mr. Byrne's left 5
is Director Kehoe.
And to my right is Mr. Andognini, the
]
t 6
CEO/ Nuclear whom I believe you are all familiar with; and to 7
his right is Director Ann Taylor.
8 Mr. Chairman, each of us earnestly appreciates your 9
invitation to come back here today as a full Board to address a
10 these concerns that you've just brought-forward.
As President 4
11 of the Board, I speak for the majority of the Board, and our 12 opening comments will be for the majority of the Board.
But my i
j 13 colleagues can and will speak for themselves today.
14 The District has been in existence for about 40 years l
15 and provides electric service to almost all of Sacramento i
16 County's 900 residents.
Sacramento is growing dramatically, 17 and as a consequence the District is the fifth largest
[
1 j.
le publicly-owned utility in the country.
Rancho Seco constitutes I
19 about one-half of our generating resource and as our. largest
]
20 single investment, about one-half of the District's total 21 assets.
l l
22 Therefore, the Board has good reason to devote i
1 23 significant attention to overy aspect of its operations.
Let i*
i e-j 24 me share with you some of my perceptions respecting the Board's 25 approach to Rancho Seco.
None of us Board members are j
l
7 1
technically qualified to run a nuclear power plant, but each of k'
2 us recognizes our responsibility to engage qualified people who o
3 can safely manage, operate and maintain a highly complex 4
facility.
Each of us also recognizes that we must provide 5
those qualified people with the tools and resources necessary 6
for them to accomplish their tasks.
At the same time, each of 7
us has a responsibility to the community that has elected us to provide reliable and economic service.
It is this dual role 9
that can put the most pressure on a board of directors.
10 The Board has faced some significant challenges 11 during the last three years.
With respect to Rancho Seco, we a
s n
12 were forced to take a hard look at our operations assess our 13 position and devote the resources and time needed to correct w
14 our problems.
Our commitment to do this has resulted in a 15 plant with many new people, new attitudes, new enhanced 16 programs, technical upgrades and a positive commitment to 17 operate the plant safely.
18 We now feel, as do numerous select qualified, 19 independent review committees, that Rancho Seco is ready for i
20 restart.
21 It is my understanding that the reason that the 22 reason you have invited the full Board here today is in respect s
23 to some of the wording in the measure which this Board put on a
24 the June ballot.
The wording was not put in as an operating
^
25 mandate or even a guideline, but rather as a commitment to the
~
,w
s-8 1
customer / owners of the SMUD that when we restart and run Rancho 2
Seco, it will not be without regard to cost.
There are points 3
at which, if the plant cannot be operated over time above a
~
4 certain level, that it would not be economically vise to t
5 continue to operate it.
The wording is not a mandate to the 6
operators to operate the plant above 50 percent; it is a w
7 commitment to the community that if it is proven that the plant 8
cannot be operated economically it will not be run.
9 This test presumes that the cost of safe operation e
10 shall be part of the economic consequence.
This approach is g
11 similar to incentive programs adopted by the Public Utilities
~
12 Commission both inside and outside the state of California.
13 To reconfirm publicly our commitment to safety, at 14 the March 17th Board meeting the full Board unanimously adopted 15 the following resolution:
"Safety has been and will continue t
16 to be the first and foremost consideration in the operation of 17 Rancho Seco.
We direct the General Manager and the
/
18 CEO/ Nuclear to take all necessary steps and precautions to 19 insure that Rancho Seco will not be brought to operation or 20 continue to operate if it is not safe to do so."
That is the l
21 Board's operating orders for Rancho Seco.
That is not a l
22 commitment directed to the customer / owners, but rather to the 23 management team that we will not tolerate any operation of i
24 Rancho Seco that could jeopardize public health or safety.
25 Anything less than safe operations poses absolutely n
9
W l
9 1
unacceptable economic risk to the District and the community.
2 The achievement of a 70 percent capacity factor is a 3
goal; that is not a mandate.
In my view, if a goal is to be 4
effective in improving performance, it must represent a 5
challenge and it must be reasonably achievable.
The Rancho 6
Seco Improvement Program has been directed at that goal, and a 7
number of plants have demonstrated that this is achievable.
8 I believe very strongly that the only way that our 9
goal will be reached is if we are able to set an outstanding 10 safety record first.
Safe plants are reliable and productive.
11 The one thing that I have learned clearly during this process 12 is the importarce of safety.
We will never achieve a 70 13 percent capacity factor if we do not first set outstanding 14 safety records.
15 We have done a lot to make Rancho Seco a quality 16 plant.
We have provided a team to provide strong leadership to 17 our people.
My belief is that by focusing on safety and
~
18 reliability, good performance and fiscal viability will follow.
+
N.
19 Quality, safety and reliability are attributes of excellence.
20 Mr. Chairman, at our weeting last October you and 21 Commissioner Bernthal inquired about the reporting relationship 22 between the Board and the new General Manager and the Chief j
23 Executive of Nuclear.
Carl is and will remain the CEO/ Nuclear 24 with primary responsibility to operate Rancho Seco, to protect
'~
25 the public health and safety.
There are, however, many other o
e-
10 1
important facilities and responsibilities outside the Rancho i
2 Seco, for which the Board is held accountable by the District.
3 The Board must make decisions that consider the implications of y
4 each of these decisions on all our responsibilities.
5 Mr. Byrne was hired as the General Manager to be the
+
c) 6 full-time individual the Board will hold accountable to execute 7
and protect all of its interests.
Consequently, Carl will 8
start reporting to the Board through the General Manager in 9
June of 1988.
It is obvious that Carl and Dick must work 10 together closely so each can fulfill their respective roles.
11 However, this relationship will not prevent either of them 12 equal access to the Board if they feel it's necessary.
13 At this time, I would like to allow my colleagues to a
14 introduce any comments they have, and I know Director Smeloff, 15 for one, has some comments he would like to make.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine, thank you ver; much.
You may 17 proceed.
18 MR. SMELOFF:
Good morning, Chairman Zech and members 19 of the Commission, my name is Ed Smeloff, I'm the SMUD Board
~'
20 Director representing the third SMUD ward, and I am prepared to 21 make a statement this morning regarding the Rancho Seco 22 Utilization Ordinance proposed by the SMUD Board of directors 23 to be placed on the ballot in the upcoming June election.
24 The ordinance was drafted by the Board on March 4th 25 and adopted by the Board of Cirectors on March 9th, 1988.
11 1
Gentlemen, in my opinion, this ordinance is poorly written and i
2 I'd like to point out to you four problems related to this 3
ordinance.
4 First, the ordinance contains a serious 5
misrepresentation of fact; second, it raises the question 6
whether SMUD is capable of making a long-term commitment to the s
7 safe operation of Rancho Seco; third, it subordinates safety to e-8 economics; fourth, it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the
~'
9 proper relationship between SMUD and the Nuclear Regulatory 10 Commission.
11 The misrepresentation contained in the ordinance is v
12 the statement that, quote, "In recent years, modifications that 13 have been made to Rancho Seco Nuclear Generation Station amount 14 to $400 million."
This statement is not true, and its 15 inaccuracy can be verified by looking at the financial 16 statements for SMUD for 1985, 1986 and 1987.
It over-estimates 17 the value of capital additions to the plant by twofold.
18 This misrepresentation of fact in a measure that is 19 to be submitted directly to the voters could result in 20 continued damage to the credibility of the SMUD Board of l
21 directors and further undermine the trust of the public that is i
22 essential for the operation of a nuclear plant.
23 With respect to the question of whether the SMUD is 24 capable of making a long-term commitment to the plant, the
~I 25 ordinance states that it is the policy of the SMUD Board to
12 1
transfer responsibility for the operation and licensing of A
2 Rancho Seco to a holding company or other legal entity.
The 3
motivation for this policy is the belief that an elected Board 4
of Directors cannot provide stable, long-term policy direction
~
S for a nuclear facility.
This belief was articulated by the 6
SMUD Board President, Cliff Wilcox, and Vice Precident, Cort 7
Koehler, most recently on March 9, 1988.
8 President Wilcox said:
"I believe the biggest safety a.
9 hazard for Rancho Seco over the long-term operation does not 10 lay at Rancho Seco, does not lay at the employees, but lays in 11 the fact that elected bodies are elected to set policy, but
"'I 12 they are not elected to be long-term managers of very technical 1
e
~
13 facilities.
14 "And because of the way this scenario is set up in 15 the Municipal Utility District Act, you have a Board of 16 Directors who changes philosophies every two years.
In trying 17 to somehow set long-term policy directions for a facility that 18 is very technical, requires long-term stability and long-term 19 management skill ability and long-term direction stability, and
~
20 I don't believe that can be given from a solely political body 21 that has to reflect the interests of the ratepayers and the 22 customer owners."
22 This opinion is also held by SMUD's Chief Executive 24 officer, Nuclear, Carl Andognini.
25 Clearly the SMUD Board is putting forward two t
v
s 13 1
fundamentally contradictory positions.
On the one hand, the 2
SMUD Board is asking you, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3
for permission to restart the nuclear plant and asking the 4
voters to support the operation of the plant for 18 months.
On 5
the other hand, the SMUD Board leadership is asserting that 6
SMUD, as an organization, is by its very nature not properly 7
constituted to provide long-term direction for the nuclear 8
plant.
And for that reason, the Board has directed its General 9
Manager to try to transfer the license to operate the plant to 10 another entity as soon as possible.
11 It should be self-evident that an organization which 12 at its top levels does not have the confidence that it can take 13 long-term responsibility for the operation of a nuclear plant 14 should not be given that responsibility.
Certainly these 15 statements by the Board's President should raise the concern 16 whether SMUD has the capability of providing long-term policy 17 direction for the safe operation of the plant.
18 The Rancho Seco utilization ordinance goes on to 19 state that if the performance level of Rancho Seco falls below 20 a 50 percent monthly capacity factor for four consecutive 21 months, then the plant will be permanently closed.
The purpose 1
22 of this part of the ordinance, according to its author,
{
l 23 Director John Kehoe-is, quote, "to offer true, secure stopping 24 points from any reckless expenditure of monies," unquote.
I 25 Prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the Board of
^l
4 w
14 s
1 Directors had been warned by its General Manager, Richard 2
Byrne, that a decision to operate Rancho Seco for 18 months and 3
then to close the facility would result in rate increases of 30 4
percent over the next three years.
In addition, capital
+
~~
5 expenditures on the plant during those 18 months would result 6
in a half a cent per kilowatt hour higher debt burden on the 7
ratepayers over the next 20 years.
8 In order to reassure the voters of Sacramento that 9
these economic consequences would be minimized, the 50 percent 10 capacity factor criterion was added to the ordinance.
It was e
11 clear to me at that time that economic criteria were being
~
12 given priority in determining how much additional resources 13 would be devoted to the nuclear plant.
14 Furthermore, no discussion occurred at the time as to 15 what effects giving such a priority to economics would have.on 16 the performance of workers at Rancho Seco.
There can be no 17 doubt that the language of the ordinance places additional 18 pressure on the workers to keep the plant running in the short 19 run at the expense of long-run safety.
The existence of that 20 pressure has been conceded by Mr. Andognini.
w 21 In my opinion, this clause of the ordinance places 22 undue pressure on the Rancho Seco management and workers to 23 meet economic criteria and could jeopardize the safe operation 24 of the facility.
25 Finally, the most flawed part of the Rancho Seco e
4
t 15 1
utilization ordinance is the statement that, quote, "the Rancho s
2 Seco Nuclear Generating Station shall not be closed prior to 3
its first refueling unless (a) the Nuclear Regulatory 4
Commission orders such closure on the grounds that its 5
continued operation places the public health or safety at risk 6
or (b) the Sacramento Municipal Utility District determines by 7
a four-fifths vote that continued operation is not in the best 8
economic interests of the District."
w 9
The basic premise contained in this statement is that
~
o' 10 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sole responsibility for 11 determining whether the operation of Rancho Seco places the 12 public health or safety at risk.
By proposing a ballot 13 referendum with this language, the SMUD Board of Directors e
~
14 shows a profound misunderstanding of where responsibility for 15 safety at Rancho Seco resides.
In fact, a literal reading of 16 this clause would lead to the conclusion that SMUD could not on 17 its own close the plant for safety reasons.
18 In conclusion, it should be clear from reading this 19 ordinance that the SMUD Board has acted hastily and without 20 guidance from nuclear experts in developing policy guidelines 21 for the future operation of Rancho Seco.
In reality, this 22 ordinance is nothing more than a political strategy to convince 23 the voters of Sacramento that SMUD can operate the plant 24 economically, and if not, it will shut the plant down at little 25 additional cost to the ratepayers.
y
a 16 1
The majority of the SMUD Board has demonstrated to
~
2 you with this ordinance that political expedience is more 3
important to them than developing sensible, long-term policy 4
guidelines for the operation of Rancho Seco.
In my opinion, 5
this ordinance potentially jeopardizes the safe operation of 6
the nuclear plant over the next 18 months.
7 Frankly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not 8
be a party to consenting to this ill-conceived action taken by 9
the SMUD Board.
The Commission should require SMUD to remove 10 the ordinance from the ballot and to make a long-term 11 commitment -- make a commitment to the long-term safe operation 12 of the plant before it issues approval for restart.
13 Thank you.
14 MR.
X:
Chairman Zech, at this time, I would 15 like to ask Director Kehoe for his comments.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
You may 17 proceed.
18 MR. KEHOE:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 19 I thank you very much for the time for us to come and explain 20 our position and our support for Rancho Seco.
21 As I look to my colleagues on the right, I guess Ann 22 Taylor and I represent the most senior members.
We were first s.
23 elected to the Board in 1980, and I think Cliff has said it l
24 very well; we're not experts in nuclear technology and have a
+-
25 major distribution plant that I think we're very proud of from S
17
.t 1
the standpoint of Rancho Seco and its role both in the past and 2
in the future in power production for the Sacramento Valley.
3 Now when I first went on the Board, I thought the 4
resources of the District were being properly applied with 5
respect to the nuclear power plant, and along the way I joined 6
a committee that had been established by the Board called the 7
Rancho Seco Implementation Committee.
Mr. Wilcox and I formed 8
that committee.
And that led me to my first meeting with Mr.
9 Martin -- I don't know if he's here today or not -- your 10 Regional Administrator at Walnut Creek.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, he is here.
I see him in the 12 audience.
e m
13 MR. KEHOE:
And he gave me a speech that Admiral 14 Rickover had made at one time about the pursuit of excellence, 15 and it had some major points in it, and that was an eye-opener 16 to me that we had been given the thoughts from previous Boards 17 and previous Administrations that we had been pursuing 18 excellence, and indeed we had not.
The pursuit of excellence
-r 19 left much to be desired.
~
20 And I think from that 1983 meeting to the present 21 time, I have never lost sight of that commitment to excellence
.1 22 that I think that the Board of Directors and Rancho Seco and 23 the whole Utility District have to apply to that particular
{
i 24 plant, and I think that what we're doing now, through the 25 efforts of Carl Andognini and his staff, is truly in the spirit
./
18 s ~
1 of that commitment to excellence.
- l 2
Ed has in'dicated that I was indeed the author of the 3
controversial ordinance.
We're not here to debate the 3
4 ordinance.
I don't think any of you can vote in Sacramento on 5
June 6th.
But I think the major premise that you must bear in
~<'
6 mind is that at the time that I accumulated together all of the s.
7 thoughts, and what we haven't told you is that'public workshops 8
preceded the deliberations on this ordinance.
We had over 9
three weeks of public workshops on various options that the 10 Board could take on the future of the District, and one of the 11 options, of course, was to continue the restart and to continue 12 the support for Rancho Seco.
And along with these workshops 13 came a constant plea from many different directions -- labor, 14 business, the public.
I know a retired state employee wrote a 15 very profound letter on how he thought the District should put 16 perhaps all of the options on the ballot to be considered.
4 17 But underlying this response at the time that I 18 drafted the referendum which the Board elected to support was 19 the premise that safety had to be number one.
We had been 20 pursuing the enhancements to this plant on the premise it would 21 be the safest operating plant that human resources could 22 possibly give to the country and to the NRC.
So safety was an 23 underlying factor, and I think that the Chairman both of the 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the President of our Board 25 states it very well very early.
You cannot have an economical
l
,p
-c 19 4
1 plant that isn't safe, because the reliability of that plant 2
and its safety is fundamental to any economic principle that 3
could possibly exist.
4 And I think that in the course of the future 5
direction, those who want to close the plant have an initiative 6
on the ballot which is either one way or the other.
And from e
7 what the Board has presented to the people and the ratepayers 8
is sort of a corral, if you will -- Ann raises horses, Ann 9
Taylor -- and I think the word "corral" is very good, by 10 corralling the thoughts and ideas in the fuel recycling period 11 that lies ahead, the 18 months that lies ahead, that we can 12 prove that Rancho Seco truly operates and assure the ratepayers 13 that it's operating (a) safely and (b) reliably, which is 14 economically beneficial to those ';atepayers.
15 So that basically is the position that I would like w
16 to leave with you, that I think I would totally subscribe to 17 the views of Mr. Wilcox that he gave you in his opening 18 statement.
I think they present very well the viewpoints that 19 I have as a Board member and certainly would be committed to 20 continue in the days ahead.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
22 MR. WILCOX:
Chairman Zech, at this time, I would 23 like to ask Director Taylor for her comments.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, please, v.
25 MS. TAYLOR:
Chairman Zech and Commissioners, the
20
- ~
l recognition of safety first has been emphasized by the
~
2 Operational Readiness Review Committee on the-first page of 3
their report.
Their first requirement is to, and I quote, 4
"ensure plant safety during and following restart."
5 The report continues on page 3 with the following:
6 "Rancho Seco's process did not allow inconsistencies with 7
safety impact to get through."
8 Mr. Solomon Levy, a distinguished member of the
~
9 American Nuclear Society, a member of the oversight comnittee 10 for four nuclear power plants and who has published more than w
11 50 technical papers, was assigned the review of the following 12 areas of safety:
cable separation, engineering action plan, 13 and quality vertical audit.
As a member of the Operational 14 Readiness Revicw Committee, Mr. Levy joined his fellow 15 committee members in concluding that Rancho Seco is ready for a 16 safe restart.
17 Reliability is the key to safety.
If you will refer e
18 to the report, "Future Plant Capacity Factor Engineering 19 Assessments," dated February 24, 1988, I am sure you will 20 concur that the corrective action should ensure better 21 capacity, and with these plant improvements, capacity could 22 conceivably attain 72 to 84 percent.
With that in mind, your 23 50 percent lower level is not an unattainable or exorbitant 24 figure.
5 25 Preventative maintenance program verification has
l 21 1
been made, and programs and procedures are in place to provide
~
2 new policy and direction for the maintenance organization.
The 3
voluntary shutdown during testing by Mr. Andognini further 4
points out the emphasis on safety first by management.
There 5
is no Board comment on his shutdowns.
They were accepted 6
willingly.
1 7
A management systems control program has been 8
initiated to place an emphasis on operating the plant safely 9
and providing it with the necessary support to run efficiently 1
10 and reliably.
11 I have continually supported the safe operation of 12 Rancho Seco, and on a personal note,-when I thanked the Rancho 13 Seco employees for their participation in the Rancho Seco 14 efforts, I wrote, and I quote:
"Please continue your efforts 5-15 to ensure a safe, reliable, and timely restart."
'^
16 The Board will welcome any questions from this 17 Commission that will assure them that the Board is solidly 18 behind safety first, and the other issues are in a secondary 19 position.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
21 MR. WILCOX:
Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to 22 apologize.
One Board member was unable to attend; the Vice 23 President, Director Koehler, was unable to be here.
I believe 24 he has called to express his opinions to you, t
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
He has indeed and I appreciate the g 9-
=#
22 1
call.
I know he had another commitment.
We're sorry he 2
couldn't be with us but I appreciated his calling me.
3 MR. WILCOX:
Thank you.
At this time, Mr. Byrne, our 4
General Manager, has a couple of comments and then we'll take w
5 questions.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much, you may proceed.
7 MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, in 8
November of 1987, the SMUD General Manager assembled a team of
~
9 professionals from across this country with expertise in
"~
10 business, finance, law, engineering, economics, environment and 11 legislation to study the power supply alternatives available to a
12 the District.
That team was known as QUEST, which stands for 13 Quality Energy for Sacramento's Tomorrow.
14 That team was charged with making a recommendation to 15 the Board which it concluded would reduce the financial risk of 16 operating Rancho Seco and offer the lowest long-term cost of 17 electricity with high reliability to SMUD's customer / owners.
18 On February 24, 1988, the team unanimously recommended that 19 Rancho Seco be closed.
The recommendation was based on the 20 conclusion that the potential downside financial risks of 21 operating the plant were greater than the potential downside 22 risks of purchasing power at rates which are quantifiable, and 23 expediting a program to develop improved transmission service 24 to, and other generation sources for, the District.
25 I want to point out strongly that the QUEST report
3r>
23 1
also clearly states that if Rancho Seco was operated a:
2 capacity factor levels well above its historic levels that such 3
continued operation would be in the best financial interest of 4
the District's consumers.
~-
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Excuse me, what exactly is 6
the historic level now?
Anybody know?
7 MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Andognini, can you give us the 8
historic levels?
9 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Prior to the shutdown it was about 47 10 percent in December; since then it has obviously gone down and 11 it's in the low 40's.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
13 MR. BYRNE:
The SMUD Board of Directors, after 14 listening to its Advisory Cabinet, public interest groups, 15 public bodies, Rancho Seco employees and interested 16 individuals, has made the policy decision to restart Rancho 17 Seco, if given the NRC approval, and to run the facility in 18 accordance with the Rancho Seco Utilization Ordinance.
19 I think it's important that this Commission 20 understand that the General Manager does not find this decision 21 unreasonable.
I can support this decision and I will support 22 it, and I will work diligently to accomplish safe and economic 23 operation of Rancho Seco and to carry out the actions 24 contemplated in the Rancho Seco Utilization Ordinance.
25 It was mentioned earlier by President Wilcox that the w
24 j'
CEO/ Nuclear will report through the General Manager as of June.
1 e
2 I want you to know that I believe that information from the 3
CEO/ Nuclear and his staff must flow directly to the Board 4
during that time as well as today.
Boards cannot manage 5
nuclear power plants without firsthand information.
I will 6
insure and I will insist that Carl has direct communication 7
with the Board at all times and a complete flow of any 8
information which he wants to bring to the Board.
I would 9
expect that under any circumstance and any other condition.
10 I can also tell you that I don't care what the issue 11 is or whether it's a nuclear plant or anything else, safety 12 comes first to me.
And it is in my power, and it will be in my 13 power, to operate this ranch safely, and I will under no 14 conditions permit anything to continue in operation, regardless 15 of what any ordinance says, if I believe that the public safety v,
16 is threatened.
i l
l'i That concludes my remarks.
j 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you very much.
19 MR. WILCOX:
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our 20 prepared remarks.
We would be happy to answer any questions 21 that the Commission may have.
"l 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are we going to hear from Mr.
23 Andognini on the plant itself?
24 MR. WILCOX:
Yes, sir.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, fine.
Before we do that,
.e 25 1
are there questions from my fellow Commissioners of the Board?
2 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes, I'd like to ask one question 3
of the Board.
You know in order to have a plant that runs 4
reliably and to give Mr. Andognini his chance to make whatever
+
5 quota you give him, the plant has got to be well maintained to 6
be reliable.
My concern is that you're not going to give the 7
operators a full deck to play with.
8 What I would like to hear from you is your commitment 9
to provide all the funds required over the next 18 months to 10 maintain the plant in a first class condition.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Sir, that commitment basically 12 was made not for the full 18 months.
We adopt a budget a year 13 at a time.
The 1988 budget has all been adopted.
The monies 14 in that budget were all of the monies that Mr. Andognini asked 15 for; Mr. Andognini, the CEO/ Nuclear, came to the Board with his 16 budget which encompassed not only the restart monies but also 17 the monies to operate for the entire year which encompassed a 18 great many modifications that he was going to start on.
He has 19 that full budget; that was authorized in December of last year 20 and it's still authorized all the way through this year.
21 MR. KEHOE:
It was a five to nothing vote, wasn't it?
22 MR. WILCOX:
That's correct.
So the funds are there, 23 and they were there at his request.
It's his budget.
24 MS. TAYLOR:
I think you've also seen with the
=
25 placing of the proposal on the ballot where we're suggesting w
^
26 1
that we go to the next refueling outage with a 4 to 1 vote, 2
that commitment to continuing all funding until that time and 7'
3 no ability to pull any funds back from that has been made, if 4
not in resolution, certainly in spirit by four Board members.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Bernthal?
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I'm just wondering.
7 Perhaps you can clarify for me then how this financial y
8 commitment comports with -- I haven't been able to put my
- ~
9 fingers on it here, but the allegation, shall we say, that 10 we've received in the last day or two here by letter.
And I'm 11 not going to say where because if I can find it here and quote 12 it I will.
That somehow there will be a deferral of necessary 13 maintenance work for some period of time.
Can you assure us 14 that is not the case?
And, Mr. Andognini, are you satisfied 15 that all necessary safety, maintenance and modifications as 16 well will be performed, as they would under any circumstance, 17 during this proposed 18-month period?
18 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I can commit to you, Commissioner, 19 that the funds are there, and I can commit to you that we will 20 do what we intended to do whether it's an 18-month cycle or an 21 18-year cycle -- put safety first and put in the modifications 22 that we have intended to do, regardless of how long the plant 23 operates.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And in your judgment there is 25 no modification, no maintenance work, that you would prefer to
w 27 1
do in the next 18 months that has been deferred at this_ point?
2 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Nothing has been deferred, sir.
3 There has been no work activities at all been deferred and no 4
expenditures have been deferred.
I have gotten no direction 5
from the Board to attempt to do that, either.
6 MS. TAYLOR:
I would like to comment on that letter 7
because I, too, have read it.
And there was no comment made 8
with that figure or that maintenance deferment at all; that is 9
complete fabrication.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Will you remind me which 11 letter it was?
As I say, I can't quite --
12 MS. TAYLOR:
If you don't care to mention the name of 13 it I'll be happy to show you the letter.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
15 Well, in any case, I would like the staff as well, 16 and particularly Mr. Martin, to address that question.
17 Getting back to the governance and the institutional 18 elements here, let me just ask a very simple question.
Is the 19 Board unanimous in believing that this plant should now be 20 prepared for startup and that you would like this plant to 21 start up?
22 MR. WILCOX:
Sir, I believe you can tell by the 23 comments made by the different Board members -- I believe the s
24 majority of the Board clearly supports the startup of this 25 plant.
s
28 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I take it that at least there 2
is one dissenting member of the Board, then, y
3 MR. SMELOFF:
Let me explain my position.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Your position was not clear 5
from your statement.
6 MR. SMELOFF:
My position is that I followed -- I 7
would recommend that the Board follow the recommendation of the
?
8 General Manager.
Rancho Seco represents a substantial 9
financial risk for a utility the size of SMUD.
In any 10 individual year it represents a $200 million risk; that's the 11 difference between it running well and it not running at all.
1 12 We are not a large enough utility to bear that kind of risk.
l l
13 Witness what has happened to this District over the past two 14 years where the plant has not been in operation and we have a
15 been forced to raise ratepayers' rates by 84 percent.
16 I supported the General Manager in his recommendation 17 for economic reasons.
My recommendation to you was that the 18 voters of Sacramento will make a policy decision in June on
?
19 whether or not they want to rely on the Rancho Seco plant.
20 That was put on the ballot by the voters.
We have now put on 21 an alternative proposal which sort of makes a month-by-month 1
22 commitment to the plant, and if it doesn't meet certain 23 criteria it will be shut down automatically, and I think that 24 is not the kind of commitment that a nuclear plant requires.
25 It requires a long-term commitment.
1
29 1
I do believe that it can be operated safely.
I do 2
believe it can be governed by an elected board of directors.
I 3
do believe that a municipal utility is qualified to run a
+
4 nuclear plant.
I don't think running Rancho Seco is in the 5
best economic interest of Sacramento.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But if you had your druthers w-7 I take it then that you would prefer to see not an 18-month 8
commitment, but if it came to that, an indefinite commitment to 9
run the plant.
~
10 MR. SMELOFF:
We should have made a commitment one 11 way or the other; a full commitment for the operation of the
- ~
12 plant throughout its license or until it's no longer economic, 13 or made the decision to close the plant.
I think an 18-month 14 commitment with sort of a month-by-month possibility that it 15 might be shut down is not the proper way to give direction to a 16 nuclear plant.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One other question.
There 18 have been two separate study groups, advisory groups if you 19 will, that have rendered opinions, again not so much on the 20 safety element, but of course on the economic considerations, 21 which are only the concern of the Commission here insofar as 22 they may affect the safe operation of the plant.
23 Nevertheless, it concerns me that there have been two 24 separate advisory groups -- one, the so-called QUEST group; 25 another, as I understand it, a standing advisory cabinet -- an w,
y
~9
,m-
30 1
advisory group for the purposes and uses of the board.
Unless 2
I am reading inaccurate accounts, these two groups have come in J'
3 with recommendations that are diametrically opposed, as nearly 4
as I can tell, and I guess I'm curious to know whether the real 5
advisory group will stand up and if you can advise me which 6
group at this point represents the opinion of the board --
7 presumably the advisory group to the board represents the 8
opinion of the board, 9
But how does it happen that then there is another 10 advisory group that apparently without the knowledge and 11 sanction of the board comes in with an entirely different set 12 of recommendations?
w 13 MR. WILCOX:
Mr. Commissioner, I don't believe either 14 one of them totally represents the board.
15 What we were attempting to do was to get as many 16 opinions and as many experts assembled as possible to give us 17 information, because we had to look at a great many differing l
.c 18 facts before we could make a decision.
19 In the past, the one thing that I believe not only 20 this board but previous boards have been guilty of is taking 21 actions and sort of rubber stamping things, to simply take the 22 option and then saying well, yes, we'll accept it, or the only 23 other alternative is no.
This time we clearly wanted to sure
+
24 that we had measured every aspect of it as possible.
25 Both advisory committees were fully authorized by the
31 1
board.
One worked through another general manager and his team 2
-- it was his team.
He was authorized to put a team together
,. ~
3 and go out and research this.
4 The other advisory cabinet was also put together and 5
appointed by the board to look at it, but from a little 6
different point of view -- from the direct, at home point of 7
view, the community point of view, and that angle.
Both of 8
them did that and both of them came back with somewhat 9
different opinions.
10 The general manager's team was full of financial 11 experts and the utility experts.
The other team was made up of 12 either former justices or justices and former legislators.
13 They were looking at what happens as a community, because we 14 have got to assess this not just as a nuclear power plant that 15 is operated in a vacuum but a nuclear plant that belongs to a 16 community and a nuclear power plant that is potentially an 17 asset or, depending on how you look at it, potentially a 18 liability to that community.
19 So we wanted to weigh all of those points of view and 1
20 weigh the impact of jobs and the potential impact of losing 21 jobs, the financial impact and the energy future of this 22 community.
23 After listening to all that testimony, that is when 24 the board had to make a policy decision and that is the reason 25 we came down to the policy decision that was made.
Director y
-r j
32 9.-
~
1 Kehoe brought in an ordinance that has basically alloved us to 2
give some options to the community through this ordinance and 3
that is all we were attempting to do.
4 Our commitment, though, is once we decided to move 5
forward, our commitment, as it always has been, to operate the 6
plant very safely -- this was not something that was a safety 7
issue -- this was -- we all of the time realized that safety is j
8 the first-most priority in the operation of this facility.
We 9
were not trying to pair one of these advisory cabinets against 10 another.
We were simply trying to gather as much information 11 as possible, so that when we made a decision, we would be able I
c 12 to make a decision based on a great deal of facts, not a 13 decision based on one opinion by one group of people that may 14 have missed something.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So the board was comfortable 16 with the project, even though your advisory cabinet clearly was 17 not very comfortable with the process?
Is that a fair 18 statement?
19 MS. TAYLOR:
The advisory cabinet came at it from a
~
20 completely different perspective than the QUEST group and I 21 think that, one, you are looking at "rom one side of the coin 22 and the other, as Mr. Wilcox, from the other.
How does it 23 affect our community itself and what do the loss of jobs and 24 what's really the public opinion?
And I don't think the public 25 opinion has yet to even come forward, but to judge by the
33
?'
1 hearings and the meetings that we had, there is tremendous 2
support out there for the plant in the community.
3 I think it was the board's intention, one, that that 4
resource not be lost, and two, that we assure the community 5
that we wou1(
e a safe plant, because certainly from the 6
perspectives of all of those that spoke against the plant, 7
their concern was safety and our concern always has been 8
safety.
9 I mean, I live there; my children live there; my 10 grandchildren are going to live there.
I am certainly not 11 going to do anything that is unsafe for that community.
But I 12 think you have a lot of other things to weigh in -- just
+
13 whether or not we rate well with Standard & Poor's and Moody's.
14 I think you have got to look at the jobs and the w
15 attendant multipliers that go into the community and a loss of 16 a valuable resource, and there were other things that surfaced 17 after the QUEST report had been presented to us that I think 18 were very important in how I cade up my mind.
19 One was the figure used on escalation of fossil fuel, 20 all of which the MOU's are based on.
So from an economic 21 standpoint, the QUEST report was not the best economic 22 decision.
Starting the plant up was the most economic 23 decision, and even b; Mr. Byrne's discussion that if the plant 24 runs well, it is a far better economic decision for the j
25 community and for SMUD.
v
,.c.-
=
34 1
What their concern was is how the plant was going to 2
run..The engineering report showing the increased. capacity
^
3 availability projected figures was not available until after 4
the QUEST report was made, had no part of that QUEST report, 5
and I think that was something Mr. Andognini had ordered done' 6
at the Rar.cho and when it came out it convinced me that, where 7
the QUEST report looked at a 42 percent capacity and the 8
engineering study shows that there are other, much higher e
9 attainable figures, that it would be foolish not to try to 10 refuel it.
v 11 The other thing, from a safety impact, I think, is 12 the ability to use up that fuel in the 18 months instead of 13 having it sit out there until we could decommission in 2110 or 14 later.
There is no nurety when we can decommission that plant 15 and that fuel sitting out there would be more of a safety risk 16 not used up than it would be used up.
17 And I think a couple of the other. things that -- the I
18 depletion of the excess power that is available in Northern 19 Calitornia presently on which these MOUs were based is going to
{
20 be gone in ten years, and then what kind of a position economic 21 is the utility going to be in?
22 Mr. Byrne's assessment was purely on an economic 4
23 basis and if those ect.nomics are a changing target, then we 24 need to look at how those figures change and how great an 25 impact that we have on us for tha future, and that is what I
---,,....,.,-,.,.,..n,.,-
35 1
based my decision on.
2 MR. SMELOFF:
Commissioner Bernthal, perhaps let me 3
clarify a misperception.
The advisory cabinet was a temporary 4
committee as well.
Both of them were limited in term and 5
appointed for specific purposes.
The QUEST team was authoric d 6
for the board of directors.
The board last October decided 7
last October decided it wanted to seriously evaluate the i
8 alternatives available to the district, so we commissioned and 9
paid some very top-notch people in resource planning, 10 engineering, transmission planning and took a hard economic 11 look at the alternatives to SMUD.
12 The recommendation wa's that the non-Rancho Seco 13 alternatives were roughly equivalent to a Rancho Seco running 14 at about a 62 percent capacity factor.
~
15 There were other qualitative criteria, including the 16 downside risk, which led the QUEST team to recommend to us that
" 1 17 the low risk approach for the economics of the community was to 18 close the plant, and that is what led me to be the one 19 remaining director to support the recommendation of the 20 professional advisory group, the QUEST team, and the 21 recommendation of the general manager.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you very much.
J 23 MR. KEHOE:
Let me add to the confusion by one more 24 point, and is to say that I did not think the two adv.'sory 25 groups are conflicting in their final conclusions, becsuse, as
36 l-1 has been pointed out, the QUEST team that the general manager 2
articulated their viewpoint on, was based strongly on economics 3
and it is like a glass that is half full or half empty as to 4
how you look at the call that they made.
It is a judgment call 5
that was very close and right now Mother Nature is screwing up 6
the judgment call tremendously by the hydro situation in the 7
Northwest and a bullet in the Mid East could well foul up the 8
fossil fuel cost factors in the QUEST report itself.
These are 9
the economic considerations that at least caused mc as board 10 member to come down on the side that we must restart as the 11 basis of the strongest position for the ratepayers in the long 12 run.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I appreciate that.
14 I am not so concerned about what economic judgments 15 you have made.
Those are your judgments to make, provided you 16 supply adequate funding for safe operation.
I was just 17 somewhat concerned about the -- and unfortunately we have to w
18 rely too much on press accounts, and those sometimes are 19 accurate and sometimes aren't, as we all know, but was e
20 concerned about the process and the lovernance that seemed to 21 be reflected in a certain dissonance between the two advisory 22 panels.
But let's leave that subject.
I appreciate your 23 comments.
24 I just want to make one comment, and that is with 25 respect to the capacity factor requirement, which I, I must
J e
37 1
say, would have to read as something of a requirement.
You 2
have explained that it is not exactly that; nevertheless, there 3
in a bit of a threshold there which the plant operators, plant 4
managers will be required to meet or something happens -- and 5
that something I gather is that it would a vote of the board l
6 then that would finally determine the continued operation of 7
the plant.
p 8
I have never objected personally, nor do I think that 9
the Commission has objected -- I am not sure the Commission has 10 ever considered it as a formal matter -- but I have r.ever s
11 objected to setting down certain guidelines of performance for 12 nuclear power plants over relatively long periods of time, and 13 I think a number of state utility commissions and others are 14 doing that.
15 By a relatively long period of time, I do not mean'18 16 months, however.
I think that we talked 3-5 years perhaps as 17 reasonable periods of time and as far as I am concerned, five 18 years is a bit longer and a bit better, because ther you do not 19 get in a situation where you have people and managers with j
20 their jobs depending on meeting a certain level of operation, a 21 certain capacity factor.
That is the thing that concerns me
^l 22 about what you have done here, and I would suggest that the
'l 23 board in its directives to the extent that you are able now, 24 consistent with the action you have taken, get on the record 25 and make it very clear to the managers of the plant and to Mr.
i
19 s
38 1
Andognini and others that they are to run that plant in a way 2
they feel is consistent with public nealth and safety and in no 3
other way.
~
4 I don't quite know how you undo the fact that that 5
proposition is now on the ballot, but I do want to make it very 6
clear that short i. arm capacity factor goals I think by and w
7 iarge are not a good idea.
8 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I think I can address that for you, 9
Commissioner.
10 At a public meeting on March 17th, I indicated 11 whether it was insubordination or not that I would not run 12 Rancho Seco any other way but safety and if I got direction 13 from the board to do that, I would not do it.
Safety was e
14 number one and there was no other way Rancho Seco was going to 15 run unless it ran safely.
16 That may be a perception that it is not in a positive 17 direction, but it is four consecutive months at a capacity less 18 than 50 percent.
With the modifications that we've made, with 19 the programs that we have in place, with the training that f
20 we've done, there is no doubt in my mind that we'll not even 21 approach that, 22 MS. TAY LOR:
And if there were some outside --
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You mean you think you'll do better?
24 MS. TAYLOR:
Yes.
If there were some outside 25 circumstances like, say, we have to --
39 1
MR. WILCOX:
I hope so.
2 MS. TAYLOR:
-- where we would be required, say, by 3
your Commission to hold at a certain power level, that would be 4
the time that the board would say that there are extenuating 5
circumstances and we would then step and say, "This month 6
doesn't count," so to speak.
And I think that is important, 7
that it takes four-fifths of the board to do that, not just a 8
simple majority.
I think that is important.
It is important 9
for you all to know that the safety requirements will be met.
10 MR. SMELOFF:
It takes four-fifths of the board to 11 overrule the permanent shutdown of the plant; that means two 12 board members could close the plant down permanently if it did 13 not achieve a 50 percent capacity factor.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That is my understanding and 15 I gather that's the case.
Wel'.t okay, I would also be 16.
interested and we will hear from our staff as to the physical 17 condition of the plant.
18 Having articulated my misgivings about this sort of 19 short term capacity factor goal, I will also say that my 20 understanding is that you have done quite an extraordinary job 21 there, Mr. Andognini, in updating, maintaining, repairing the
-s 22 hardware and bring the plant's physical condition at least up 23 to the point where it is not unreasonable to expect that you 24 will exceed your historic performance there if the Commission 25 should choose to grant you permission to operate.
p 40
^
1 But I would certainly be interested in hearing the 2
comments from our Staff on that score.
3 I thank you very much.
4 MR. WILCOX:
Mr. Commissioner, before we leave this, 5
the QUEST report, since you've had some concerns about it and j
6 since there's a lot of concerns about this ordinance, I think 7
the main points in both the QUEST report and the ordinance and 8
even the independent review committees, as a consequence, I j
9 want to also emphasize, we did adopt the QUEST report, and we l
10 did take major portions of it.
You know, we signed the MOUs.
11 It's not a question that we chose the Nuclear over the QUEST or 12 vice versa.
We're actually adopting both of them.
~
13 But the main thrust of both the QUEST effort and this 14 ordinance is to get us a timeframe to do what we really need to 15 do, and as Director Smeloff points out, I am very much in 16 support of, and that is to get this plant into a position where 4
17 it will have tremendously stable, long-term management 18 direction, and the best way to do that, in my opinion, is to j
19 move it into the hands of a more stable operating scenario.
~
20 And that's really where the thrust of -- there's a majority of 21 this Board that supports this.
Director Byrne -- or General 22 Manager Byrne was working on this in the QUEST effort.
He's 23 still working on it.
They are making progress, and I think 24 that's, you know, that's ulitmately where we need to be, l
25 because then you can have five-year goals.
41
=
1 We have a five-year goal now.
Mr. Andognini has 2
prepared a five-year performance plan.
And as you know, you've 3
seen them, I'm sure, all of the modification work that will 4
continue to go on over the next five years to get the plant up 5
to the levels of excellence that we want it to obtain.
But
,y 6
that can best be done if it's done uninterrupted, and the best way you can obtain that uninterrupted scenario is to move this 8
facility into some other operation, and that's really the 9
language that is so important in Director Kehoe's ordinance, 10 because it will give us the ability to continue that effort and m
11 get it done.
12 In the interim, we don't -- you know, if the 13 community had the money, then obviously the nicest thing to do s
14 would be to shut down and stay shut down until we got that 15 completed.
But we don't have the financial resources to 9
16 continue a horrendously long shutdown with a plant that is 17 operationally ready to go, and we would like to be able to, you 18 know, take advantage of the best of all worlds.
That's what 19 we're attempting to do.
20 And in the democratic process, there are certain 21 members of the Board that have every right and should object to
,J 22 that, and I believe that's where Director smeloff is coming 23 from.
And a lot of his objections are very worthwhile.
24 But this is a democratic process.
We do represent a
.s 25 community, and the one thing that all of us want, whether it be m
- \\
42 1
Director Smeloff or any other of my colleagues, we will not j'
2 operate that plant unless it is safe.
That is just not 3
something we are going to do.
4 Perhaps some of the wording in the ordinance is not 5
what it should be, but the main wording in that ordinance gives 6
us the ability to move that plant into a long-term, viable, 7
stable management scenario, and I think that is the important 8
feature that I think we must proceed with.
9 MS. TAYLOR:
Thank you very much for inviting us to w
10 come, though.
We appreciate the ability to talk to you on a 11 one-to-one basis and to give you our assurances.
I think that 12 it's been helpful to us, and I hope it's been helpful to you.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Could I ask one more questions, 14 Mr. Chairman?
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, please.
Go ahead.
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I may have misunderstood, but it 17 sounded like there are two initiatives on the ballot; is that 18 right?
19 MR. WILCOX:
That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What happens if they come out 21 with a different vote?
22 MR. WILCOX:
You mean one votes to shut down and one 23 24 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, one is reworded a little.
~
25 One is a yes-or-no. and the other one is with qualifications.
43
~
1 MR.-WILCOX:
My understanding from the Legal Counsel 2
is that if both initiatives were to get a yes vote, then the 3
one that the District put on the, ballot has the precedence.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR:
All right.
I'll figure out what s
5 that means later.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. KEHOE:
Under California law, one is a 8
referendum, and one is an initiative.
The referendum would c
9 prevail on the highest vote.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Commissioner Rogers, do 11 you have any comments?
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, just really not to go 13 over ground many, many times, but I think that it is terribly 14 important that the Board understand that the primary 15 responsibility for the safety of that plant is yours, not the 16 NRC's.
We're here to do the very best we can and to oversee 17 what you do, but if there is a decision required to shut the 18 plant down, it should come from you rather than from us.
It 19 will come from us if necessary, but it should come from you.
20 And you have to be in that state of mind continually, and if 21 you are and if you pursue it, then perhaps -- pursue that fully 22
-- then perhaps you won't have to shut it down.
But you must 23 accept that responsibility.
That's the key to the whole thing, 24 that everything that we're trying to achieve here through NRC 25 can only occur if the licensee really accepts the s
m e
44 1
responsibility.
That's where it has to be.
We are here to 2
blow the whistle if it doesn't seem asif you are doing that, 3
and we will.
But the primary responsibility for running that 4
plant and deciding, making a tough decision that, you know,
[
5 we've really go to shut it down.
6 Now that doesn't necessarily mean shut it down v7 7
permanently, but you must be prepared to make that decision:
8 We will shut down tonight and fix something immediately.
That 9
has to be very clearly something that you're ready to do at a 10 moment's notice, if necessary.
And if you are, I think you 11 will probably not have to exercise that and demonstrate it to 12 often.
But you must clearly accept that.
You have to pick 13 that ball up.
14 And we all feel that very strongly, and the only 15 reason I'm saying that again right now is that you will be 16 hearing more from Mr. Andognini on this matter of your 17 condition, but I want to make sure that you as Board members 18 understand that you're ready to make that kind of a policy 19 decision.
It really is a policy decision.
It has to be based 20 on the technical input that comes from your technical experts, 21 of course, but it still is a policy decision, that we will make 22 that decision immediately if we have to.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Anything else?
24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Let me just ask a quick 25 question.
I'm not sure how germane, but I just want to
___l
e t
l 45
/
1 understand.
2 You have five directors, and you're elected every two 3
years?
4 MS. TAYLOR:
No, sir.
5 MR. WILCOX:
Five directors.
Two of us are elected -
6
- they're broken into two-year -- one group is elected -- two 7
of us are elected on one set of four-year terms, and the other
]
8 three are elected on another set of four-year terms.
So it's 9
staggered.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
It is staggered.
11 MS. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
All five of you do not come up 13 for reelection at the same time.
14 MS. TAYLOR:
No, sir.
~
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I'd just like to ask a question first 17 of Mr. Smeloff.
~.
18 Do you believe that the plant is safe to operate now?
19 MR. SMELOFF:
From everything that I have heard from 20 the CEO/ Nuclear, assuming that we complete the work on the TDI 21 diesels, it would be safe.
1 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you, s
23 Well, let me just say, not to go on because I've had 24 a chance in my opening remarks to give you the thrust of my 25 thoughts, and my colleagues have also given you their views, v"
v-,
1 46 1
which I think you'll see is rather a consensus of our concern 2
about your ordinance and ballot issue, I would have preferred 3
that you at least would have emphasized safety on that ballot 4
issue.
My feeling is that frankly the wording was perhaps not 3
as well thought out as it might have been.
6 Hearing your commitment to Safety, all of you here 7
today, it seems to me that on that ballot issue you certainly 8
might have said something about safety and emphasizing that as
,/
9 a primary thought.
I think your community would understand 10 that, accept that, and frankly expect that.
11 You didn't do that.
That gives this Commission a bit 12 of a concern about the judgment of the Board.
That's why we 13 wanted all of you to come here today, to see you, to talk to 14 you, eyeball you, and let you know that this Commission treats 15 safety first, and we expect you to do the same.
16 Now you're told us that.
I can't help but wonder why 17 you didn't put that on the ballot.
I think it would have made 18 a stronger ordinance myself.
You didn't do that.
19 We've heard your commitment to safety, and we accept 20 that.
I just would say in summary that I hope you really 21 believe that a safe plant is a reliable plant, is an economic s
22 plant.
I hope you believe that.
23 With that, let's go on.
Mr. Andognini, are you next?
24 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I have my staff prepared.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
I thank the Board very
~J
2 47-1 much.
I appreciate your being with us today.
s 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You may proceed.
3 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and j
4 Commissioners.
My name is Carl Andognini.
I am Chief 5
Executive Officer, Nuclear, for the Sacramento Municipal 6
Utility District.
7 I am pleased to be here to today to tell you that 8
Rancho Seco is ready for safe restart, subject to the
~l 9
resolution of some remaining problems with the new emergency 10 diesel generators.
11 I have already committed to the NRC staff, to Region n\\
12 V,
and I commit to you that we will not start Rancho Seco until
. ')
13 we are completely satisfied that the diesels are ready to 14 support safe plant operation.
j 15 Seated to my right is Joe Firlit, Assistant General n
- 6 Manager, Nuclear Power Production.
Joe is the site director at 17 Rancho Seco and will brief you on our major accomplishments 18 during our restart program and other matters bearing on the 19 current operational readiness of Rancho Seco.
20 To Joe's right is Dan Keuter, Director of Nuclear 21 Operations and Maintenance.
Dan will discuss the readiness of 22 our operation and maintenance department.
s 23 On the far left is Jim Shetler, Director of Systems 24 Review and Test Program.
Jim will cover our extensive startup w
25 and power ascension test programs that have been established as
48 l'
the final verification of the readiness of the plant, programs, 2
and people.
3 To'the left of Mr. Wilcox is John Vinquist, Director 4
of Nuclear Quality.
John is charged with the implementation of 5
our quality programs to support operation at Rancho Seco, and 6
he will discuss those programs.
7 (Slide.)
~
8 While I have the SMUD organization chart before us, I'
9 would like you to know the positions of the manager of 10 maintenance and the manager of radiation protection are still-11 filled by contract employees.
We are actively recruiting to 12 fill these key positions.
However, because the functions are 13 so critical, we are determined that the managers ultimately S
14 hired shall have demonstrated their qualifications and 15 managerial skills.
16 (Slide.)
j 17 We have personal commitments from Dave Brock, our
. l i
18 current maintenance manager, and Bob Harris, our current 19 radiation projection manager, that they will stay at Rancho 20 Seco for a sufficient amount of time to permit a smooth
)
m' 1
21 transition to the new managers.
1 22 I stated in October that Rancho Seco had progressed 23 to the point of knowing the actions required for a safe and 24 successful return to operation.
I had four reservations that I 4
25 shared with you:
(1) the closure of a significant amount of u
49 1
paperwork.
This has been accomplished; (2) the timely 2
submittal of information to the NRC.
All requisite information 3
has been submitted and we are not aware of any other open items 4
affecting restart the data from the emergency diesel 5
generators; (3) unknown problems that have been discovered 6
during our test program.
At this stage, the only unknowns are 7
those that may arise during our power ascension program; (4) 8 needed attention towards our material management and storage 9
problems.
These programs have been developed and are now being 10 implemented.
11 Today the Rancho Seco plant, the organization, the 12 procedures, the management systems and the people are ready to 13 return to criticality and we are fully prepared to accept the 14 responsibilities and challenges inherent with restart.
I say 15 this with the utmost confidence, because I have been intimately 16 involved with the many things that have been accomplished over 17 the past two years.
I would like Joe Firlit, Assistant General i
18 Manager, Nuclear Power Production and the Site Director to i
19 briefly summarize those accomplishments and the operational 20 readiness of Rancho Seco.
21 Joe?
22 MR. FIRLIT:
Thank you, Carl, Commissioner Zech and 23 fellow commissioners.
24 What I would like to do is talk about some major 25 accomplishments at Rancho Seco.
g y
7
_, _ _,. _. -. ~..
50 1
The Rancho Seco team has completed a comprehensive 2
review and upgrade of the plant systems, program and of its 3
people.
~
4 Let's start out with the plant.
We have completed an 5
extensive SSFI-type review of the 33 key systems.
We feel that u
6 we are the leaders in the nuclear plant field in terms of self-7 evaluation of our systems.
8 We have completed over 600 modifications to our
~
9 plants since December 26, 1985.
Some of these were for safety 10 enhancements and others were for improvement to the reliability 11 of our plant.
We feel that we are in better shape today than 12 when the plant was commercial back in 1975.
13 We have developed and implemented a comprehensive 14 integrated functional test program.
In fact, it received an 15 INPO Good Practice here recently.
16 We have completed 209 special tests that we designed 17 to assure ourselves that our systems would operate as designed 18 before we would ask for permission to go critical.
19 (Slide.)
s 20 We have completely refurbished 170 of our motor 21 operated valves.
We have reduced our corrective maintenance 22 backlog from about 5000 back in April of 1987 to less than 23 1000 to day.
Now that represents a quantity, but I want to 24 also emphasize to you that our maintenance people are doing a s
25 quality job as well.
51 y
1 The next three items deal with our radiological 2
program.
We feel that we have significantly improved our 3
radiological operations in the plant.
In fact, we have reduced 4
the contaminated area in the auxiliary building by 5000 square 5
feet.
This represents a 40 percent reduction in the total s.
6 contaminated area of our plant.
7 We have installed state of the art equipment for 8
personnel radiation monitoring and we have maintained the 9
volume of low-level radioactive waste below our plant goal.
In 10 fact in 1987, we only generated 4200 cubic feet.
The industry 11 average for PWR's during that year was approximately 7000 and 12 you have to recall that we're doing this during an outage.
13 (Slide.)
14 Let's talk about programs.
We have developed 15 departmental action plans for continuing plant improvements.
16 This provides a focused direction for our team and our goal of 17 achieving excellence.
We have used the INPO Management 18 Observation Program.
We have trained all the management team 19 all the way down to the first line supervisor on INPO's 20 Observation Program.
The key issue here is it gets our people, 21 our managers out in the plant to observe the workers, to see 22 what they are doing and also to establish high standards of 23 performance.
24 We have developed site-wide integrated management 25 system programs.
There are a lot of long term benefits
%d 52 1
associated with this.
It provides the managers with additional 2
tools by which to manage, but it also allows the managers to 3
monitor the performance of their organization.
4 The next three statements deal with our QA program.
5 As a line manager, I feel that there has been a significant 6
improvement in our quality assurance program.
Mr. Vinquist, 7
who you'll hear from shortly, has staffed his organization with 8
multi-disciplines.
He has people in his organization today 9
that have experience in operations, maintenance, health 10
- physics, chemistry -- the whole works.
11 We feel that our audits today for the management team 12 are much more in depth.
They are not paper audits.
They are 13 valuable tools for the management team.
We have completed over s
14 170 quality surveillances in 1988 alone.
Some of these were 15 initiated by QA.
A good portion of those were initiated by the 16 management team.
This is a significant improvement over our 17 past record.
18 We have initiated a quality control field inspection s
19 program.
We took your recommendation, Commissioner Bernthal, 20 and we visited the Clinton station.
21 (slide.)
22 We have tailored this program after the Clinton 23 station and I can assure you that the program is well accepted 24 by our workers.
The one thing it does -- it provides instant 25 feedback to our workers out in the field, and it is working.
2 W
53 1
We have implemented a plant improvement program to J
2 upgrade the plant material condition.
Our plant is starting to 3
look like a first class nuclear power plant.
When Commissioner 4
Rogers visited us recently, he walked through the turbine 5
building.
He saw the turbine deck that was completely 6
finished.
The mezzanine portion was partially complete at that 7
time.
Today we have the turbine deck completed, the mezzanine
~
8 floor completed, and we are now working at the ground level of
]t 9
the turbine building.
10 In addition to that, we are starting to steam clean 11 the ceilings, the walls, the floors and the equipment in the 12 auxiliary building and we will ' completely paint the ceilings, 13 the walls and upgrade our equipment in terms of painting.
s 14 This has marked improvements in personnel morale.
It 15 has also been an improvement in housekeeping.
Workers are now 16 taking pride in working at Rancho Seco.
We have developed and 17 implemented a preventative m intenance program.
Today, of all 18 the work that we do, 25 percent of our work in the maintenance 19 area is on PMs.
Our goal is to have that somewhere tround 50 20 percent.
21 We have developed and implemented a computerized 22 surveillance scheduling program to assure ourselves that we
]
23 have zero missed surveillances.
24 (Slide.)
25 The next two bullets deal with our procedures.
We
~_
~
54 w
1 have: upgraded all of our surveillance procedures'for power 2
operations.
We have also upgraded our emergency operating and 3
casualty procedures.
We have added the human factors and we l
4
-have also colored enhanced them-for ease of the operator.
5 We have also made a commitment that we will complete
,. - 1 6
and upgrade all of our procedures by the end of 1989.
7 We have implemented a hazardous material waste 8
program and this concludes the implementation of a chemical 9
control program at our plant.
10 (Slide.)
11 We have strengthened our industrial safety program.
12 We now require hard hats and safety glasses in our power block.
21 In addition to that, there is no smoking allowed in the power i
l 14 block whatsoever.
a 15 We have maintained personnel radiation exposure below 16 our plant goal.
Last year, in 1987, we had cumulatively 299 17 man rems of exposure.
The industry average was around 385 man 18 rens.
Again, let me remind you we did this during an outage, 19 when we had a lot of the systems open.
j 1
20 (Slide.)
21 he have developed an extensive power escalation I
22 program for testing and enhancement of personnel training.
I-l l
j 23 feel that this demonstrates our commitment to safety.
The 24 program is about six months.
It provides adequate time for the i
~
25 management team to evaluate the plant, the programs, and the j
v
I g
55 1
people, and we will minimize errors.
c 2
Let's take a look at planning.
We have developed a 3
forced outage schedule process, so we are thinking ahead.
If, 4
after our plant comes on line, we trip off for a day, a week or 5
a month, we already have in place preplanned work that needs to
~'~
6 be done.
In addition to that, we want to look ahead five 7
years, so we have developed and initiated implementation of a 8
long range schedule plan.
This provides focused direction for 9
the team of what we have to do and also it puts it on a 10 priority basis.
It also provides useful information for the 11 board of directors in making their decisions.
12 Let's take a look at the B&W owners' group safety and 13 performance improvement program, and I would like to go into an s
14 additional slide that is not in your package.
15 (Slide.)
16 With the latest information that we have, there are 17 215 items that have been issued by the B&W owners' group for 18 consideration.
After careful review, we figured out that there
~.
19 are 169 items that are applicable to Rancho Seco.
Seventy-one 20 of these items are already implemented; 29 items are partially 21 complete; and 69 items are being further evaluated for 22 implementation after restart.
23 I want to make it very clear that we went through a 24 very methodic process by our management team to determine that 25 there are no items that were identified by the B&W owners'
y 56 1
group that are critical to the safety of our plant.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Wait a minute.
Can you go back there d
3 just a minute?
How many have you completed there?
4 MR. FIRLIT:
71 have been totally completed by Rancho 5
Seco.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
And 36 of those are considered key 7
items?
8 MR. FIRLIT:
And,5 are non-key.
9 CHAIRMAN Z7 CH:
Well, key items by who -- by the 10 owners' group or by you or by who?
11 MR. ANDOGNINI:
The owners' group classifies them 12 into two classes.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right, but that's what you are t
14 talking about here.
t i
15 MR. ANDOGNINI:
There are a total of 74, I believe, 16 of the 215 that are key items.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
By the owners' group.
18 MR. ANDOGNINI:
By the owners' group.
What we have i
19 done, we have our independent review process that goes through l
20 to determine whether they are safety-related or not, i
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
22 MR. ANDOGNINI:
And put them on our long range t
23 schedule.
If they are safety-related we do them prior to 1
)
}
24 restart.
2 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You have completed 36, really, of I
m
57 1
those 71 items --
.v 2
MR. ANDOGNINI:
Right.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
-- that the owners' group puts in the 4
74 category up above, but you have completed 36 of those items s
5 that are considered key items.
6 MR. FIRLIT:
Yes, sir, that's correct.
,.?
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Are you familiar with the 8
letter to us of March 17 from the Union of Concerned 9
Scientists?
10 MR. FIRLIT:
Yes, sir -- where they indicated we have 11 only completed two?
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Yes.
Would you make a l
13 response to that, even though there is another one in the
~
14 record for you?
15 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Yes, we will.
'l 16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Thank you, t
17 MR. ANDOGNINI:
We will provide the data in detail 18 that's here.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I think that's good and I think it 20 should be done.
21 MR. ANDOGNINI:
We will do and we will send copies of 22 that to you so you can see that we have responded.
i 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you very much.
Proceed.
24 MR. FIRLIT:
We had also had a B&W owners' group 25 audit of what we have implemented to date and the results are s
58 s
1 favorable.
2 We have reviewed NUREG 1275 as you suggested, and we S
3 have implemented both the management and the equipment issues s
4 that apply to Rancho Seco.
What you hear today will reinforce 5
that we have implemented those recommendations that assure a 6
safe and reliable plant.
7 In fact, recently we were visited by the NRC AEOD and 8
their evaluation was favorable.
9 We have taken a look at independent evaluations for 10 readiness of our plant.
Two of these are self-initiated by us.
11 One was conducted by Dr. Sol Levy -- that is the operational w
12 readiness review -- and the other one was chaired by Mr. Dick 13 DeYoung, and that was the nuclear advisory committee.
Both of s
14 these organizations say that Rancho Seco is operationally ready 15 for restart.
16 We have also had some external agencies, such as ANI, 17 INPO, and your NRC, and I believe you will hear today that your 18 staff supports the operational readiness of Rancho Seco.
19 That completes my presentation, and now I would like 20 to introduce Jim Shetler, who will talk about the integrated 21 test program, s
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Is that B&W Owners Group audit a 23 written paper?
24 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Yes, sir.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Can you send us that, too?
s
59 1
MR. ANDOGNINI:
What happens is the executiva 2
committee, which I am a member of, decided internally to set up 3
an audit team to go around to the utilities to determine how 4
effectively the utilities were implementing the B&W 5
recommendation, and a senior executive from a different utility 6
attended the audit while it was being conducted.
For instance, s
7 Mr. Campbell from Arkan?as came to Rancho Seco while the audit 8
was going on.
The audit is in writing, and we'd be happy to 9
share a copy with you.
Would you like a copy?
10 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Please.
11 MR. FIRLIT:
Mr. Shetler.
12 MR. SHETLER:
Thank you, Joe.
13 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning.
15 MR. SHETLER:
This morning I would like to review for I
16 you the test program conducted at Rancho Seco.
As we have 17 discussed before, we have formulated an integrated test program 18 on our 33 select systems.
The goals of this test program were 19 to perform component level testing, to verify hardware 20 performance, system level testing to verify functionality, and 21 plant level testing to verify proper system integration and 22 response.
23 In laying our out test program, three main phases of 24 testing were identified at cold, hot and power ascension 25 conditions.
To date, all of our 163 special tests for cold I
i 60 1
shutdown and our 46 special tests for hot shutdown have been 2
performed and results approved.
3 We currently have 18 tests left to complete during 4
the power ascension program.
These are above and beyond our 5
routine scheduled tests.
As a result of this effort, component 6
and system operability has been verified.
7 The Rancho Seco team has outlined a very extensive 8
power ascension program.
We currently intend to stay near zero 9
power for one week, to allow plant operators time to become 10 familiar with the approach to criticality.
The plant power 11 level will then be raised to 25 percent for another one-week 12 hold to allow plant operator familiarity with low level power 13 operation.
14 At the end of this week, we will perform a planned 15 trip of the plant to verify post-trip response.
We will also 16 perform the remote shutdown capability test at this time.
17 From this point the plant will be taised to 40 j
18 percent power for an eight~ week hold to perform testing and 19 evaluation of plant and personnel performance.
During this 20 hold we have also asked INPO to perform an assist visit to help 21 in this evaluation.
22 The power ascension program will then continue at a 23 minimum of five weeks at the various power levels noted on the 24 slide, with evaluation at each plateau.
25 In addition, another planned trip is scheduled for 4 l
o 61 1
the 80 percent power plateau to verify plant response with 2
decay heat on the core.
3 Also, throughout this program, various other tests 4
will be performed, such as tuning of the integrated control 5
system.
One area of concern that we have had was the fact that
'l 6
the test group was a transition organization whose knowledge 7
from the test program needs to be retained for the long term.
8 To ass'Tre this transition of knowledge, we have 9
established a permanent group of system engineers.
This 10 organization is being staffed with key engineers rolled over 11 from the test group to the plant pe.formance department.
This 12 will assure that the knowledge from the test program will be 13 transitioned to the long term Rancho Seco organization.
14 In summary, the Rancho Seco test program has achieved 15 its requirements and goals of assuring that the plant hardware 16 and systems function as designed and are ready to support safe 17 power operation.
t l
18 Beyond that, the program has challenged the people, 19 procedures and programs.
This has sometimes been painful, in 20 that we have had to stop testing to resolve issues and 21 implement corrective action before continuing.
22 However, this has provided us a better organization 23 and improved programs for operation.
As a result, we have 24 implemented what we believe is one of the most extensive l'
25 industry restart test programs.
It has gained us an INPO Good
)
1 1
,i
s 62 1
Practice.
w 2
Lastly, we have assured that 'he knowledge gained 3
from this test program will be transitioned to the long term
.r:
4 organization.
S That concludes my formal remarks.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
7 MR. SHETLER:
I would like now to introduce Dan 8
Keuter, the Director of Nuclear Operations and Maintenance, who 9
will discuss the operations and maintenance readiness for 10 restart.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
You may proceed.
12 MR. KEUTER:
Good morning, Chairman and 13 Commissioners.
14 First I would like to discuss the operations area ano 15 start with operations organization and resource improvements.
16 The operations department is a stable organization with an 17 extrenely low turnover.
All positions are filled with w
18 permanent SMUD employees, except for a few temporary positions 19 filled by contractor personnel, mainly in the areas of B&W 20 experienced operations advisors and operations procedure 21 writers.
22 We are staffed for six-crew rotation, but are 23 currently on a five-crew rotation until we complete additional 24 operation -- get additional operating experience.
I'd like to 25 point out that due to operator performance problems we have had
63 1
in the field, we have placed two assistant shift supervisors on
'l 2
each crew.
One is dedicated to the control room, and one is 3
dedicated to the plant.
This is unique for a single unit 4
utility, and it vastly improves our supervision in the field.
l 5
Additionally, we have increased the operational staff 6
support size, including on-shift clerks, in order to reduce the s!
'~
7 administrative workload on our operating crews.
8 Next, in the area of operator training improvements, 9
I would like to point out that all of our operator training 10 programs, including our STA program, have been accredited by 11 INPO.
We have completed 240 hours0.00278 days <br />0.0667 hours <br />3.968254e-4 weeks <br />9.132e-5 months <br /> of simulator training per s
12 licensed operator over the last two years.
13 This is about two to three times the industry 14 average.
This simulator training has been evaluated personally 15 by management, including Joe Firlit, myself, and operations 16 manager Bill Kemper.
17 Additionally, it was 4ndependently evaluated by INPO, 18 who had very positive comments about the operator performance 19 at the simulator.
20 We have also conducted over 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> of 21 modifications training per licensed operator.
To ensure we 22 have hands-on experience for the new equipment, we have s
23 repeated several important tests strictly for operator 24 training.
These include such tests as hot functional testing 25 of our new emergency feedwater initiation control, and loss of
64 s
~
1 power to our non-nuclear instruments and integrated control 2
systems.
3 I would like to point out that all of our licensed 4
operators have been successfully examined by the NRC in the~
5 last two years, either through initial licensing classes or 6
retraining qualification programs.
7 Next I would like to cover the operations involvement 8
in special testing.
We wanted to ensure that we not only 9
checked and tested the equipment, but that we also checked out 10 and tested our people, procedures and programs.
To ensure this 11 was accomplished, we developed detailed testing action plans to 12 address areas such as operator command and control of' testing, 13 detailed tests and operating procedure reviews, detailed crew 14 brietings before tests and critiques of problems afterwards.
15 We did find problems, not only with equipment, but 16 also with the people and procedures.
When we did, we stopped, 17 we evaluated the groblem, whether it be hardware or software, 18 and implemented corrective actions before we continued.
19 Our operators gained valuable experience'from their 20 involvement in the test program.
21 Next I would like to talk about improvements we have 22 made in the operator personnel themselves.
In order to address 23 not only the short range people problems identified in the test 24 program, but also the generic and long range concerns that we i
25 developed in operations action plan specific to personnel s
65 1
concerns.
Our goal was to reduce.ersonnel errors.
2 To ensure ownership of this plan by our first line 3
supervision, it was developed by the shift supervisors and 4
assistant shift supervisors themselves and reviewed by s
5 management.
It addresses the root causes of problems, both 6
specifically and generically, and implements actions to correct 7
them.
8 This plan is a long-range living document.
It will 9
be used to address people problems we identify in the future, 10 In order to address people and program problems before they 11 happen, we have also conducted a detailed operations department 12 self-evaluation.
This evaluation was based on INPO performance 13 objectives and cr
<ria.
The results of this program have been 14 incorporated into our operating programs.
i 15 We have also gone through an extensive program to 16 improve our operating procedures.
We have upgraded all our 17 emergency operating and casualty procedures to ensure they 18 include all the latest technical information, plant 19 modifications, and human factor elements.
20 We have revised all of our operating -- system 21 operating and plant operating procedures to incorporate all the 22 plant modifications that we have completed.
All the operators 23 have been trained on the procedure changes and revisions.
24 Additionally, after start-up, we will continue to 25 upgrade our system and plant operating procedures to make them
66 4
1 easier to use.
This is part of a long-range program sitewide j
2 that has been launched, a comprehensive sitewide program to 3
upgrade all procedures and programs and ensure that they are 4
integrated together.
l 5
Next we have developed a special administrative 6
procedure to control the plant heat-up and power escalation.
7 It is an overall control and procedure that integrates all of 8
the normal operating procedures and test procedures.
9 It also has special hold points to ensure that we j
10 take a slow and careful approach to power operation.
It 11 requires special management reviews and approvals at specific 12 hold peints to ensure the plant, the people, and the procedures 13 are ready for the next level.
14 The management approvals are shown on this slide, j
15 along with the hold points.
16 Finally, I would like to assure you personally the 17 operators would not and will not hesitate to shut down the 18 plant, no matter what type of initiative is passed.
Their 19 first concern, and the basis for their license, is safety is 20 first.
21 Next I would ike to address the maintenance area.
I 22 would like to start with maintenance organization and 23 resources.
We have organized the department not only by the 24 disciplines of mechanical, electrical, and instrument and 25 control, but have also added a centralized planning and
i
?
67 s
1 programs organization that is matrixed across the three 2
disciplines.
This allows the discipline organization to 3
concentrate on supervising the workers and less on 4
administrative workloads.
5 It also helps to ensure that the administrative 6
responsibility, such as work plans, procedures, preventive 7
maintenance, are consistent across all disciplines.
8 Additionally, it supplies a level of checks and 9
balances within the maintenance department to ensure quality.
10 We have also reorganized and minimized layers of 11 management and therefore improved communications and 12 accountabilities of workers.
13 Lastly, we have added resources to ensure we have 14 enough people to support our new programs.
15 Next, I would like to review improvements in 16 maintenance personnel themselves.
17 We have put together a maintenance personnel action 18 plan similar to the one developed in operations.
It also is a 19 living document and is owned by the first line supervisors, j
20 Some of the areas we have concentrated on are procedure 21 adherence, which we have made a condition of continued 22 employment.
It includes pre-job briefings, crew turnovers, and 23 post-job critiques.
24 Also to ensure people are actually implementing 25 management expectations, we have implemented a formal
s 68 4
s 1
management observation program that Joe talked about, which is
)
2 based on INPO observation program.
3 Additionally, we have developed a formal restart 4
qualification program to ensure personnel demonstrate that they.
5 can conduct specific tasks as we heat up and go into power 6
operation.
7 As an added level of independence, quality control l
8 not only reviews QC hold points when they are in the field, but 9
also observes and comments on work practices such as radiation i
10 protection and safety as part of the quality field-inspection 11 check list program.
12 As in other departments, we have made g'reat 13 improvement in our training program and maintenance, both in 14 quality and quantity.
15 As shown on this slide, we have made significant 16 improvements in our programs, maintenance programs.
I would 17 like to only discuss a few of these.
18 All the maintenance programs have been totally 19 revised and upgraded based on INPO maintenance guidelines.
We 20 have implemented a state-of-the-art computerized work control 21 program.
We have significantly improved the quality department 22 involvement in maintenance work, including review of work 21 requests before starting work, during the work, and after work 24 is completed.
25 And finally, I would like to point out that we have
69 conducted a maintenance self-evaluation.
A special team of 1
2 plant, INPO, and industry personnel will be conducting a two-3 week review of our plant starting the end of this month, 4
starting the end of April.
5 Next we have gone through an extensive program to 6
improve our preventive and predictive maintenance.
Currently 7
20 percent of our total maintenance workload is preventive 8
maintenance.
Our goal is to increase this to 50 percent.
9 Our program is based on INPO and EPRI guidelines.
It 10 prioritizes equipment based -- and therefore the PMs on the 11 equipment, based on its effect on plant safety and plant 12 reliability.
PMs on equipment important to safety are 13 currently on schedule and none of these are overdue.
14 As a final area, I would like to talk about 15 corrective maintenance and corrective maintenance backlog.
Our 16 goal is to reduce and keep the corrective maintenance backlog 17 as low as possible.
Currently we are working off approximately 18 250 work requests per week, and receiving approximately 200.
19 Today our current backlog, as of today, is 963.
20 Therefore, if we work off 250 per week, our backlog is less 21 than four weeks.
22 All the backlog remaining has been reviewed and 23 justified as not being needed for restart.
None of these work 24 requests affect plant safety.
25 Also to ensure a full support of the operations
l 70 1
department, and to ensure we can immediately address corrective 2
maintenance concerns as they come up, we have implemented a 3
full around-the-clock maintenance coverage.
4 (Slide.)
5 I'd like to note that we have completed over 30,000 6
work requests over the last two years.
7 That concludes my presentation.
I would like to 8
introduce John Vinquist, Director of Nuclear Quality.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
10 You may proceed.
11 MR. VINQUIST:
Good morning, Mr. Chairmen and 12 Commissioners.
My name is John Vinquist..
I am the Director of 13 Nuclear Quality at Rancho Seco and I will discuss Quality at 14 the site and readiness of the nuclear quality organization to 15 support plant operations.
16 (Slide.)
17 Quality at Rancho Seco has been significantly 18 enhanced over the past two years.
I am able to say that 19 quality is prevalent in the workplace at Rancho Seco, and hand 20 in hand with safety is top priority.
21 This quality has been created as a result of numerous 22 enhancements to the Quality program, but the major influence 23 has been the commitment to Quality that begins with Mr.
24 Andognini and carries down through to all Rancho Seco
'l 25 personnel.
\\
~
71 1
The nuclear Quality organization necessary to support j
2 plant operation is in place, independent and fully staffed with 3
qualified personnel representing many diverse and multi-4 disciplined backgrounds, including health physics, maintenance, 5
engineering, chemistry and former SROs.
6 These backgrounds have enabled us to greatly enhance i
7 the quality of our audits, surveillances, inspections and 8
engineering interfaces, s
9 The Quality Assurance program for Rancho Seco was l
10 thoroughly reviewed and totally rewritten by the district and 11 submitted to NRC staff.
This program has been improved by the 12 staff and is now implemented at' Rancho Seco.
w 13 Consistent with our Quality Assurance program, we 14 have developed and are implementing a Quality action plan that 15 provides for continued enhancements of nuclear Quality 16 activities over the next few years.
17 Like the other action plans you have heard about 18 today, the quality plan is a living document designed to ensure
)
19 continued improvement to the quality program.
The extent and 20 quality of our audits, surveillances and verifications have 21 improved significantly.
Lessons learned from visits to other 22 plants such as Clinton station in Illinois were valuable in 23 achieving these improvements.
24 For example, we have established specific criteria to 25 define observations and findings similar to NRC deviations and 4
i 4
72 1
violations.
Responses to these must include specific 2
identification of the root cause and corrective action to fix
'.l 3
the problem and preclude recurrence.
4 Corrective actions are later verified by Quality to
+
5 be complete and effective.
To assist in our efforts to verify 6
effectiveness and to ensure proper root cause determination, we 7
have implemented a trends analysis program to identify 8
conditions adverse of quality and as a result direct corrective 9
action requests to senior management for resolution.
1 l
10 Corrective action requests require a ten day response from the 11 assigned department and the resulting corrective actions are 12 again verified.
13 We have significantly increased the number of Quality l
14 surveillances.
By the end of this month, in keeping with our i
i 15 action plan goals of 60 surveillance per month, we will have 16 completed as many surveillances in 1988 as were completed 17 during the entire year of 1987.
The significance of this 18 increase is that we are more involved in plant operations and 19 are no longer waiting for outside organizations to find 20 oroblems.
We are finding the problems ourselves and ensuring 21 timely resolution.
22 Our vendor audit program has been significantly 23 strengthened by requiring all vendors on the improved suppliers 24 list to have an up-to-date programmatic and implementation 25 audit by the District prior to order placement, or source
- ~
73 1
inspection performed during verification.
2 The Nuclear Quality organization at Rancho Seco is 3
involved in essentially all of the activities supporting s
4 testing, startup and operation.
This involvement has even been 5
expanded to include non-QA Class 1 activities where situations 6
warrant such involvement.
7 The structure of the Quality organization is well v
8 defined, with single point accountability and responsibilities 9
assigned.
The functions and expectations of quality assurance, lo quality control, and quality engineering are well understood by 11 each respective group as well as the rest of the nuclea-12 organization.
13 The direct reporting relationship with the chief 14 Executive Officer provides the necessary independence to permit 15 the organization to function freely.
Quality does have the 16 authority to stop work when situations warrant such measures.
17 Work is only continued when management, including Quality, is s.
18 satisfied that appropriate and effective corrective actions 19 have been put in place.
20 In summary, Rancho Seco is a quality plant.
A strong 21 Quality organization is in place and has been armed with the 22 necessary programs, structures and authorities to ensure that 23 quality is maintained.
24 I would like now to return to Joe Firlit, who will i
25 talk about site operational readiness.
74 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
You may 2
proceed.
3 MR. FIRLIT:
We have told you that our plant is 4
ready.
We have told you that our programs are ready.
Now we'd 5
like to tell you why our people are ready.
6 We have structured a new management team and we have 7
been working very effectively together for the past ten months.
s 8
We have experienced, seasoned managers at Rancho Seco who came 9
from plants throughout the United States.
~
10 We took the time to clearly define responsibilities 11 and today we have single point accountability.
That is a 12 cultural change for Rancho Seco, 13 We have developed and implemented departmental 14 management plans for personnel readiness and we involved the 15 first line supervisors.
We got their buy-in and we needed i
16 their buy-in order for the whole team to be successful.
i 17 We have reduced the reliance on contractors.
For 18 instance, in our engineering department at one time we had a 19 ratio of three contractors for every engineer in that 20 department.
Today that ratio is less than 1.5:1.
21 We have implemented an extensive training program for 22 incorporating the INPO guidelines.
In the area of maintenance 23 we have covered mechanical, I&C, and electrical, and in the I&C l
24 area we have stressed the items and lessons learned from NUREG 25 1275.
9 r
- - - - _ ~ -
75 1
Training also includes chemistry, health physics and 2
operations.
3 We have increased our employee awareness for 4
radiation protection program, and that is being continuously 5
monitored by the management team and also the quality assurance 6
organization.
7 We have implemented what we feel is a very effective 8
employee fitness for duty program.
We have demonstrated 9
quality performance of our personnel to the specific events.
10 (Slide.)
11 If you take a look at the next slide, I'd like talk 12 about the senior management experience.
As you can see, we 13 have at least twelve years of nuclear power plant experience, 14 and if you look down that list, you will also note that five of 15 the seven management members at one time held a license.
16 (Slide.)
17 Moving on to the next slide, we have.aveloped a 18 state of the art personnel qualification program that Dan 19 Keuter talked about.
The purpose of that program was to allow 20 management to evaluate people at specific modes and also at 21 various power levels.
The departments included in this program 22 are operations, maintenance, chemistry, rad protection, and 23 system test.
24 Each one of these power levels indicates specific 25 qualification tasks that have to be performed by each of these
76 1
disciplines.
There is also management assessment.
The senior 2
management has to review and approve a change in mode or a 3
change in power.
4 We will utilize'and continue to. utilize the test 5
activities to gain experience and if we identify any 6
deficiencies we will stop the program and take the appropriate s
7 action to correct the deficiencies.
8 In addition to the personnel qualification program, 9
we have developed departmental action plans addressing new 10 attitudes towards achieving excellence.
I believe that safety 11 is the number one priority at Rancho Seco and so do the other 12 teams members on our team.
13 The program stresses safety, and then quality, and 14 then schedule -- in that order.
It stresses teamwork.
Our 15 team today is much more self-critical.
We are not defensive at 16 all.
We want to do an excellent job.
We are now in the mode 17 of saying "What if this doesn't work, what could happen?"
18 Our supervisors are taking more responsibility for 19 their people.
We are starting to look ahead and we are 20 planning ahead.
We have a very professional team.
The area 21 that I think has shown marked improvements in professionalism 22 is the control room activities.
I can assure you from personal 23 observation that they are conducted in a professional manner.
24 The management team that you see around this table today has 25 personally witnessed many of the tests right from the control
.v
77 1
room so that we could observe the operators in action.
2 We also have a Quality program.
This plan is a 3
living document developed by the supervisora and it is a buy-in 4
by our employees.
5 (Slide.)
6 With that, I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Carl 7
Andognini for his concluding remarks.
i 8
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
i 9
You may proceed.
1 10 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, when 11 I was here last October, I told you that I would not start 12 Rancho Seco until I was completely satisfied that the plant was 13 ready for operation and the people were ready to operate it.
14 I am satisfied on both accounts.
15 At this point, let me say my statement does not mean 16 we have achieved perfection.
We have not.
But we are striving 17 for it.
The plant has not operated for more than two years.
i 18 The people have not been faced with power operation for the 19 same period.
That is the reason why I have instituted a very 20 conservative and extended power extension text program.
We 21 need the experience.
22 In getting the experience, we will find some 23 weaknesses and we will fix them.
That is the fundamental 24 objective of any test program.
We learn and continue to 25 improve from our experiences.
+
78 1
How do we know that the plant is ready?
First, we 2
have conducted a very exhaustive problem identification 3
program.
It was not limited to the December 26 incident but i
4 went to all problems that have impacted or limited the 5
operation of Rancho Seco since 1974.
It include root cause I
6 analysis, so the proper corrective action could be taken to 7
prevent reoccurrence.
8 Second, we conducted numerous audits to assure that 9
the plant as it exists today meets the safety analysis made 10 when it was first licensed.
11 Third, we have completed an exhaustive pre-start test l
12 program.
We tested all the components that had been modified, 13 and then we tested the systems involved in the modification and
]
14 finally we conducted a comprehensive series of integrated l
15 system tests.
l l
16 I don't know of any other plant in the circumstances 17 of Rancho Seco that has been subjected to a more rigorous test 9
18 program.
19 The result is that the plant is in better condition 20 than it has ever been to support safe operation.
I am very 21 proud of what we have accomplished.
Moreover, the fact is that 22 the plant is in topnotch condition and appearance has boosted 23 morale and pride.
24 How do we know that the people are ready?
25 First, we have put a sound organizational structure
79 1
in place and we have manned it with qualified SMUD personnel.
2 Second, the management team has extensive experience 3
with nuclear operating plants.
Also, they have been working 4
together during the pre-start test program and now are 5
operating as a unified team.
6 Third, we have put in place improved systems that 7
will permit management to track, control and improve 8
performance.
9 Fourth, our training program has been demonstrated to l
10 be effective through INPO audits and certification and by our 11 pass / failure rate on operator examinations.
~
12 (Slide.)
13 Fifth, we have reviewed and revamped our operating 14 procedures to make them more effective and reflect all plant 15 modifications.
16 Sixth, we have established accountability as a fact 17 of life at Rancho Seco.
18 Seventh, I am particularly proud of the improvements 19 we have achieved in the Quality program.
It is directing and 20 improving performance and cafety is not in terms of perfection.
21 It is a valuable tool for me and the management team of Rancho e
22 Seco.
23 Eighth, I have managed Rancho Seco to establish a 24 work priority of safety first, quality second, and cost and 25 schedule, third, s
- gp
i 80 1
Ninth, when something goes wrong, we have and will 2
continue to stop, look, and listen to find the root cause.
3 This is nov a way of life at Rancho Seco.
4 Mr. Commissioners, if I were sitting on your side of 5
the table, I think I would be asking the question:
"Mr.
6 Andognini, we are very impressed with your accomplishments, but 7
how do you, Carl Andognini, know, and why are you so confident 8
that Rancho Seco is ready to restart?"
9 This is a fair question and this is my answer:
10 First, I am confident by my judgment of readiness
.~
11 because it has been confirmed by a number of independent 12 assessments.
To start with, we have the intensive and 13 searching scrutiny of the NRC staff in Region V.
We would not 14 be here today if we did not feel that they concur that we are 15 ready for restart.
)
16 Next, INPO has conducted corporate and plant audits 17 last December.
The reports of the audit were pocitive.
18 Followup visits since then have also been positive.
The 19 nuclear insurance organization has conducted several 20 inspections and concluded that they.are satisfied we have 21 satisfied their criteria.
22 The Babcock & Wilcox Owners' Group sent a ten man 23 utility team to Rancho Seco to see how we stood with respect to i
24 the B&W safety performance and improvement program.
The report 25 of this group showed that Rancho Seco is the leader in the
{
l
- 1 81 1
implementation of programs among all B&W plants.
?
2 I have personally contacted Don Hall of' Illinois
.3 Power to have our staff review Clinton's quality assurance j
4 practices in the startup test programs, as you' Commissioners 5
suggested, and have improved the Rancho practices as a result.
6 Additionally, I have had the benefit of two j
7 independent committees that I have organized to report directly 8
to me.
First, the Nuclear Advisory. Committee,. headed by Dick
[
9 DeYoung, was asked-to dig into any aspect of plant operation 10 they chose or I wanted their review.
The subject was to find 11 out if work was being done' competently and to get 12 recommendations for improvement.
13 The other committee was the Operational Readiness 14 Review Committee headed up by Dr. Sol Levy.
This committee's 15 task was focused on plant and people readiness.
s.
16 Both of these committees were comprised of men with' 17 long nuclear experience in a variety-of disciplines.
They know 18 the business.
They are men of integrity.
Their insights and 19 recommendations were invaluable.
20
- Second, we have completed a very comprehensive pre-21 start integrated system test program.
22 Third, I have been careful to say that we were ready 23 to restart.
To ensure readiness for power operation, we have 24 designed the extensive and conservative power ascension program 25 so that we will achieve readiness to support-full power e
a r.,,
,y
s 82 w'
1 operation.
2 Fourth, and most importantly, I am confident that we 3
are ready for restart because I have been personally involved.
,)
4 Here are some of the key examples.
l 5
I have a full-time office at the site.
I have daily 6
involvement in plant and people activities.
i 7
I personally stopped testing when problems were 8
encountered to obtain root cause and develop appropriate 9
corrective action.
I am involved in the identification of root 10 cause of people problems.
I have reviewed in detail the 11 departmental programs to address the people problems.
I met 12 for four and a half hours with all the shift supervisors and 13 the assistant shift supervisors to have them convince me that 14 the root cause and corrective action to address the people 15 problem was adequate.
16 I have witnessed plant activities in the control 17 room and toured the plant during critical tests such as the 18 loss of off-site power test.
19 I conduct several weekly tours and visit the control room j
20 several times during the week.
21 To ensure my certification to the regional 22 administrator, Mr. Martin, each of the 24 organizational 23 department managers with their key staff have provided detailed 24 assurance of readiness to me for both heat-up and reactor j
25 criticality and startup.
- c 83 1
Commissioners, when the problems with the diesel 2
generators are solved to our satisfaction, Rancho Seco will be 3
ready for a safe restart, and we respectfully request your l
4 approval to do so.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
Any questions 6
from my fellow Commissioners?
Mr. Bernthal?
a 7
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I appreciate the 8
briefing and don't want to prolong things.
It's getting late.
9 But I wanted to ask one question about the operator 10 qualification exams.
Could you give us some idea of what your 11 percent pass / fail ratio has been in the last*two or three I
12 years?
13 MR. KEUTER:
Okay.
On our last requal exam, which 14 was conducted by the NRC, we had two that had to go back and 15 receive remedial training.
They came back and successfully 16 took the exam.
i 17 And, then, I believe, on our initial exams, that all 18 personnel passed.
Some of those exams are being held until 19 they receive some additional operating experience.
But they 20 all did successfully pass.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
You have about 1,000 22
-- well, you say, less than 1,000 -- maintenance requests out.
j 23 Commissioner Carr inquired earlier how long it would take you 24 to work that down.
Obviously, some of these things are in a 25 lesser category of significance than others.
'I
(
I 84 1
What fraction of those do you classify as being 2
necessary prior to restart?
Any?
3 MR. KEUTER:
None of those are required for restart.
4 As of this weekend, I went through the list on Saturday.
There 5
was approximately -- well, there were 71 that we were scheduled 6
to complete for restart.
None of those looked like there was
. i 7
any problem of completing them by today.
8 In fact, 21 of the 71 were in closure.
So, that left 1
9 50 as of Saturday, and none of those looked like they were 10 going to be a problem.
So, none of them.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
Thank you.
12 MR. KEUTER:
We have taken the remaining ones, have 13 personally reviewed those, broke them down to the different s
14 categories.
And none of those affect plant safety.
15 In fact, only approximately a third of the 1,000 are 16 even associated with equipment importhnt to safety.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
You are one of two 18 plants, I guess, that --
Or, onc of the plants.
There are 19 more than two that have only two automatic feed water pumps.
I 20 believe that Davis-Besse installed a third.
I don't think that 21 you have done that yet.
22 If not, why not, and do you have plans to do so?
23 MR. ANDOGNINI:
We have a unique situation.
We have 24 an aux punp that's both electric and steam driven, and we have 25 another that's electric.
~;
q 85 1
We have started, and are in process of an evaluation 2
of whether a third auxiliary feed pump is necessary.
That 3
study will be done about mid-year, and then we'll determine a j
4 plan of action of whether to install one.
If we do, we will.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
I would like staff to l
6 comment on that, as well.
~
7 Let me read just one of the issues.
Commissioner 8
Roberts raised the subject of the letter that we received from 9
Union of Concerned Scientists, with a number of issues raised 10 therein.
And I'd like to pick just one salient item out here.
11 Let me just read it to you.
There is a paragraph 12 that deals with the recommendation to modify the power supply 13 for the instrumentation at Rancho Seco.
The B&W owners group 14 stated that, quote:
This recommendation is applicable only to j
15 Rancho Seco.
Unquote.
16 Nevertheless, SMUD reported that it was evaluating i
17 the recommendation to determine whether it is applicable to 1
18 Rancho Seco, and gave no scheduled date for completing that 4
19 evaluation.
1 20 How would you respond to that?
^
21 MR. ANDOGNINI:
First of all, I have to say that we 22 first received a copy of this letter this morning.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand.
So did I.
24 MR. ANDOGNINI:
So, we're not prepared to speak in 25 detail.
I would be happy to provide that data to you.
I'd
i 86 1
rather not give you any crroneous data.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
3 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I'd rather go back and get the facts 4
and provide them to you.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
6 MR. ANDOGNINI:
What I will do is, I think, in the 7
best interest of everyone, I will respond item by item to that 8
letter back to Union of Concerned Scientists, and have a 9
response sent to each of the Commissioners.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
I think you should do l
11 that.
That's all I had, Mr. Chairman.
12 MR. KEUTER:
I'd like to comment that we have gone 13 through modifications on our electrical power supplies.
- And, 14 in fact, we have gone back and we just completed a test.
15 It was our last test to isolate, remove power to our 16 non-nuclear instruments in our integrated control system.
And 17 that test did pass.
In fact, we re.n it twice for. operator r
18 training.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
Commissioner 20 Carr?
Commissioner Rogers?
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
If you could say just a few 22 words about, I think, the little problem you told me about when 23 I was out there.
I was very impressed with my visit out to 24 Rancho Seco, and what I saw, and the people that I met while I 25 was there.
It seemed to me that you had been making excellent ne.-
.=-
87 l
1 progress.
~
2 A little question of how you were to extend the 3
notion of personal accountability a little bit further through 4
the management chain and spread it out among the supervisors.
~>
5 You've referred to that, in a sense, in the slides.
l 6
But I know that you felt you had. achieved something 7
of a breakthrough on a long-standing problem there of 8
recognition of accountability at all levels throughout the 9
management chain.
Could you say just a few words about how 10 extensive that has now been to the rest of the organization j
11 from where you first made your beachhead?
12 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I'd be happy to.
I think I first
)
l 13 encountered it when I stopped testing, at one time in December 14 I asked two people, the assistant shift supervisor and the 15 control room operator, if they would be willing to submit to a 16 voluntary drug test.
They both did.
Both came back negative.
17 I went out one day in the plant and found the 18 assistant shift supervisor to express my sincere appreciation 19 for him taking the test.
He was very happy that I went out to 20 talk to him, i
21 But he was also very upset, because he had been 22 employed at Rancho Seco for seven years and our management had 23 put a letter in his file.
And he could not understand why he
?. 4 had to have a letter of reprimand in his file for what the 25 control room operator did.
Because he said:
I didn't do it.
s I
88 1
It was the control room operator.
2 We had a discussion that lasted for about two hours
~
3 between him and myself.
And it concluded.that I said:
I'm 4
very sorry that we have a fundamental difference in management 5
philosophy, but I'm accountable to the board of directors for 6
mistakes that everybody makes out here.
And I think you need 7
to understand what accountability is.
8 They were able to tell you that they were 9
accountable, but they didn't know what it meant.
This is what 10 instituted the shift supervisors --
And there was a shift 11 supervisor sitting in the meeting with me.
He was rather 12 embarrassed.
13 They went back.
Put a program together to determine 14 what accountability really is and what people are accountable 15 for.
What they're supposed to do.
How they're supposed to act s
16 as supervisors.
17 That's when I sat down with them for 4-1/2 hours and 18 had them convince me that it wac, one, a team approach and that 19 everybody had agreed to it.
That they meant what they said.
20 That they wanted to strive for excellence.
They wanted 21 accountability.
They wanted leadership.
And they went through 22 all these programs in detail.
23 It was then that we decided we needed to do this 24 across the site.
So, each one of the 24 departments got 25 together and developed their own progran for improvement,
=
89 1
personnel behavior.
Where they decided what accountability 2
was.
And then it was their job to sell it to senior management 3
to ensure that we agreed with it.
4 I think that's the program that I outlined to you and 5
how we stumbled on it, really.
It had been suggested in the
~
6 past by the regional administrator that we weren't getting to 7
the root of our personnel problems.
And it was very clear that i
8 we weren't.
And this, stumbling on it by accident, got us to 9
the root cause, and we've since corrected that program.
N 10 I have also just had an independent assessment 11 completed last Thursday of both the action programs to strive 12 for excellence that each department has, that says what they're 13 going to do and how they're going to get there and what 14 resources they're going to use, and the program for personnel 15 improvement.
s 16 I had an independent audit done of those to determine
- l 17 whether the programs were being implemented or whether they 18 were gathering dust on a shelf or whether they were being 19 utilized and updated.
And the report came back that the 20 programs that he looked at --
He was unable to look at them 21 all in that period of time, and we're going to go back and do 22 them all, but he selected the key ones.
That all of them were 23 being implemented and being modified as required.
24 So, they were programn that were on-going and living.
25 Does that answer your question?
d e
90 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Thank you.
That's all.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
I understand that, since I
3 the shutdown, you've installed the EFIC system, the emergency 4
feed water initiation control system.
Is that correct?
)
. \\
5 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Yes, sir.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Have the operators trained on that 7
system?
)
l 8
MR. ANDOGNINI:
Yes, sir.
I turned that over to Dan 9
Keuter.
10 MR. KEUTER:
Yes.
We have gone through an extensive 11 program, both in the classroom and --
Again, this hot i
12 functional testing of our EFIC program is one that we took 13 critical path time to go through and repeat the whole test.
14 So, not only have we trained on it, but we've actually gone 15 through and every operator has seen the test and gotten that 16 firsthand experience running that equipment.
N 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It's my opinion that that system may 18 have -- may have, I emphasize -- been important if you had it 19 installed during your transit that you had.
It may have 20 mitigated it.
Would you agree with that?
21 MR. KEUTER:
That's correct.
In fact, the simulator 22 at Lynchburg, we have modified it to show our new EFIC modules.
23 And so, they have actually trained on that simulator on EFIC, 24 too.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Could you tell us a
e 91 1
little bit about the diesel engine vibration problem?
2 MR. ANDOGNINI:
We have an expert in the audience 3
that's working on it, and I believe we've gotten to the root 4
4 cause of the vibration problem.
We have completely tested the 5
A diesel, and as recently as yesterday we made some 6
modifications to a valve that had given us some problems.
7 We found the root cause of that problem, and have 8
corrected it.
The A diesel, to our surveillance done, was 9
completed yesterday afternoon, and the A diesel is okay.
10 We've had problems.
They're supposed to be identical 11 engines.
They're not.
They react differently to fixes that we 12 put on them.
13 We were able to get ahold of an individual, Buddy 14 Walchell, who was very knowledgable in vibration, and was able 15 to find the root cause of the vibration problem.
16 The problem that we're having with the B diesel is 17 that a vibration problem, also coupled with a structural 18 prof iem on some supports, has caused some cracking in a shroud 19 that's on the engine to remove heat from the exhaust system.
20 We're working with TDI, the manufacturer of the diesel, and 21 other diesel experts to determine the corrective fix for that.
^*
22 I believe that we have the fix for that, since we fundamentally 23 know the root cause of the vibration problem.
24 We have committed to the region and to the NRO that, 25 even after those two diesels become operable, we'll do an i
F
\\
92 1
extensive remodeling of all of the external piping on those 2
diesels and make whatever modifications are appropriate before 3
the end of the next refueling.
So, we've started into that 4
program right now.
5 In addition to that, we've committed to meet the 6
requirements of OM-3, which is the acceptance criteria on 7
vibration, at a safety factor of 1.3 in our new analysis.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How many diesels do you have?
9 MR. ANDOGNINI:
We have a total of four.
1 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We all know how important the diesels
~
11 are.
They're primary for emergency power and removing residual 12 heat.
And you don't expect to start up until you get those 13 diesels fully operational, I presume.
And you don't expect NRC 14 to allow you to start up until that happens.
15 MR. ANDOGNINI:
I will not send a letter of
)
l 16 certification to Mr. Martin, regional administrator, saying 17 that we're ready to start, until we have thoroughly convinced 18 ourselves that those diesels are operable.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
When do you expect they'll be 20 operable?
21 MR. ANDOGNINI:
The plan shows right now, at the 22 earliest, on Thursday morning.
That's the earliest.
23 Tomorrow morning at 8:30 in the morning we have a 24 meeting with the key members of the staff here to review what 25 modifications are being made, whether they're successful,
93 1
whether we're doing it adequately, do we have adequate 2
independent review of the analysis that's been done.
And, in 3
addition to that, we've committed to run the diesels for a 24 4
hour surveillance run to ensure operability.
s 5
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Well, let me just say it 6
certainly would appear that you've made some significant 7
changes at Rancho Seco.
Mr. Andognini, I think you deserve a 8
considerable share of the credit in the changes that have been 9
made, and your team.
I, too, am impressed with your emphasis 10 on the people side of it, because I think Rancho Seco needed 11 that emphasis.
12 And so, I think that, although you have the diesel 13 engine problem to fix, that it would appear that you've made a 14 rather significant turnaround.
The proof, though, of course, 15 will be results and execution, if and when we authorize you to 16 restart.
17 If there are no other questions from my fellow 18 Commissioners, thank you very much, and we'll ask the staff to 19 come forward.
20 MR. ANDOGNINI:
Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Taylor, you may begin.
22 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Chairman, with me to present the 23 staff's analysis on Rancho Seco are Tom Murley and Frank 24 Miraglia, George Kalman from the Office of Nuclear Reactor 25 Regul ations.
George is the project manager for Rancho Seco.
94 1
Also from Region V, the regional administrator, Jack Martin, 2
and the resident inspector at the table, Tony DiAngelo, the 3
senior resident at Rancho Seco.
4 I'll now ask Tom Murley to commence the staff s
5 presentation.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
You 7
may begin.
8 MR. MURLEY:
Mr. Chairman, the staff will describe 9
for the Commission the basis for our recommendation that, 10 pending completion of repairs and confirmatory testing of one 11 of the emergency diesel generators, the Rancho Seco plant is 12 ready to resume safe operation, and the licensing management 13 and plant staff can operate the plant safely.
14 These conclusions by the staff are based on some 15 50,000 staff hours of licensing and reviews and inspections 16 over the last two years.
In fact, since the plant was shut 17 down in December of 1985.
There have been some 78 inspection 18 reports issued on Rancho Seco in the past two years.
I believe 19 both of these statistics show that we put more emphasis on this 20 plant than probably any other plant in the country for the last i
21 two years.
22 You've heard of major equipment modifications, a 23 better maintenance program, improved procedures in training.
24 There has been a big improvement in engineering support.
25 Nearly all of the management has been changed at the plant.
_h n
4
.a 95 9
1 One thing that was not mentioned, that I think it's 2
important to mention, is our view that there's been a major 3
improvement in attitude at the plant.
And that's important.
4 We now see there a professional organization, more self-5 critical.
They go out themselves and find problems and fix 6
them.
7 Commissioner Bernthal asked about the auxiliary feed 8
water system.
The system at Rancho Seco meets our current 9
regulations and requirements today.
Under generic issue 124, 10 however, the staff is looking at cost effective ways to improve 11 safety at some plants.
There are seven plants that we are 12 looking at to upgrade the auxiliary feed water system.
One o; 13 those is Rancho Seco, 14 The staff has concluded that the Rancho Seco aux feed i
15 system meets our regulations for adequate safety to protect tne 16 health and safety of the public.
And we will be rev39 wing with 17 them this summer their study for ways to improve even Jurther 18 the safety of their auxiliary feed water system.
1 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, just to pick up on the 20 point.
Was the aux fcad system at Davis-Besse, then -- I 21 simply don't remember -- qualitatively different in some way 22 that it seemed more appropriate for them to make that change?
23 MR. MURLEY:
Frank, do you want to discuss the 24 difference?
25 MR. MIRAGLIA:
I'll give that a try.
The auxiliary m
v.
~,y-
c 96 1
feed water system at Davis-Besse didn't meet the reliability
.e 2
goals that were originally set up.
They did also meet the 3
current requirements.
4 The concern was what improvements could be made to 5
further increase the reliability.
After the Three Mile Island 6
accident, there was a substantial upgrade of auxiliary feed 7
water systems throughout the country.
The reliability goal of 8
10 to the minus 4-to 10 to the minus 5th per demand was put 9
into the SRP for new plants.
10 As part of the TMI requirements, we did have all 11 plants give us a range of what their reliability per demand 12 was.
It was noticed that the two pump plants have a lower 13 reliability.
And we are looking at those two pump plants to 14 see what can be done to effectively increase the relial-ility of 15 that, and are there compensating features.
16 One would have to look at experience with main feed.
17 Some plants are vulnerable to loss of main feed.
Some plants 18 have a better reliability.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
My question really is 20 what are the differences between Davis-Besse and this plant.
21 Are they significant?
Are they qualitative?
Was there a 22 reason why Davis-Besse --
23 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Well, one major difference is that 24 Davis-Besse had two steam driven pumps only.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's what I thought.
a.
~
97 1
MR. MIRAGLIA:
All right.
In Rancho Seco they have 2
two pumps, one of which is a tandem pump that runs on steam as 3
well as electric.
So, that's a difference that would result in 4
slightly greater reliability.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
6 MR. TAYLOR:
And the other is an all-electric.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
There is a diversity, 8
in other words.
Correct?
That was missing from Davis-Besse.
9 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Proceed, please.
11 MR. MURLEY:
With-regard to the Rancho Seco 12 utilization ordinance that is on the June 7th ballot, I sent a 13 letter to Mr. Andognini expressing our concern, as you know.
14 He replied with assurances that he would not permit cutting 15 corners at the expense of safety.
16 We're pleased with that reply, but we./111 also, and 17 particularly the region, will give enhanced inspection coverage 18 over these next several months at the plant.
Ar.1 Jack Martin 19 will talk about that.
20 Finally, I should mention that there la u 2206 21 petition from Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles that is pending, 22 that I expect to act on later today or tomorrow.
And we will, 23 of course, send copies of that action to the Commission on that 24 stuff.
So, George Kalman will take over.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
- Proceed,
98 s
1 please.
2 MR. KALMAN:
Good afternoon.
I have been an NRC 3
project manager for Rancho Seco since October in 1985.
During 4
that time the NRC involvement with Rancho Seco has been 5
exhaustive.
The thoroughness of the NRC evaluation of the 6
Rancho Seco performance and improvement of programs is 7
reflected in the comprehensive and very detailed safety 8
evaluation report, NUREG-1286.
9 As described in NUREG-1286, the initial phase of the 10 restart process focused on identifying why the December 1985 11 over-cooling transient occurred and why the Rancho Seco 12 performance history in previous years was so marginal.
These 13 issues were also covered in detail in the incident 14 investigation team report, NUREG-1195.
15 Once the Rancho Seco problem areas were identified, 16 discussions commenced with SMUD to determine which deficiencies 17 would need corrective actions before plant restart, and what i
18 type corrective actions would be appropriate.
Major 19 differences developed between the NRC and the SMUD management 20 on this issue.
21 The scope of the iniulal SMUD performance improvement 22 effort was a proposal to repair equipment deficiencies directly 23 related to the 1985 over-cooling, and restart the plant by 24 March of 1986.
Based on the wide range of deficiencies 25 identified by the NRC investigation of the over-cooling event,
99 1
and based on the previous history of marginal performance, the 2
NRC staff insisted on a much broader scope of improvements 3
prior to restart.
4 A stalemate developed between the utility management 5
and the NRC staff over this issue.
When it became apparent 6
that the differences between the utility management and the NRC 7
staff were substantial, and apparently irreconcilable, the SMUD 8
board of directors stepped in and took decisive action.
The l
9 board hired a consultant firm to direct Rancho Seco operations, 10 and that action essentially constituted a 100 percent turnov.er 11 of management.
g 12 Eventually the performance improvement plan was 13 accepted by the NRC staff.
And what you heard this morning 14 from the SMUD representatives was the culmination of the 1
15 restart process that began slowly and developed over a two year 16 period.
As mentioned by Dr. Murley, in manhours, the staff 17 expended more resources on Rancho Seco than on any other plant 18 in the country.
19 Once the requirements for restart were established, 20 inspections by both headquarters and regional teams verified 21 that the required plan modifications were completed and the I
22 affected systems were tested for operability.
Next slide.
23 (Slide.)
24 The status of the B&W owners group SPIP program at 25 Rancho Seco was addressed earlier this morning by SMUD
100 1
representatives.
I would like to emphasize the positive s
2 aspects of SPIP on Rancho Seco.
3 SPIP addressed essentially the same issues as the 4
Rancho Seco performance improvement plan.
One notable 5
exception was that SPIP sidestepped the management issue.
- But, 6
otherwiGe, SPIP constituted a very beneficial and independent 7
industry evaluation of the Rancho Seco-type problems.
7 8
As might be expected, some of the B&W owners group 9
recommendations overlapped the SMUD-initiated performance 10 improvements.
However, some of the SPIP recommendations were 11 outstanding and unique.
The good ideas were incorporated into N
12 the Rancho Seco restart program.
13 The NRC staff reviewed the SPIP recommendations, and 14 specifically addressed those in the restart safety evaluation 15 report.
The on-site inspection staff reviewed the SMUD 16 disposition of the B&W owners group recommendations and, in 17 cases where SMUD did not choose to implemenc the 18 recommendations prior to restart, the NRC staff reviewed the 19 rationale behind ea:h of those decisions and agreed with the 20 SMUD management that those items were not restart significant.
21 That concludes my remarks.
Mr. Jack Martin, the 22 regional administrator, will discuss the on-site verification 23 of the programs.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
25 Martin, you may proceed.
--ns-gww,--
i e
-y -
101 1
MR. MARTIN:
All right.
Yes.
The basic operational
" 1 2
readiness is hinged on, basically, a five-fold progression 3
here.
The first thing that was done, and was pretty much 4
complete the last time we met, was a thorough review.
They 5
were broken down into 33 systems.
It included all the safety 6
systems and most of the others, like steam system and feed, 7
electrical distribution, et cetera.
8 (Slide.)
9 SMUD did a thorough review of those, using their 10 staff and consultants, including past history at SMUD as well s
11 as all the difficulties that Davis-Besse and others have had.
12 Interviewed large numbers of people in the plant for any 13 suggestions they had, based on operating experience, et cetera.
14 So, I'm convinced that they did a pretty good job 15 going back, and at least learning from past experience.
That's 16 been very much of a difficulty with this utility, being able to 17 learn from past experience.
So, I'm satisfied on that score.
18 We in the NRC picked five of the systems and 19 established an equivalent of our safety system functional 20 inspection team, which is the best we have to offer, and shook 21 down thoroughly five of the systems after they finished and 22 confirmed that they had done a pretty good job.
23 An i veresting side product of all of this was, about 24 half way through, a pause to restructure and overhaul their 25 engineering department, which took several months.
And so, I
1 102
)
1 think, in addition to reviewing the systems, the technical' arm 2
of the organization has been greatly improved.
3 (Slide.]
4 Out of this review resultoi a large number of 5
modifications and improvements that have been done.
EFIC has j
6 been installed and satisfactorily tested, at least to the 7
degree that you can, in the mode they're in.
The ICS system 8
has been, the reliability of the power supplies have been 9
greatly improved.
Instrument error system has been improved, j
10 And the new diesels put into service.
We already talked some 11 about the remaining two or three problems with the diesels.
12 In parallel with that was the hiring and training of 13 management --
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
What slide are you on now, Jack?
Do 15 you want to turn the slide or --
16 MR. MARTIN:
Well, I'm up to management readiness.
17 Most of these bullets have been talked about.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let's get the right slide on.
19 There we go.
Okay.
20 (Slide.)
21 MR. MARTIN:
And the hiring, training, and 22 conditioning of a management and supervisory staff is something 23 that required a great deal of effort over the last couple of 24 years.
One of the things that we indicated very early on was 25 that we wanted this to be a team of SMUD people, not
103 1
consultants.
2 That's been done, and, as they pointed out, there's
~
3 only a couple that still are not full-time SMUD employees.
The 4
last time we talked at a meeting here, my concern was whether s
5 this management team, although as individuals they all look 6
fine, can they operate together as a team.
Or, are they still 7
individual performers.
That takes a long time to pull 8
together.
Let's go to the next slide.
9
[ Slide.]
10 What's happened since we last talked was a very 11 thorough testing program equivalent to a new plant test 12 program, somewhat more extensive in some cases because we've 13 insisted on a full functional test where not just the 14 components are tested but the whole system is tested as a 15 whole.
That's not only verified that the technical and 16 engineering work and modifications were done properly, but it I
17 gave an opportunity to observe how the people operate the 18 system and how the management reacts when challenged.
19 The test program, particularly in the beginning, had 20 its ups and downs, but over the last few weeks has settled 1
21 down.
And some very complicated tests, the EFIC hot functional 22 test and the loss of ICS test, recently done, have gone quite i
23 well.
24 And when they do encounter unusual situations, the 25 instincts seem to be there at this point to stop and figure it i
e 104 1
all out before proceeding, without a lot of prodding from the 2
Government or anyone else.
So, I sense that the ability of the 3
people to run this reconstituted plant has been tested, at 4
least to the degree you can without power operation.
5 The power escalation program as they laid out we 6
consider as satisfactory.
It's in stages.
We have a team of 7
NRC people to maintain coverage of this program at the various 8
hold points, starting out on a round-the-clock basis and 9
continuing, certainly, at each of the major hold points.
That 10 team's been in place now for the last several days.
And I 11 expect there will be additional challenges during the test 12 program.
But it's something that they seem to be ready for and i
13 are in satisfactory shape to proceed.
14 That's all I had.
15
[ Slide.)
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
17 MR. MURLEY:
Our conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as I 18 stated at the beginning, is --
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You've got the slide on backwards.
20 That doesn't bode too well.
21
[ Laughter.]
[ Slide reversed.)
22 MR. MURLEY:
Our recommendation is that, pending 23 completion of repairs and confirmatory testing of the diesel 24 generators, the Rancho Seco plant is ready to resume safe 25 operation, and the licensing management and plant staff can
s J-105 1
operate the plant safely.
And, we would recommend that, if the 2
Commission were to authorize the staff, we would make sure that 3
these conditions were complete before they restart.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
5 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Chairman, I might add that I am 6
impressed by the changes in the staff and the hardware in this 7
plant.
I go back to after the shutdown and the false starts 8
that were made to try to improve Rancho Seco.
And I must say
.4 9
that I think I speak for many of the staff, and I'm impressed 10 with what they've accomplished.
11 They've done a hard job.
They've learned from Davis-12 Besse.
They've learned from other stations.
And the staff 13 believes that, when these diesels are fixed, it will be safe to 14 allow them to operate.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
16 Questions from my fellow Commissioners?
Mr. Roberts?
Mr.
17 Bernthal?
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let's see.
This may have 19 been covered while I was out.
If so, we won't go through it 20 again.
But did you talk about the diesel problem per se, and 21 exactly what it is that we need to fix that?
Would one of you 22 like to address that?
23 MR. MIRAGLIA:
We haven't discussed that.
But it's 24 pretty much as described by the licensee.
They've had 25 vibration problems for several months.
They've been homing in
106 1
1 on the problems now.
They are down to one diesel that remains 2
to be qualified.
There have been some cracks in the shroud en I
3 the exhaust.
4 They are meeting with the staff tomorrow to go over
)
5 what their corrective action plans are.
The staff has had 6
other conversations and telephone calls with the utility.
We 7
feel it's a resolvable matter, and expectations are that the 8
shroud could be repaired.
9 In addition, the utility has committed to remodel,
~
lo and committing to, as he said, OM-3 standards and criteria, the s
11 vibration analysis for the diesels again, to assure that 12 they've got and have identified all problems.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And you will require a 24 14 hour1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> test before they start up?
That was the --
15 MR. MIRAGLIA:
They have committed to an additional 16 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test before declaring the diesel operable.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
18 MR. MIRAGLIA:
The tech specs require both TDI 19 diesels to be operable to make a mode change, which is required 20 for restart.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One other item that I'm not 22 sure I ever heard the final word on was the annunciator fire 23 that they had out there not so long ago.
One of a few plants, 24 at least, have had this problem in recent weeks or months.
Did 25 we ever figure out exactly what the cause of that was, and what 4
s 107 1
the remedy might be?
2 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Perhaps Gary Holahan of the staff 3
could give more details.
There have been three fires within a 4
one or two week period, an annunciator fire at three different 5
stations.
It does turn out that they had a common supplier.
6 The exact initiating cause in each board, in all cases, could 7
not be determined.
8 I think, with respect to the fire at Rancho Seco, 9
this was one event that they handled very well.
The follow-up 10 and analysis and corrective action that they took, I think that 11 the staff was impressed with.
Perhaps Gary could --
~
~
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would you identify yourself for the l
13 reporter, please?
14 MR. HOLAHAN:
Gary Holahan, NRR.
I believe the
,l 15 licensee has had a contractor do an extensive fire protection 16 analysis of the equipment to identify the root cause.
They do 17 believe that it was a circuit problem on one of the cards 18 itself that initiated the fire, and then progressed to the 19 point of including other nearby cards.
20 And I think, as Mr. Miraglia stated, we were very 21 satisfied with their action, with their quality assurance 22 activities, with their root cause analysis, and their 23 corrective actions.
24 MR. MIRAGLIA:
In addition, from a generic point of 25 view, the staff has provided information notices.
So, the
-.~.
s s
108 1
industry is aware of this issue and problem.
We have met with 2
the three utilities that have experienced these annunciator 3
fires to determine what we can, relative to common cause, and 4
exchange of information to look at what other further actions 5
the staff should be taking with respect to this matter.
And 6
that's an on-going activity as well, and Rancho Seco has been a 7
participant in that with the staff.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you.
One last 9
question, and I want to get back again to the owners group 10 assessment.
I believe I heard you make a fairly definitive 11 statement that this plant has done more than any other plant.
12 Or, was that the licensee?
I can't remember who said that, but 13 somebody here did.
All right.
If they did, then would you 14 agree with that assessment, and, if so, why?
15 MR. MIRAGLIA:
All right.
I think the short answer 16 is, yes, we would agree with that statement.
We have been 17 following the B&W owners group for quite some time.
There have L
18 been 70-plus key recommendations, 200-plus --
And the numbers 19 change as the evaluations are on-going.
20 Rancho Seco did commit to evaluating each of these.
21 And, in doing that, last year at this time we were concerned 22 about the restart list.
What was their criteria for saying 23 what needed to be done for restart and to get agreement on that 24 list.
25 That criteria was defined and approved by the staff.
i 109 1
The staff included in the list of things to be evaluated all of 2
the items identified by the B&W owners group.
They were 3
categorized to that criteria.
And the staff and resident staff 4
and inspectors reviewed the judgment against the criteria which 5
was agreed upon in the NRC, which of these items needed to be 6
done prior to restart.
7 Each of the items, the 200-plus items, were evaluated 8
by the staff, and a determination made that appropriate 9
prioritization and criteria in identifying restart items was 10 done properly.
i 11 Tony DiAngelo was a principal in looking at that.
12 Tony might want to add something to that.
13 MR. DiANGELO:
Essentially what we have here is a 14 collection of items, some of which affect clearly safety j
15 related components and some of them clearly affect plant 16 reliability.
The ones which met their re-start criteria, which 17 is in essence a system that could take the plant -- a failure 18 of the system that could take the plant outside the post-trip t
19 window, temperature and pressure, a failure of a system which 20 is tech spec or a failure of a system which would require 21 operator action in the first ten minutes, if it met that 22 criteria, it got included in their list and it has been done 23 for the re-start.
If it didn't need it, it was postponed.
24 MR. MARTIN:
I might add that Tony and I reviewed all 25 215 items again last night to make sure we had the right items
e 110 1
in the right box.
I'm pretty confident.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That was my next question 3
then.
When you make the statement that they have done more 4
than any other B&W plant in responding to the owners' group 5
recommendations, does that mean just the number of items 6
checked in the boxes or do you have the sense that 7
qualitatively that is true as well as quantitatively?
8 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Quantitatively with respect to the 9
numbers actually implemented.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Thank you very much.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
Commissioner 12 Rogers?
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think we have heard a great 14 deal here of progress and accomplishment.
On the basis of my 15 visit about a month ago out there, I certainly came away with 16 the feeling that not only was that true but that a great deal 17 of credit for the attention to constant improvements in quality 18 has to go to the Regional Administrator, Mr. Martin, and his 19 team.
Certainly, one person doesn't do it.
I think the 20 leadership that Jack Martin brought to this whole operation 21 from the NRC point of view has been outstanding and I think we 22 just really ought to recognize that.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me just say to the staff, I know 24 you put an awful lot of effort into Rancho Seco.
There has 25 been substantial progress, certainly very apparent from what we
a 111 1
have been told today by the licensee as well as by you, the 2
staff.
3 It is important to me that the commitment of Rancho 9
4 Seco management, which gives emphasis to the Board of 5
Directors, it fs important that they and the whole management 6
team make a true commitment to safety and understand safety is 7
paramount.
It is much more than a word.
It is an attitude, a 8
commitment, it is real.
9 People make the difference.
It looks like you have 10 focused on people at Rancho Seco.
With that, I commend you for 11 the progress you have made.
I would only ask the Board to be 12 very active in supervising the plant and monitoring the plant.
13 I would ask Mr. Andognini in particular and the General Manager 14 to keep the Board informed and we expect you to keep the 15 Commission informed on all activities at Rancho Seco.
16 We know that the diesel engines are still -- the 17 vibration problem is still to be fixed.
We understand that 18 could happen very soon.
I would charge the staff to monitor 19 that very carefully.
20 Let me just ask the staff one final time, that is the 21 only issue that is remaining; is that correct?
22 MR. MURLEY:
That is correct.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
24 I would ask my fellow Commissioners if they are ready 25 to vote today?
=
112 1
(Chorus of yes'.)
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I would call for a vote, based on the 3
fact that the staff will need to know that prerequisite for re-f 4
start is satisfied concerning the diesel engine.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
If I could make a comment 6
first.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, please.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am prepared to vote, Mr.
9 Chairman, subject to the condition which you were about to 10 clarify, I think, and subject to the testing that staff 11 indicated it would require for the diesels.
I also would like s
12 to see an on the record response to any specific issues as 13 opposed to general complaints that were raised in the Union of 14 Concerned Scientists' letter.
I think Commissioner Roberts 15 referred to that earlier.
Those two things, Mr. Chairman.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I would add, Dr. Murley, I believe you 17 mentioned earlier the 2206 petition which you intend to resolve 18 prior to re-start.
I would like to make sure that you have a 19 commitment to do that.
i 20 MR. MURLEY:
Yes, I will.
21 CHAIRMAN 2ECH:
Based on those prerequisites to re-22 start of the Rancho Seco plant, all those Commissioners in i
23 favor, signify by saying aye.
i 24 (Chorus of ayes.)
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Opposed?
113 1
(Uo response.)
2 CIIAIRMAN ZECH:
The vote is 5-0.
The meeting is 3
adjourned.
4
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m.,
the meeting was 5
concluded.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TIT 12 OF MEETING: Discussion /Possible Vote on Rancho Seco Restart B
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday, March 22, 1988 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this in the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
/~.
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 Ed
- 18 42k.2L Suzanp'n B. You' 19
('
)
20 i
21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
3/22/88 SfHEDULING NOTES IITLE:
DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON RANCHO SECO RESTART SCHEDULED:
10:00 A.M.,
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPROX l-1/2 HRS PARTICIPANTS: SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTillT( DISTRICT (llCENSEE) 45 MINS SPEAKERS
- CARL AND0GN!NI CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NUCLEAR
- CLIFFORD WILCOX, PRESIDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
- ANN TAYLOR, BOARD MEMBER
- JOHN KEHOE, BOARD MEMBER
- ED SMELOFF, BOARD MEMBER
- RICHARD BYRNE, GENERAL MANAGER
- JOSEPH FIRLIT AS$1STANT GENERAL MANAGER NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION
- JIM SHETLER, DIRECTOR SYSTEMS REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM
- DAN KEUTER, DIRECTOR NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
- JOHN VINGUIST, DIRECTOR NUCLEAR QUALITY (NOTE: CORT K0EHLER, BOARD VICE PRESIDENT, IS UNABLE TO ATTEND DUE 'O SCHEDULE CONFLICT.)
NEC 15 MINS
- JAMES IAYLOR, EDO
- JACK MARTIN, REGION V
- THOMAS MURLEY, NRR
- GEORGE KALMAN, NRR i
f D.
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENER ATIN G STATION r$~I
(
15 E?f j "l-
\\,, -
~~
hs JI h)'
-h
', e h jQg $i
- j] t g COMMISSION 3 i!
$4 y.
RESTART M EETI N G EfaD T 35}j H. Q
_ m
- i
^
H{gj {,. r s7N
.9 wM d; e
- m a
_ M, Dv -~unningLS ${!
h l
r-y g g._q t____
dd"M MARCH 22, 1988
=
g; i
(9suun
~
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
(
).'
AGENDA l
E I N TR O D U CTI ON..................
..................... C LI FF W! LC O X E
O VE R VI E W......................................... C AR L AND O G N I N I E M AJOR ACCOMPLISHM ENTS............................... JOE FIRLIT E INTEGRATED TEST PROGRAM......
....................JI M SH ETLE R E OPERATIONS AND MAINTEN ANCE READINESS........... DAN KEUTER E QU ALITY READIN ESS................................. JOHN VIN QUIST E SITE OPER ATION AL READINESS........................... JOE FIRLIT E CON CLU SION.......................................C ARL AN D OGNINI E BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND GENERAL MANAGER E
COMMISSION QUESTIONS / COMMENTS i
i
i
- I l
I R
N A
IN EL G C O U D N N
A OE L C RAC W
E I
V R
E V
O l
J
\\
r l
l
- l.
1
t l
~
l RANCHO SECO ORGANIZATION f
CEO NUCLEAR l
cars Andegnani i
i
[f ~ ~ ~
PUBUC INFORMADON DMCTOR I INDUSTHIAL SAFETY p_ _. _l HUMAN RESOURES p _ _
WmM mA Jn Gene Hein n
Ju L,e navi.
s John Vinquiet i
l l
ACM l
AGM MANAMR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR POWEP 5 ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' '
TECHNICAL AND SECURITY
] PRODUC'i10N g
ADM!N. SERVICES John Se8ck Jo. First
[
sob Creief I
I I
DRECTOR l
DRECTOR DRECTOR NUCLEAR ogRECTOR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT NUaEAR OPERADONS SMW REVIEW PLANT SUPPORT SWTEMS AND MAINTENAN&
AND TEST PROGRAM John M N.
.hAn S*. range Don Keuter Jim Shetter MM MANAMR ]
MANAGER MAN SCER MANAGER WANAGER E
~
R W DON
~
NU41EM MATERIAL MANAMMENT
~
OPERADONS OUTAGE MCMT PROTECDON ENGINEERING CONTROL DIRU KPT.
DEPARIDENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTWENT DEPARTMENT Thomas Redcon Llndo Conk 1bi Sai Kemper Lee Foomwn Bob Harris Creg Cransten MWER MANAGER WANAGER MANAGER MANAGER NT CONm &
NFORMADON
~
MAINTENANZ
~
CNEMISTRY NUMAR LUNSWC WFE SERMES SERMMS DEPT.
DEPARTWEN T DEPARTWENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Eric Yochhebn Steve Crunk Roger Nuebner Jnn Cales MANACER MANAMR W AN AMR g ENVIRONMEN TAL PROJECT
~
WODRCADONS PLANT PEPFORMANE PROTECDON PR PM T
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEMOPMENT Poul Bender ggg Paul Levely Crant Yehlott i
",AN AC 1
9 LOANED FROM INPO DEPART m T Pad Turner 3 NON-SMUD PERSONNEL
- MATRIXED FROM iiEADQUARTERS B
4
1 Ir
, i i l
- ,l l
L l
l ll l1 Y
T RNEO IL GiT R A C IF N U A D E MO O
R L P J
A R R S
E E NW T
EG O P
N TN R A A E
T E S L M
I C
S U S N A
H S
I L
P M
O C
C A
R O
J A
M l
i I
11 l
,!l,
,: i
1
(
M AJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.)
a COMPLETED REFURBISHMENT AND TESTING OF 170 MOTOR OPERATED VALVES a
REDUCED CORRECTIVE M AINTEN ANCE B ACKLOG FROM ABOUT 5000 TO LESS THAN 1000 i
s SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED RADIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN THE PLANT i
a INSTALLED STATE OF THE ART EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONNEL RADI ATION MONITORING m
M AINTAINED VOLUME ~ OF LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE GELOW BOTH THE PLANT GOAL AND 1
INPO 1990 GOAL i
-l
[
i MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.)
t l
PROGRAMS a
DEVELOPED DEPARTMENT ACTION PLANS FOR j
CONTINUING PLANT IMPROVEMENTS a
!MPLEMENTED MANAGEMENT OBSERVATION PROGRAM a
DEVELOPED SITE-WIDE INTEGRAED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PROGRAM a
UPGRADED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM m
COMPLETED OVER 170 QUALITY SURVEILLANCES IN 1988 i
i a
1NITIATED A QUALITY CONTROL FIELD INSPECTION PROGRAM i
i
(
J
f D
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.)
i m
IMPLEMENTED A PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO UPGRADE PLANT MATERIAL CONDITION a
DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM a
DE'KLOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A COMPUTERl7.ED SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULING PROGRAM a
UPGRADED ALL SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES FOR POWER OPERATION a
UPGRADED ALL EMERGENCY OPERABNG AND CASUALITY PROCEDURES a
IMPLEMENTED A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL /
i WASTE PROGRAM h
~
i
[
i MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.)_
1 i
I m
STRENGTHENED INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PROGRAM i
AND PROVIDED 24 HOUR MEDICAL COVERAGE s
MAINTAINED PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE BELOW BOTH THE PLANT GOAL AND THE MEDIAN REPORTED BY INPO
- k u
OEVELOPED EXTENSIVE POWER ESCALATION PROGRAM FOR TESTING AND ENHANCED l
PERSONNEL TRAINING I
e DEVELOPED A FORCED OUTAGE SCHEDULE PROCESS m
DEVELOPED AND INITIATED IMPLEMENTATION OF A LONG RANGE SCHEDULE PLAN (5 YEARS)
(
M AJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (CONT.)
a B&W OWNERS GROUP SAFETY AND i
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SPIP)
-R EVIEWED ALL ITEMS FOR RANCHO SECO APPLICABILITY
-8&WOG AUDIT - FAVORABLE RESULTS s NUREG--1275 (RECENT NEW PLANT STARTUP EXPERIENCES)
- AEOD EVALU ATION - APPEARED S ATISFIED (NO RESTART CONCERNS) m EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT EVALU ATIONS FOR READINESS 1
-OPERATION AL READINESS REVIEW COMMITTEE
-NUCLEAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
-ANI
-lNPO t
-NRC e --------- ----- ------ -----
F 3
-l j
d i
1 l
1 1
i INTEGRATED TEST PROGRAM i
JIM SHETLER i
DIRECTOR NUCLEAR SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM i
4 e
TESTIN G GOALS t
l 5 COMPONENT TESTING E SYSTEM FUNCTION AL TESTING E PLANT INTEGRATED TESTING 4
I
(
D.
PHASES OF INTEGRATED TESTIN G COLD HOT POWER SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN ASCENSION TESTING 4
TESTING 4
TESTING E COLD SHUTDOWN (COMPLETED)
- VERIFY COMPONENT AND SYSTEM OPER ABILITY
- VERIFY SYSTEM RESPONSES WITH INTEGRATED TESTS E HOT SHUTDOWN USING REAC. TOR COOLANT PUMP HEAT (COMPLETED)
- VERIFY SYSTEM FU N CTION S/OPER ABILITY
- VERIFY SYSTEM RESPONSES WITH IN TEGR ATED TESTS E POWER ASCENSION
- CONDUCTED AT VARIOUS POWER LEVELS 4
g
[
l 4
POWER ASCENSION TESTING
/
FULL POWER so
~92%
(5 wks) ao l (5 wks)
~80%
70 p
f 0
I
~65%
,o
/ (5 wks)
W E
so
/
~
/
~40%
(8 wks) m E
Planned Trip and i
L to
' 25%
l j(1 wk)
Remote Hot Shutdown Test Planned Trip Test i
i a
j Criticolity 0%
)
(1 wk) t APPROXIMATELY SIX (6) MONTHS DURATION
=
=
i i
i
-(
[
TRANSITION TO LONG TERM ORGANIZATION l
i I
i a
PERMANENT GROUP OF SYSTEM ENGINEERS i
UNDER PLANT PERFORMANCE DEPARTMENT i
i m
KEY TEST ENGINEERS ROLLOVER TO SYSTEM ENGINEERS m
TEST KNOWLEDGE RETAINED FOR LONG TERM i
i i
{
CONCLUSIONS l
t i
a ACHIEVED TESTING REQUIREMENTS AND GOALS FOR STARTUP i
4 TESTED PEOPLE / PROCEDURES / PROGRAMS f
a P
m IMPLEMENTED MOST EXTENSIVE INDUSTRY l
RESTART TEST PROGRAM SIMILAR TO NEW PLANT STARTUP AWARDED INPO GOOD PRACBCE m
TRANSITIONING KNOWLEDGE TO LONG TERM ORGANIZATlON i
l
(
i i
l l
l i
l i
OP ER ATI ON S AND M AINTEN AN CE READINESS DAN KEUTER DIRECTOR i
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
?
i j
s
I
(
)
~
OPER ATIONS l
ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCE IMPROVEMENTS E
STABILIZED OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION WITH A TOTAL OF 106 PEOPLE E POSITIONS FILLED WITH SMUD EMPLOYEES E
STAFFED FOR 6 CREW ROTATION WITH 12 PEOPLE / CREW 1 SHIFT SUPERVISOR 2 ASSISTANT SI-;iFT SUPERVISORS 3 CONTROL ROOM OPERATORS 6 EQUIPMENT OPERATORS E
CURRENTLY OPERABNG WITH A 5 CREW ROTATION WITH 14 PEOPLE / CREW E INCREASED SUPPORT STAFF SIZE TO REDUCE ON-SHIFT ADMINISTRATIVE WORKLOAD 4
i
(
D 1
OPERATOR TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS I
a INPO ACCREDITED ALL OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR TRAINING PROGRAM a COMPLETED 240 HOURS OF SIMULATOR TRAINING PER LICENSED OPERATOR - EVALUATED BY MANAGEMENT AND INPO i
a CONDUCTED OVER 400 HOURS OF MODIFICATION TRAINING PER LICENSED OPERATOR a REPEATED SIGNIFICANT TESTS FOR TRAINING a ALL LICENSED OPERATORS EXAMINED BY BE NRC IN NE LAST TWO YEARS k
(
i OPERATOR INVOLVEMENT DURING TESTING l
a TESTING ACTION PLANS
- OPERATORS COMMAND AND CONTROL TESTING 4
- DETAILED PROCEDURE REVIEWS
- DETAILED CREW BRIEFING BEFORE TESTS u
OBTAIN BENEFIT FROM TESTING EXPERIENCE
- I 6
k
(
D
-\\
1 1
t OPERATIONS PERSONNEL IMPROVEMENTS m
OPERATIONS ACTION PLAN
- GOAL-REDUCE PERSONNEL ERRORS
- DEVELOPED BY SHIFT SUPERVISORS i
t AND ASSISTANTS
- ADDRESSES ROOT CAUSES AND ACBONS I
- LIVING DOCUMENT I
m OPERABONS PROGRAM SELF-EVALUABON -
BASED ON INPO CRITERIA
(
J l
L - -- - -- -- - - - - --- - -- -----
(.
h OPERATING PROCEDURES READINESS PRIOR TO STARTUP a
REVISED EMERGENCY OPERATING AND CASUALITY PROCEDURES 1985 EVENT LESSONS LEARNED
- LATEST B&W TECHNICAL B ASIS DOCUMENT GUIDELINES
- PLANT MODIFICATIONS a
REVISED SYSTEM / PLANT OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS AFTER STARTUP a COMPLETE UPGRADE OF SYSTEM / PLANT OPERATING PROCEDURES Y
]
l
t
[
CONTROL OF PLANT HEATUP AND OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR POWER ESCALATION TESTING -
B.1 A s
INTEGRATED CONTROLUNG DOCUMENT FOR l
STARTUP AND TESllNG
- TEST PROCEDURES
- NORMAL PLANT OPERATING PROCEDURES m
MANAGEMENT APPROVALS
- DEPARTMENT MANAGERS
- DIRECTORS
- SAFETY REVIEW BOARDS j
- ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGERS
- CEO NUCLEAR s
MANAGEMENT HOLD AND REVIEW POINTS
- HEATUP
- REACTOR STARTUP
- 25%
)
- 40%
- 65%
- 80%
i
- 92%
i i
1
(
)
?
~l M AINTEN AN CE ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCE IMPROVEMENTS j
e DISCIPLINE / FUNCTIONAL MATRIX STRUCTURE BETTER SUPERVISION BETTER PROGRAMS / PROJECT BETTER PLANNING s
MINIMlZE LAYERS OF MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE:
COMMUNICATION i
ACCOUNTABILITY m
ADEQU ATE PERSONNEL 56 MECH ANICAL M AINTEN ANCE 39 ELECTRICIANS 20 UTILITY WORKERS 44 i & C TECHNICI ANS 24 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS l
8 ELECTRICAL TECHNICI ANS i
i i
k i
i a
(
]
i i
M AINTEN ANCE PERSONNEL IMPROVEMENT i
)
m PROCEDURAL ADHERENCE m
JOB BRIEFIN G, CRITIQUES AND TURNOVERS m
M AN AGEMENT OBSERVA TION PROGRAM a
RESTART PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION GUIDE u
QU ALITY FIELD INSPECTION I
CHECKLISTS i
a IMPROVED TRAINING PROGRAMS
[
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT a
IMPLEMENTED NEW PROGRAMS BASED ON 13 NEW MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES m
IMPLEMENTED AUTOMATED WORK CONTROL SYSTEM "NUCLPS" a
IMPLEMENTED OPERATION REVIEWS AND PRIORITIZATION m
IMPLEMENTED DETAILED CENRAUZED PLANNING m
IMPLEMENTED QUAUTY REVIEW OF WORK REQUESTS BEFORE AND AFTER l
m INCREASED USE OF QUAUTY CONTROL HOLD POINTS a
IMPLEMENTED INTEGRATED SCHEDUUNG OF CORRECBVE MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES a
INCREASED FIRST UNE SUPERVISORS IN FIELD a
IMPROVED WORK DOCUMENTATION AND TRACKING m
IMPLEMENTED CAUSE DETERMINATION a
IMPLEMENTED MANAGEMENT OBSERVABON PROGRAM a
MAINTENANCE SELF EVALUATION N
]
l t
(
P R EVEN TIVE/P R EDICTI VE M AI N TEN AN CE s
CURRENTLY ~25%, GOAL IS ~50%
i i
a PROGRAM DEVELOPED BASED ON:
- INPO GOOD PRACTICE MA-307 "PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE"
)
- INPO GUIDELINE 85-038 "GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF MAINTENANCE" i
- EPRI NP-3 "GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS" i
i a
PRIORITIZED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE -
BASED ON PLANT SAFETY I
a COMPLETED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ON EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY l
l l
i
(
D.'
CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS 1
m WORK REQUEST (WR) BACKLOG a
CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE RESTART PRIORITY FOR
)
-PLANT SAFETY
-PERSONNEL SAFETY
-PLANT RELI ABILITY m
AROUND THE CLOCK MAINTENANCE SHIFT COVERAGE I
i a
4
A
~
m h
JZ 9
0 S
b W
.O D
D y
o H
g O
03 F-M 8
kN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
O O
LJ
_a T
?
O b
as b
o.
308 l
l l
l l
l 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8
?
8 e
s.tsanosa xaOm N3dO.dO a38WnN
I!
?[\\,
l[!
l i,
l,
- i l
~
U C A QE U R
NI Q D
IV RA N
E H
L C
O U
J N
S S
E N
I D
A E
R YT IL A
U Q
f i
l i
i 1
l 4i 4
(
D.
i QUALITY READINESS READINESS OF NE QUAllTY ORGANIZATION l
m PEOPLE
- INCREASED SMUD STAFF
- QUALIFIED
- MULT1 DISCIPLINED (SRO/RO, CHEMISTRY, HEALE l
PHYSICS, MAINTENANCE, ENGINEERING, i
CONSTRUCTION, ETC.)
- REINFORCED INDEPENDENCE ll m
PROGRAM
- NEW QUALITY PROGRAM MANUAL
- INCREASED AUDIT AND SURVEILLANCE ACllVITIES
- EXPANDED QC INVOLVEMENT
- STRENGTHENED QE TECHNICAL INVOLVEMENT i
AND INTERFACE
- STRENGTHENED CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM l
m STRUCTURE l
- REPORTS TO CEO-NUCLEAR j
- STRUCTURE DEFINED (QA, QC, QE) 1
- SINGLE POINT ACCOUNTABILITY ASSIGNED Y
Y
,f4 i
4 SI TE OPER ATION AL READINESS i
1 I
i l
JOE FIRLIT ASSISTANT GENERh '4ANAGER j
1 NUCLEAR POWER P.JDUCBON j
k i
i 1-
(
D-PEOPLE l
1 m STRUCTURED A NEW MANAGEMENT TEAM a CLEARLY DEFINED RESPONSIBILITY AND SINGLE POINT ACCOUNTABILITY i
a DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR PERSONNEL READINESS a REDUCED RELI ANCE ON CONTRACTORS FROM APPROXIMATELY 1700 TO 700 m IMPLEMENTED AN EXTENSIVE TRAINING PROGRAM INCORPORATING INPO GUIDANCE i
4 N
)
i i
(
D-PEOPLE (CONT) m INCREASED AWARENESS FOR RADI ATION PROTECTION PROGRAM m
IMPLEMENTED AN EFFECTIVE EMPLOYEE FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM E
DEMONSTRATED QU ALITY PERFORMANCE OF PERSONNEL TO EVENTS
( E. G.,
ANNUNCIATOR FIRE, RELIEF VALVE) 1 i
(
D' SENIOR MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE UTILITY EXPERIENCE (YEARS)
NAME & TITLE LICENSES NUCLEAR NON-NUCLEAR CARL ANDOGNINI RO 30 0
CEO NUCLEAR 12 10 JOE FIRUT AGM, NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION BOB CROLEY SRO Cert.
20 0
AGM. TECHNICAL AND ADMIM, SERVICES ACTING JOHN VINQUIST SRO 14 5
DIRECTOR NUCLEAR QUALITY JOHN McCOLUGAN SRO 27 0
DIRECTOR PLANT SUPPORT DAN KEUTER SRO 14 0
DIRECTOR NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND MN::TENANCE 16 0
JIM SHETLER
)
DIRECTOR SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM
!C
(
DI PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION PROGRAM i
e EVALUATE PEOPLE AT:
- HOT SHUTDOWN
- CRITICALITY
- 25%
- 80%
- 40%
- 92%
- 65%
a DEPARTMENTS INCLUDED:
- OPERATIONS
- MAINTENANCE
- CHEMISTRY i
- RADl/, TION PROTECTION
- SYSTEM TEST (ENGINEERING) a IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC QUAllFICAT10N TASKS m
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS m
UTILIZE TEST ACTIVITIES TO GAIN EXPERIENCE l
k
-l
(
3-l M OTIVATION AND COMMITMENT m
DEPARTMENTAL ACTION PLANS ADDRESSING NEW ATTITUDES TOWARD ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE:
- SAFETY
-TEAM WORK
-SELF CRITICAL
- NON-DEFENSIVE
- QUESTIONING
-SUPERVISORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PEOPLE
-LOOK AHEAD AND PLANNING
- PROFESSION AL
- QU ALITY s
LIVING DOCUMENTS DEVELOPED BY SUPERVISORS i
I
I
- il' I
I R
N A
INE L G C OU D N N
AOE L C RAC N
O I
S UL C
N O
C f
k r
l I
ii
!i;i
F
)
HOW DOES CARL ANDOGNINI KNOW THAT RANCHO SECO IS READY FOR RESTART?
a 1
IS THE PLANT READY?
l ARE THE PEOPLE READY?
k i
s w
(
D.!
THE PLANT IS READY m
WE IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEMS m
WE HAVE FIXED ALL PROBLEMS REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERABON m
WE HAVE COMPLETED AN EXHAUSTIVE PRE-RESTART TEST PROGRAM a RESULT - THE PLANT IS IN BETTER CONDITION THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN t
i I
(
D THE PEOPLE ARE READY m
SOUND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE a
EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENT m
IMPROVED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS a
EFFECTIVE TRAINING m GOOD PROCEDURES m
SINGLE POINT ACCOUNTABILITY a
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DIRECTED TOWARD PERFORMANCE i
J l
4 l
(
D WHY IS CARL ANDOGNINI CONFIDENT THAT THE PLANT AND THE PEOPLE ARE READY?
4 i
m INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS m
TEST PROGRAM COMPLETED s
POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM m
PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT r
i l
i
(
h 17/117-F171/f-1/
I 1 Iff ff f f f f ff f/f f f f ff f f f f f f ff ff ff ff 777/111 JJf IfI-Z fifff f f ff IIff 117ll / / f ff f f f1 Fif f f ff f ffIfIIff ff f ffffffffffff171/1 f
RANCHO SECO IS READY l
FOR SAFE OPERATIOX...
l THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS ASSURED l
11- -- 1,11/1111,,,11-1 ---i f1, -
--11-------,f-------------
,,1---f---11----------------------------,,,11-1---r--f-------------
O RANCHO SECO COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 22, 1988 G.
KALMAN
_=
NRC STAFF BRIEFING for RANCHO SECO RESTART AGENDA INTRODUCTION (Director ONRR, Dr. T. E. Murley)
NRC STAFF EVALUATION (Project Manager, George Kolmon)
Sofety Evoluotion Report, NUREG 1286 B&W Safety and Performance Improvement Program (SPIP)
OPERATIONAL READINESS (Regional Administrator, J. B. Martin)
Systems Review Systems Readiness Management Readiness Functional Testing and Verification Deliberate Power Escalation Program CONCLUSIONS (Director ONRR, Dr. T. E. Murley)
,m.=-
NRC STAFF EVALUATION OF SMUD RESTART PROGRAM e
NRC STAFF PERFORMED DETAILED REVIEW OF RANCHO SECO PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS NRC EVALUATIONS DOCUMENTED IN RESTART SER. NUREG-1286, AND RELATED INSPECTION REPORT S SCOPE OF ORIGINAL PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED BY NRC STAFF INPUT e
VERIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS ASCERTAINED BY:
REGIONAL INSPECTIONS ONSITE MONITORING / INSPECTION OF SYSTEM REVIE"' & TEST OPERATIONAL READINESS INSPECTION y---___
y
B&W SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SPIP) e SPIP INITIATED JANUARY 1986 SPIP CONSTITUTES INDEPENDENT EVALUATION / RECOMMENDATIONS e
SPIP RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTO RANCHO SECO PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT I
,y
.~ 9
,_...r
,;,, 7
SYSTEMS REVIEW SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED TO IDENTIFY NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS AND NECESSARY UPGRADES.
33 SELECTED SYSTEMS f.EV. IEWED e
NRC ASTRP REVIEW OF FIVE SYSTEMS l
e SMUD EASTRP REVIEW OF 33 SELECTED SYSTEMS
l SYSTEMS READINESS SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN UPGRADED AND PLACED IN A HIGH STATE OF MATERIAL READINESS TO PERFORM THEIR INTENDED FUNCTIONS.
ALL 33 SELECTED SYSTEMS e
IMPROVED PROGRAM FOR CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE e
REDUCED MATERIAL WORK BACKLOG e
MAJOR MODIFICATIONS - PASS, EFIC, ICS, TDI e
MAJOR SYSTEMS OVERHAULED - BATTERIES, MOTOR OPERATED VALVES, CONTROL ROOM HVAC l
4
l I
MANAGEMENT READINESS A SMUD OPERATING AND MANAGEMENT TEAM IS IN PLACE WITH A RECORD OF SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF RESTART READINESS ACTIVITIES.
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILIT( HAVE BEEN REVISED AND IMPROVED e
QA ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND STAFFED MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND STAFFED e
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND STAFFED e
OPERATORS HAVE RECEIVED EXTENSIVE CLASSROOM AND SIMULATOR TRAINING e
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN IMPROVED e
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN ENHANCED AND IMPROVED e
INCREASED USE OF ROOT CAUSE APPROACH TO PROBLEM RESOLUTION e
e
FUNCTIONAL TESTING & VERIFICATION SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIED CAPABLE OF RELIABLY PERFORMING THEIR INTENDED FUNCTIONS.
e TEST PROGRAM ESSENTIALLY EQUfVALENT TO NTOL PREOPERATIONAL TEST PROGRAM e
EXTENSIVE INTEGRATED FUNCTIONAL TEST PROGRAM BEING SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED e
MAJOR TESTS COMPLETED - COLD HYDRO, TD', CILRT, EFIC LOGIC TESTING, LOOP, CA3LE ROUTING VERIFICATION, MOV FUNCTIONAL TESTING ON IMPORTANT VALVES, CR HVAC e
MAJOR TESTING PL.ANNED - HFT, REMOTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM, LOSS OF ICS/NNI EFIC HFT
DELIBERATE POWER ESCALATION PROGRAM A CAREFUL. DEUBERATE POWER ESCALATION PROGRAM IS PLANNED TO ASSURE THAT SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL ARE FULLY TESTED TO ASSURE SAFE AND RELIABLE PERFORMANCE.
- TEST PROGRAW EXTENDS OVER SIX MONTHS e POWER WILL BE INCREASED THROUGH SEVERAL PLATEAUS
- EACH CREW WILL ACHIEVE AT LEAST ONE WEEK EXFERIENCE AT EACH PLATEAU i
e POWER ESCALATION WILL BE MONITORED CLDSELY BY t'RC TEAM i
l l
e TESTING WILL INCLUDE REACTOR TRIPS AT 255E AND 90SE POWER j
TO A"N SYSTEM RESPONSE I
i^
l e
REMOTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED l
l I
l
a CONCLUSIONS 1.
UCENSEE HAS CORRECTED PLANT MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN DEFICIENC!ES IDENTIFIED DURING OVERCOOUNG EVENT.
2.
UCENSEE HAS CORRECTED THE ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED.
3.
LICENSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED OPERATIONAL READINESS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS:
AUTHORIZATION OF RANCHO SECO RESTART.
I i
l
1 ANONNEhWG[ dud %%%%WA%Wd%%%%W;V6WWW;(fffffiggggg(ggr4ftgegig TPAt!SMITTAL TO:
[ Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm
~
> M88 DATE:
5 FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch g
~
2 Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting A
E; document (s).
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and S
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or Q
5:
n b
- required, Meeting
Title:
(
[
w Ytic,.Av /
e4 _ do,
/bainL M
Meeting Date:
J/A 2/ Ff Open
/
Closed
=
I M
', 8 Item Description *:
Copies E
Adtanced DCS E
g' to POR Copy g
is j
E
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 A) 42c d 2 u G.[,.n. Adt J
$AOmnyn
<]
v 2.
g
=
%g 3.
=>
==
a y
4 2
G 9
h S.
a-T t
a
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY j
papers.
5 alm l
l bYbI Yl bYlb I l IbbbllYlYlIYlIl
\\IflhlhlthhlhlflhlhlflY
<