ML20154S505
| ML20154S505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8604010287 | |
| Download: ML20154S505 (94) | |
Text
DRiGINAL
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 73 f.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Briefing by Regional Administrators (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 1986 Pages:
1 - 73 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters
's 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 8604010287 860326 Washington, D.C. 20006 10CFR (202) 293-3950 pg
e D
1 D 1 SC LA l MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a n eet ing of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8
3/26/86 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N. tJ,, (Ja s h i n g t on,
D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
>f 12 inaccuracies.
IS 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 tran scr ip t 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 21 authorize.
22 23 24 i
25 i
P I
1 1
UFITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PERIODIC BRIEFING BY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 Wednesday, March 26, 1986 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 2:05 p.m.,
the Honorable NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, 17 Chairman of the commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 JAMES K. ASSELSTIME, Member of the Commission 22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Member of the Commission 24 25
l 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
A.
BATES 4
P. CRANE 5
V. STELLO 6
J.
KEPLER 7
N. GRACE 8
R. MARTIN 9
D. EISENHUT 10 R. VOLLMER 11 J.
DAVIS 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
t 8
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 4
2 (2:05 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Commissioner Asselstine has been detained, but he 5
will be joining us shortly.
His office asked that we proceed.
6 This afternoon, the Commission is meeting with the 7
Agency's Regional Administrators from Regions II, III and IV.
i 8
Last week, the Commission met with the Administrators of j
9 Regions I and V.
10 The Commission holds these meetings periodically to j
11 discuss topics of mutual interest, such as major 12
]
accomplishments, current and planned improvements, generic and I
l 13 region-specific problems and highlights of plant specific j
14 activities.
15 The plan for today's meeting is to have each Region 16 Administrator to make about a twenty minute presentation not i
17 counting Commissioner questions, and these presentations would
]
18 be about major activities in their regions.
Copies of the
]
19 agenda for each of today's presentations are available in the i
20 back of the room.
21 4
During each of today's presentations, I would t
22 appreciate any thoughts about the trend of plant safety over 23 the last twelve months and also appreciate any comments about 7
24 any problems about any problem plants and whether such plants 25 are isolated examples or indicative of trends.
I i
a g
4 i
1 Since each of you is familiar with the day to day 2
operations of the plants, your thoughts will be valuable in 3
providing a basis for Commission perspective.
4 I understand that there are personnel in Regions II, i
5 IV and V, that have requested to listen in by telephone.
I 6
think they are connected.
7 I have asked that the Acting EDO make any 8
preliminary remarks he may have and then have him call on each f
9 j
of the Regional Administrators in turn.
10 vic, if you have any comments on general safety i
11 trends, we would be pleased to hear them.
Let me ask whether i
1
{
12 other Commissioners have opening remarks.
I j
13 (No response.)
1 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I will turn the meeting over to i
15 Mr. Stallo.
16 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have in J
17 addition to the Regional Administrators from Regions II, III 18 and IV, we have asked the Program Offices, Mr. Davis is here j
19 with us, and Mr. Vollmer representing IE and Mr. Eisenhut for i
I 20 NRR since the programs we are going to be talking about, they 21 obviously have an interest and may have a contribution to make 22 to the meeting.
1 23 I have asked, in light of the last meeting we had,
)'
84 there was a specific issue that came up regarding the use of i
25 augmented inspection teams.
As I indicated then, the Regional i
E 5
1 Administrators from both Regions III and IV have had 2
experience with the augmented inspection teams and I have 3
asked when they have a chance to go through their 4
presentations, to talk about how they decided that an 5
augmented inspection team was required and what they mean and 6
what their views are on augmented inspection teams.
I have 7
asked them to include that as part of their presentation.
8 Without spending much more time, let me just 9
introduce Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator for Region II.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
11 MR. GRAVES:
Thanks, Vic.
12 You should each have a copy of these viewgraphs.
13 I've chosen to talk about four topics this 14 afternoon; staffing in Region II, reprioritization of work in 15 Region II, in view of the TVA load, and also give you an 16 update on the NFS Erwin situation, and the status of the 17 Vogtle Readiness Review.
18 I want to make some introductory comments before we 19 get to that viewgraph that you have next on the cutbacks.
We l
20 have mounted a significant recruiting effort in Region II this 21 year, to compensate partly for the extra manpower we are 22 putting on TVA.
We have added some 19 FTE altogether to the 23 TVA effort for the year.
In other words, the equivalent of 19 24 people for the full year.
25 We have actually transferred these people from
f o
6 l
1 within the Region II organization.
These represent for the 2
most part experienced people that are now assigned to TVA full 3
time.
This, naturally, has caused a significant impact on the 4
balance of the program, at the other sites.
We are trying to i
i 5
compensate for that.
6 One means of compensating is to recruit at an 7
accelerated effort.
We have mounted quite an effort in Region 8
II through having people make personal contacts.
I've written 1
9 letters to my friends in DOE and Westinghouse and so forth, 10 sending job descriptions and others have done the same.
11 As a result of all this, wa have hired 31 new people 12 as of mid-year, which is next Monday.
These people require i
13 training.
They are no direct substitute for the people we 1
14 have had working on TVA.
Also, they have come on actually in l
15 recent weeks, recent months, so their effort will not be e
16 integrated over the full year.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Nelson, for those hires, i
18 the new hires, does that represent a shift of additional i
19 positions into Region II or were those vacancies you had in 20 Region II that you were able to fill?
j 21 MR. GRACE:
At the present time, there are vacancies 22 in Region II that we had to fill.
That is because we started out fiscal year 1986 with a deficit of 20 people relative to 23 i
j 24 the new ceiling we were assigned of 266.
That new ceiling was 25 not based on an increased TVA effort.
That was based on the
,i i
. - _ ~,.. - - -.,, - - - _
o 7
1 normal effort for a utility the size of TVA.
l 2
This addition of 19 people who are now working on n
3 TVA over and above the base program, they are, as I say, 4
working full time at the present time.
It is having an impact i
5 on the balance of the program.
TVA is well covered.
6 We have held this down to this number of 19 partly
)
7 by having Headquarters take upon themselves a lot of the work 8
in regard to TVA, as you well know.
NRR has picked up some 4
9 tasks.
I&E has picked up some tasks; in order for us to hold 10 this down to the equivalent of 19 over the year.
That is 11 about equal to the normal complement on TVA.
The addition of 12 i
19 amounts to doubling the effort in the Region.
This does f
13 not count the Headquarters' effort.
1 14 I mentioned recruiting.
We have this intensive j
s 1
15 recruiting effort that we have been pursuing.
We have been i
16 quite successful.
The attrition up to mid-year, I might just 17 mention that, has been held down to nine.
I think that's i
18 lucky.
In 1985, the attrition was 39 for the whole year.
t i
19 I
That included the Regional Administrator, his Deputy, several j
20 division directors and so forth.
We sustained quite a loss in i
j 21 1985.
I l
22 The shortfall in resources is quite an impact on the l
23 program.
As a result, it requires very frugal management of i
24 every effort we put forth in the region.
25 One thing that we have had to do of necessity and it i
i i
I
,_..~.m_
y__..
, - -,, ~, _ _ -. _,,, _.,
__,,,_....-.__c,-.m_,-__.._,,,_.m._._
8 1
is also consistent with what the others Regions are doing, as 2
we discussed at our last management mee$ing in Region I, is to 3
cut back in selected areas of the inspection program at the 2
4 sites where the performance has been quite good.
j 5
The viewgraph you are looking at now illustrates 6
roughly what we are doing.
1 i
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Before you get into that, if I 1
8 may, I presume that those people you are hiring is with the i
j 9
approval of Mr. Stallo, because I though we had on a hiring 4
10 freeze.
I presume these are part of the people that you h
11 really need to bring in.
12 MR. STELLO:
That's correct.
(
13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Also the other comment I would like to make is that I hope in Region II that you are looking 14 15
-- I'm perfectly aware of the TVA strain that you have been i
16 placed under and on your resources and all that, but I hope j
17 you are also looking at your whole organization to see where i
18 you might perhaps be more productive rather than just bringing 19 in more people.
I presume you are doing that.
l l
20 MR. GRACE:
Please rest assured.
I 21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You didn't tell me that.
I'm i
22 giving you a chance to tell me now.
23 MR. STELLO:
The very next point he is going to make l
24 on the next slide deals with an issue that we have talked with 25 the Commission on in general terms, the recognition that where d
i
_ _. _, ~.... -
9 1
we have plants that are performing well, clearly we ought to 2
be backing off.
You are going to hear Nelson talk about how 3
he is going about that and Mr. Kappler and the other Regions 4
are doing the same.
That is one of the things that we 4
5 really need to take a good look at, where we have plants that 6
are doing very well, that we ought not be devoting as many 7
resources to inspecting those plants.
8 There is in fact hopefully a substantial savings in i
9 resources.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Sure.
I appreciate that.
I 11 also hope that you are just looking at your own Headquarters i
12 organization and to make sure that you are getting the most 4
13 out of those people. Times change and you have to change with 14 it.
That is my point there.
That is important.
15 MR. GRACE:
Let me respond to that question.
The 19 16 people that we have actually assigned to TVA include some 5 17 experienced management type people.
These people have left a 18 void where they came from, and those positions are being 19 filled on an acting capacity by people usually wearing two 20 hats, in a dual capacity.
It has been a very, very heavy load 21 on the management in particular in the Region.
They have been l
22 putting in excessive amounts of overtime, uncompensated for 23 the most part, as well as has the staff.
24 It has been a very heavy load since before the i
25 beginning of the fiscal year.
Believe me, there is no fat in i
o 10 1
our activity down there.
2 With regard to the inspection program, we have 3
followed the policy actually of cutting back in inspection 4
activity at sites where the performance has been good.
This i
5 has been part of the SALP program from the beginning, although 6
we haven't always followed that policy of cutting back.
We 4
7 are doing that now.
j 8
This viewgraph that you are looking at shows the 9
sites at which we have made these cutbacks.
The "M" means 10 minimum program and the "SM" means another adjustment at that 11 particular site in that particular category, to take into I
12 account the strong points in that particular area.
,(
13 For example, I show training at North Anna and i
14 Surry.
That shows that we are cutting back in that area 15 significantly, but this is in all areas except in requal.
16 Although North Anna and Surry did pass our requal exams, we 17 are not cutting back in that particular area.
j 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nelson, you said "M" is minimum 19 program.
You didn't say anything about high performance, 20 which the slide implies.
21 MR. GRACE:
Yes.
The "SM" is for sustained high 22 performance.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
SM is better tilan M?
24 MR. GRACE:
It's less than M.
]
25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Less effort on the part of i
o 11 1
the staff.
+
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In terms of performance at 3
the plant.
4 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
6 MR. GRACE:
The "M" applies to people with good I
7 performance and "SM" applies to facilities in particular areas 8
where they have had sustained high performance.
That is 9
tailored to the particular facility through actual effort and 4
10 actually the particular discipline.
4 I
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sustained, going back over 12 several SALP periods, for example?
13 MR. GRACE:
Yes, but also based on more recent 14 events.
The SALP history is just that, history.
We program 15 and prioritize based largely on recent events in particular, 16 in the last year or so, although the history is also useful.
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
But if it is sustained, it has i
18 to be sustained over some period of time.
19 MR. GRACE:
That's right.
20 In three areas, plant operations, maintenance and 21 surveillance, we are cutting back less in those areas.
That 22 is, you don't see any SM's in plant operations, maintenance 23 and surveillance, because these are particularly critical i
24 areas in view of Davis Bessie, Turkey Point and so forth.
25 Now, I don't know how much resources we are going to I
~ - - - _.. -..
.-._______,______,_..__-.,.,,___._..___.m...
,__,.____._____,-_,___,..,,m___..,m.,_,,.,_
12 1
save through this effort.
We will be developing our new 2
inspection plan in the next few weeks internally within Region 3
II.
We will have a better quantitative estimate of how much 4
we are saving through this effort.
In addition, we are 5
meeting with the Regional Administrators and EDO in a few 6
weeks in Region III for all of us to pool our information of 7
this sort and see if we can help each other.
I am hoping to 8
extract some help from other Regions, as we have to a certain 9
extent already.
10 For example, Region I sent down their NDE van to 11 help at Sequoyah.
We hope to get help of that sort from the 12 other Regions and from Headquarters.
4 13 The other source that we are looking for is more 14 contractor help.
We are exploring this with I&E.
Jim Taylor 15 has gratuitously committsd to help us out where we need it, 16 to the maximum amount possible in that regard.
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You are prioritizing your 18 resources; that is what you are telling us.
That looks like 19 the right thing to do.
i 20 MR. GRACE:
Yes, indeed.
It is not just the nica l
21 thing to do, but absolutely necessary.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No, I said the "right" thing.
23 MR. GRACE:
Right.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What kind of effort would 25 be involved in the site specific minimum programs for someone i
t
's 13 1
that had a sustained high performance?
Would that simply be 2
relying upon the residents to keep track of what is going on 3
in those areas?
4 MR. GRACE:
Again, it varies.
In some cases, yes, 5
it would be down to just what the resident will do.
Again, it 6
is tailored to the specific site and the particular 7
disciplines.
"SM" means something different in each of these 8
categories.
4 9
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Say, for example, fire 10 protection for Farley.
Would that mean like no inspections j
j 11 on fire protection for Farley?
12 MR. GRACE:
Virtually none.
We feel that we can cut 13 back considerably in fire protection at Farley.
They have the 14 only Category I in SALP in fire protection in the whole 15 Region.
4 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm sorry.
Which one is this?
j 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Farley.
Have you done any 18 fire protection inspection of Farley so far?
19 MR. GRACE:
Oh, yes.
On that basis, they have done 20 very well.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you going to come back to fire protection, equipment qualification, particular problems 22 23 at any of the plants?
24 MR. GRACE:
In fire protection?
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Fire protection and EQ.
____--_.----_--_-__-___-_______.___._,___..-___,i
4 14 1
MR. STELLO:
Why don't you get through first and 2
then you can come back to it.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We can do that later.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One last question on 5
resources.
Has the staff given any further thought other than 4
l 6
like NDE vans and things like that, actually perhaps moving 7
some positions down for a year or two, from say Region I to 1
3 Region II, to help out, given the TVA crunch?
9 MR. GRACE:
We explored that plan with I&E, and the i
3.0 consensus was, rather than send people for a limited period of 1
11 time, it would make more sense to transfer people from within 12 the Region.
Of course, we don't know how long the TVA effort,
/
13 the sustained TVA effort, is going to be going on, and if it i
14 stretches out to two years or so, it would -- in hindsight, it j
15 will have made sense te have transferred people.
i 16 But at this stage, we're still hoping that we may 17 get back to normal in less than a year, organizational 1y.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
So it's just on a 19 loan basis?
20 MR. STELLO:
Well, it's more than that, more than-a 21 loan basis.
The savings that come out of the program that 22 he's talking about now are permanent.
We would be looking 23 across all Regions, and hopefully save significant resources.~
24 In addition, we can, through contractor assistance 25 programs that we've developed, the expertise necessary in i
..-.-_...,--.-.,...,.n.
,..r-.._-.
I 1
l 15 1
inspections, use those kinds of expertise on plants other than 2
TVA, which we normally do anyway, which can augment 3
significantly a routine program in the Region.
i' 4
We can also then send seasoned inspectors to help l
5 inspect in other programs on a somewhat routine basis, which 2
l 6
we have done in the past.
That seems to be the more desirable 7
approach, at least for now, until we get a better I
8 understanding of what the long-term problem looks like.
I 9
MR. GRACE:
I must add, too, that I'm very pleased 1
10 with the responsiveness of my Staff in Region II.
They are l
4 11 all very much overworked these days, and we have not ended up 12 in disputes of who gets this man or that.
There have been
};
13 discussions, sometimes heated to a certain extent, but in the
-s 1
14 final analysis, everybody is putting their shoulder to the j
15 wheel to try to meet all of Region II's responsibilities, and 16 if our resources were cut in half, we still feel that we are 1
17 responsible and want to be held accountable.
If we've made a 18 mistake in some of the prioritization, then that's our fault.
19 So we -- everybody is responding in that way.
And 20 in addition to Headquarters.
We have reached no impasse, and-21 it's just a matter of all of us trying to find a solution to
~
22 this horrendous problem.
]
23 The next Vu-graph shows where we are continuing to 24 conduct full inspection programs at these various sites.
25 (Slide.]
i i
- -. - - ~
16 1
TVA, of course, is top priority, and, in fact, we 2
have an augmented inspection program there.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
When you say " full inspection i
4 program," could you amplify what you mean by " full?"
5 MR. GRACE:
Well, as defined in the I&E manual, it's 6
-- there are no cutbacks.
Let me say " normal" inspe'ction 7
program.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That doesn't imply you inspect 9
everything?
10 MR. GRACE:
No, no, not at all.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Thank you, 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I take it, Nelson, though, 13
{
that there is no slack in terms of what you've got, even with 1
14 the savings you make, based upon the plants with good 15 performance, to put more than average attention on Turkey 16 Point, Grand Gulf, and Hatch?
17 MR. GRACE:
Well, Turkey Point does have an 18 increased effort.
3 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Does have what?
21 3R. GRACE:
We have an increased effort at Turkey 22 Point, as we do at NSF Erwin.
That's taking more attention 23 than average at the present time.
Yes, we are.
1 24 Moving on -- oh, the reason are explained here.
25 Vogtle-and Harris are not yet licensed, and,ofbourse,weare
.=
4 17 1
conducting the readiness review at Vogtle, which I'll have 2
something to say about later.
And Catawba and Grand Gulf both 3
have short operating histories.
Also Grand Gulf didn't get 4
any is on their SALPs lately.
And the concerns at Crystal 5
River, Turkey Point, and Hatch are in the overall performance 6
area, and, of ccurse, Crystal River is also a B&W plant, which 7
is another consideration.
8 NSF Erwin, the next Vu-graph, please.
9 (Slide.]
10 This continues to require an excessive amount of 11 Region II management attention and resources.
Just 12 summarizing the situation there, the strike is now in the
(
13 eleventh month, and operations continue baing done by salaried 14 employees.
But we do have sporadic violence and continuing I
15 safety allegations.
16 Now we did meet with the union people in Atlanta a 17 few weeks ago, followed that up with a meeting with some of i
18 the allagers in Erwin.
They were reluctant to respond to our t
19 requests for additional information, because they were 20 concerned about inadvertently releasing some security 21 information.
So we went there and talked with the allegers at 22 Erwin, picked up additional information, and it's being 23 investigated.
OI is involved.
We haven't yet found any new 24 or serious problems from these allegations, but they are being 25 pursued.
18 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Have you seen any decline 2
in performance.
Eleven months is sort of a long time to 3
operate without --
4 MR. GRACE:
Well, they claim that they're putting 5
out a better product now than ever, but I don't evaluate the 6
product.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'm interested in the 8
safety of the operations, the quality of operations.
9 MR. GRACE:
Yes.
Yes, we've had no -- we've had a 10 few minor violations, but no more than normal.
11 Now in the last couple of weeks, they've had three 12 fires at the site, two brush fires, and then the last, on 13 Monday night, I believe it was, there was a house that burned i
14 down on NFS property but outside the gate.
15 The NFS management has gotten commitments from the 16 local fire department.
In fact, the Governor has been 17 apprised of the sensitivity there and has alerted the National 18 Guard, so they're ready if things should get bad.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What was the cause of the 20 fires?
21 MR. GRACE:
The FBI looked into it and concluded --
22 MR. STELLO:
I don't know that we have enough 23 information to respond to that question.
It would be 24 speculation, and I think it's a sensitive issue.
I prefer not 25 to discuss it at all.
19 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
2 MR. GRACE:
Now with regard to these -- the fires 3
and so forth, we have been communicating with I&E and NMSS 4
headquarters people, as well as with the Licensee.
And just i
5 yesterday, we received a letter from the Licensee, summarizing 6
the additional measure that they are taking in the area of 7
security and fire protection.
8 We've had an expert up there from our Staff in fire 9
protection, another one in security, and they are both very 10 much impressed with what is being done in the way of 11 compensatory measures.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is that compensatory in
[
13 terms of preventing or compensatory in terms of dealing with 14 the fire when it starts?
15 MR. GRACE:
Well, both.
Both.
16 MR. STELLO:
Again, let me suggest that here is an 17 area that clearly gets into security issues.
If we talk about 18 it too much, if there's really a need to know, I would have to 19 suggest that we do so in a closed meeting 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
21 MR. GRACE:
Yes.
The items in this letter, we are 22 now comparing with our own "wish list" of things that we 23 thought would be good for them to do, as well as the ideas 24 from headquarters in this regard, and I think that we're going 25 to be satisfied with their continued operation.
l
20 1
They did initiate a performance improvement program 2
back a year ago, and that was progressing quite 3
satisfactorily, although it is naturally somewhat impeded 4
today by the strike.
5 Housekeeping was part of those improvement ideas, 6
and it is progressing also.
In fact, Charlie Taylor from NFS 7
told me when he was in my office about a month ago that they 8
are getting DOE's cooperation now in decommissioning the 9
plutonium building, which is a source of radiation 10 contamination, and it's been out of production for some time.
11 Also, NRC did respond to the 2.206 request from the 12 union a week or so ago.
(
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nelson, are negotiations going 14 on between management and the union?
i 15 MR. GRACE:
Negotiations are still going on.
They 16 have been on and off.
They look good one week, and then 17 there's a setback.
They had agreed tentatively on going back 18 to work for 90-day cooling-off period.
Then I understand that 19 the management withdrew that offer in view of some of the 20 sporadic violence.
Some of the guards were shot at with 21 pellet guns and bee-bees and so forth.
And of course the parking lot is s'trewn with nails, and the fire trucks picked 22 23 up many flat tires.
24 And so it's been a problem, and I don't know whether 25 management is going to come back now and offer them again this
21 1
90-day cooling-off period.
2 There have been other sticky issues.
One in 3
particular was that there were seven people who were fired, 4
and management does not want to consider rehiring them at all, 5
and that's a sticky point in the negotiations.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So I gather we don't have any 7
imminent prospect, or do you have any comment on the imminency 8
of a possible settlement?
9 MR. GRACE:
Well, when I talked to, again, with 10 Mr. Taylor a month or so ago, he was optimistic at that 11 point.
But then we've had some ups and downs since.
So I 12 just can't guess.
,[
13 MR. STELLO:
I think the answer is, we really don't 14 know.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
16 MR. GRACE:
Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I sort of expected that 18 answer.
19 MR. GRACE:
Vic says it more clearly than I do.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
To the extent that we have 21 information, we ought to have that information.
22 MR. GRACE:
Yes, sure.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It just might be useful to 24 send us a paper on the security questions that are involved in 25 all of this.
That might. be a good way to explore who has
22 1
responsibilities and whether people are carrying out those 2
responsibilities.
3 MR. STELLO:
We'd be happy to send you the augmented 4
security measures.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay, thank you.
It does 6
seem that there's a continuing problem down there that leaves i
7 me with an uncomfortable feeling about what's happening.
L 8
MR. STELLO:
It has created a concern for us, and 9
that's what precipitated the need to look into it, and it 10 precipitated the additional measures we are talking about.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
12 MR. GRACE:
Okay.
The last subject I wanted to j
13
.g touch upon is the Vogtle readiness review.
It is progressing 14 quite satisfactorily.
The Licensee has completed 95 percent 15 of their program review.
There are ten more submittals coming in, and they are nearly -- they're virtually done, and the 16 17 last one is projected for May of this year.
18 NRC has completed 33 percent of the reviews, and 19 completion of the whole system is targeted for October, and 20 this is based on their projected December start-up date.
21 Now the state hired an independent consultant from 22 New Jersey, I forget which one it is, to do an assessment of 23 the overall schedule and the cost.
That's a very sensitive 24 issue in George.
And this independent assessment came up with 25 a projection of another six-month delay, but we don't have
- 1
23 1
any judgment on that to offer at this point.
2 The Licensee will have spent altogether $13 million 3
on the program per se.
It was originally estimated to be 11, 4
I believe, and another $30 million estimated on corrective 5
measures.
So the program is paying off in terms of i
6 identifying problems requiring corrective measures at an 7
earlier date than they may otherwise have been found, like the I
8 eleventh hour.
9 So then we,
, the NRC, will have expended 20 FTEs 10 altogether, and two-thirds of that is in Region II.
I&E and 11 NRR have been doing a very good job on their end of it, and in 12 the final analysis, I&E will put together a program assessment
(
with regard to application of this approach in general at 13 14 other sites.
15 It appears at this point that it has been very 16 beneficial for Georgia Power and the NRC, because again, if we 17 were involved in a lot of eleventh hour problems, that would 18 require an excessive amount of resources, as we've experienced 19 at some other sites.
20 I think, you know, every Licensee does some sort of 21 readiness review.
Some are good, and some are bad, and some 22 are not even called readiness reviews.
But when they say they 23 are ready, that's based on something, and it varies from i
24 utility to utility.
If they start early and do a good job and 25 have good communications and keep good records and good
24 1
tracking of their commitments, they don't have to mount a big 2
effort late in the game.
3 And Vogtle did start rather late.
In their case, 4
they felt it was justified because the Vogtle project has had 5
some starts and stops.
They stopped construction for a period 6
of time; I forget how long it was.
And there were some loose 7
ands, and they felt compelled to dig into it and bring 8
everything to the surface and make sure that we had a good 9
communication with the NRC.
So this was special for them.
10 But some kind of readiness review is certainly justified for I
11 every facility.
12 Now at Catawba, for example, we didn't have anything
[
13 that was called a readiness review, except what we do from the 14 Region at all sites before licensing, and they breezed right 15 thrcugh the licensing for Catawba-2 just recently, without 16 having some that's called separately a readiness review per 17 se.
18 But as I say, I&E will be putting together a final 19 assessment when it's all done.
20 Another kind of readiness review I might mention is 21 what we persuaded TVA to do at Browns Ferry early last 22 summer.
They put together quite a comprehensive program that 23 really covered everything in terms of people, attitudes, 24 hardware, procedures and so forth.
And they involved all of 25 the employees, so it really constituted an employee concern
. _ _... _ - -.... _,.. _. - -., _. _ -. -. =. -
25 1
program as well, because the employees were participating in 2
identifying problems, proposing solutions, and so forth.
And 3
that got off to a good start.
I don't have a recent reading 4
on how it's progressing since they changed management down 5
there.
Jim Coffee was pulled back to Chattanooga, and Bill 6
Bibb from San Diego was put in charge.
7 That concludes my remarks on the four topics that 8
were identified.
9 MR. STELLO:
I would suggest that we have each of 10 the regional administrators go through their presentations, 11 and then we can come back to fire protection and equipment 12 qualification so that we can assure that each gets an 13 opportunity for their presentation.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have two questions that I i
15 wanted to ask.
I have more, but two is enough.
One is an 16 interest in the EQ and in fire protection.
Another one, we 17 heard recently about aging at San Onofre, and it appears that 18 older plants need more maintenance attention, more 19 surveillance, more management attention, and I wanted to get 20 any comments on whether they seem something similar in their 21 region and how many plants they have that we might call old in 22 maybe ten years or so.
23 So anybody that wants to address it along the way 24 can do that.
25 MR. STELLO:
My concern is that they each have an i
...__.,_.m
26 1
opportunity so we don't have one regional administrator talk 2
for the whole time. I would prefer that you be able to hear 3
from all of them.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Fine.
Why don't we proceed in 5
that way.
6 MR. STELLO:
Jim.
7 MR. KEPLER:
Good afternoon.
8 During the past year in previous meetings of this 9
type with the Commission, I h.sve discussed initiatives 10 j
undertaken in Region III in the more timely identification and i
11 resolution of deteriorating plant safety and regulatory 12 performance.
13 These initiatives were put into effect prior to the 14 Davis-Besse event of last year, and it received increased 15 management attention as a result of that event, the TVA 16 problems, and the subsequent events at San Onofre and Rancho 17 Seco.
i 18 The thrust of this effort has been aimed at the 19 Commission's stated objective of wanting to identify and 20 correct the root cause of problems in advance of events.
21 Last fall I briefed the commission on the plants 22 that I was most concerned about in Region III, so today what I 23 would like to do is brief you on how I see these initiatives 24 working and the progress we are making in upgrading the 25 performance of those plants I talked about last fall.
1
\\
l 27 1
I have five slides, and I believe they may not be in 2
the order I'm going to talk from.
I'm going to talk first on 3
the Region III initiatives slide.
Then I'll talk about 4
LaSalle, Byron and Cook, and the last slide should be the 5
conclusion slide.
t
[
6 At the beginning of last year, we initiated a 7
program of what we called development of master inspection 8
plans for each plant, and they are developed for a two-year 9
period.
We based these on the SALP appraisal, set up a game 10 plan, if you will, for carrying out the inspection program I
11 aimed at dealing with the problems at that facility.
12 The Master Inspection Plans concentrate on the poor 13 g
performance and intentionally back off from the good 14 performance of plants.
The SALP results are the primary basis i
15 for the Master Inspection Plan, but then we monitor the 16 ongoing performance during the subsequent months and make the
!. 7 plan a viable plan, a dynamic plan, so that it is constantly 18 reflecting the performance that the plant has seen during the 3
19 period.
20 We prepare inspection plans for each inspection, and 21 these use as the basis the Master Inspection Plan and then 22 they factor into it feedback from the resident inspectors and 23 the regional-based inspectors so that the thrust, the focus of 24 each inspection plan is on the problems at that facility or 25 perceived problems at that facility.
, -. _ _. ~. _ _.
.__.,,_,_..-,__-..,r
-r
28 1
They are reviewed by the supervisors in the office, 2
and we have an ongoing program of auditing those plants to 3
make sure that the proper focus is on the plant problem areas.
4 Tom Murley talked to you last week about team 1
5 inspections that he is doing in Region I, and I think Jack 6
Martin also emphasized that. We used this copcept in these 7
Master Inspection Plans in the problem arearl.
If we have a 8
perceived problem, for example, in the maintenance area, we will put together a team of four, five, six, seven people with 9
i 10 various skills in quality assurance, maintenance activities i
11 aimed at trying to identify the root cause of these problems.
i 12 I mentioned that we tried to factor into this 13 planning the ongoing performance of the plant.
The way we do 14 that is we hold a meeting monthly with the key management of 15 the office, and we have invited representatives from the i
16 program offices and headquarters to these meetings, and we j
17 discuss each facility in considerable detail.
18 We discuss what has happened, what we have learned 19 of through the licensee event report system, what we have 20 learned of through our own inspection program, and we then i
21 revisit the Master Inspection Plan to make sure that our i
j 22 activities are constantly being focused on the perceived 4
l 23 weaknesses of the facility and that we are, hopefully, then 24 dealing with those problems.
25 After each inspection that is dono and during this l. _ __, _.~
29 1
monthly meeting that'we have, we project self ratings based on 2
the information that we have, so that if we see a plant that 3
is headed in the category of redirection, we are already i
4 trying to be ahead of that problem, already trying to move on 5
it so that we either avoid getting it into a Category III 6
rating or, hopefully, we will have turned it around and moved 7
it in a positive direction.
8 We have developed a number of actions aimed at when i
- I 9
we see a plant moving in the Category III direction or if 10 Category III Is perceived as existing, we immediately bring 11 the headquarters offices into the discussion, we get them 12 involved to see whether they want to participate in the
[
13 planning of this.
We then require the utility to address what 14 they are going to do to correct the problem. We require a 15 formal corrective action program, if you will, and if there is 16 enforcement action to be taken relative to what is happening, i
17 we initiate that action.
1 l
18 We also promptly meet with the chief executive i
I 19 officer of the company so that he is well aware of our 20 concerns and that he is well aware of the commitments that the 21 company has made to correct the problem so that he can apply 22 his influence to make sure that that problem is corrected, j
23 In two instances we have also made use of 50.54(f) 24 letters to commit the company on the record to the corrective j
25 actions they have taken.
We have done that with Fermi and we 4
- n. _.,,.., _. -
,__._...__,--..,n
30 1
have done it with LaSalle.
2 If these actions are not successful in bringing 3
about the end product, then I would envision bringing 4
Mr. Stello into the act and perhaps we would escalate actions 5
with the utility both in terms of enforcement and in terms of 6
meetings with the board of directors, something of that 7
nature.
t 8
When we met last September, last October, I told you 9
that the plants of greatest concern to me at that time were 10 Davis-Besse, Fermi, LaSalle, Byron and Cook.
Since the 11 Commission has been briefed separately on Davis-Besse and 12 Fermi, I won't focus on these today other than to say that I
(
13 do think top management attention is being given to both 14 projects, and I'm confident, at least with respect to 15 regulatory performance, that they are both moving the proper 16 direction.
17 Let me talk a little bit about the other three 18 plants, LaSalle, Byron and Cook.
The last SALP period for 19 LaSalle was May 1984 through September 1985.
That utility 20 received four Category III SALP ratings: plant operations, 21 maintenance, surveillance activities and quality programs.
22 A number of actions have been taken during the l
23 course of that SALP period.
Five civil penalties were levied 24 on LaSalle, and the utility generated a performance improvement program, a regulatory improvement program aimed at 4
25 a
5 31 1
trying to turn around that performance.
2 Late last summer, which was just prior to that 3
Commission meeting, I met with senior staff in Bethesda and 4
the EDO to talk about what action further should be taken with 5
respect to LaSalle.
To aid in that, we did a project 6
assessment by which we -- I put together a team of five people 7
to look at the history of LaSalle since it received its 8
initial license.
We put together a report summarizing the 9
problems that have occurred there and the reasons that we had 10 the concern for the activities of the plant.
l 11 We decided at that time that we would issue a i
12 50.54(f) letter demanding certain actions be taken, and that
/
13 has been done, and two of the Commissioners, Commissioner
(
14 Asselstine and Commissioner Zech, did visit the plant to 15 impress upon them, the utility management, the concerns that 16 the staff had.
17 We have conducted augmented inspections.
We are in 18 the process of conducting monthly management meetings with the 19 company.
In fact, one is going on today with the chief 20 executive officer, with Burt Davis.
We intend to reassess 21 the status of this project after six months.
22 To date I could tell you -- I have a number of i
activities that are being monitored on a monthly basis.
We do 23 24 see some improvement in the project, but I would call it slow 25 to date, but definitely in the right direction.
The numbers f
-m
32 I
~ 1 of trips are declining, plant trips, the numbers of personnel i
2 errors have decreased significantly.
3 On the other hand, I can say that ESF actuations, 4
engineered safety feature actuations, unintentional ones, had 5
decreased but went back up again in the last couple of 6
months.
They are still having a high number of open high 7
radiation doors on the plants.
8 So we are seeing some improvement; other areas are 9
still of some concern to us.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
How old is LaSalle?
11 MR. KEPLER:
LaSalle Unit 1, I believe, received its l
12 license in 1981, and Unit 2 received its license in 1983.
13 MR. EISENHUT:
They are both in the vintage of the 14 last few years, post-TMI.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
You are spending a lot of time here on LaSalle, but -- I think I came in before you 16 17 started -- Byron is sitting here as well with four III's.
18 MR. KEPLER:
I am going to discuss Byron as well.
I 19 wanted to really focus on what we are doing on al three, but I 20 will tell you that LaSalle is the plant of most concern to me.
l 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It looks like that from the 22 categories.
Are you getting in your ratings or are they 23 getting worse?
24 MR. KEPLER:
We think that the plant performance 25 deteriorated when Unit 2 went on line.
I can't answer that.
33 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You have answered it in 2
part, at least.
You said that performance has gone down.
3 MR. KEPLER:
I think it is fair to say that we have 4
all tightened the belt a little bit.
When you look at last 5
year, we had a number of plants with events that we wish would 6
not have happened, and I think everybody is trying to work 7
hard to preclude these things, and that involves a little 8
tightening.
]
9 So we see some improvement at LaSalle but we are 10 going to have to continue to stay very close to this.
11 Let me talk about Byron.
As you mentioned, 12 Commissioner Bernthal, that also had four Category III
(
13 ratings: the areas of plant operations, radiological control, 14 surveillance, and plant security.
We have had four civil 15 penalties issued to them over the last year.
16 About six months ago, eight months ago, perhaps, we 17 started to meet with them on a monthly basis, and they put 18 together what they called a conduct improvement program aimed 19 at trying to minimize the numbers of plant trips, the number 20 of personnel errorsiand mis-surveillances.
)
1 21 We also augmented our inspection activities at that l
22 site.
I mentioned we are meeting with management still on a 23 monthly basis there.
As a result of particularly the areas of 24 radiological controls and security, special efforts were initiated by the Licensee which we are monitoring in those 25
~.
f 34 1
areas as well.
2 We are seeing what I would call more improvement at 3
Byron.
When you look at the data, there is a substantial 4
reduction in personnel errors.
Surveillance activities, they 5
were having a lot of problems with those last year.
I believe 6
the last two months and perhaps the last three months, they 7
have not had any surveillance errors.
8 on the other hand, I would say to you the plant has 9
already tripped three times this year from power, only one of 10 which was due to a personnel error, but three trips is a high 11 number at this point in the year.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Both Byron and LaSalle are
'(
13 Commonwealth Edison, aren't they?
14 MR. KEPLER:
Yes.
Byron is pressurized water; 15 LaSalle is boiling water reactor.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does the experience with these 17 two plants give any indication that as a utility gets more and 18 more plants, they run into problems, perhaps because of 19 management, perhaps because of having the talent spread thin?
20 Do you have any observations on that?
21 MR. KEPLER:
I have a high regard for the management 22 of the company.
I think the chief executive officer is one of 23 the more involved people.
But when you mention the issue of 24 spread thin, you are talking about a company that is trying to 25 monitor, trying to oversee five nuclear power plants with 1
._m,...-
35 2
1 operating licenses, each having two plants apiece, two 2
reactors apiece, and a sixth plant, sixth station under 3
construction, and a plant under construction at one of the 4
other stations.
5 You have got a tremendous commitment, and while the 6
company has modified its management structure, to a large 7
extent the oversight is the responsibility of Cordell Reed, 8
nuclear vice president, and when you look at other stations, 9
they have people equivalent to Mr. Reed to oversee one plant.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm thinking are there possibly 11 the seeds of a TVA kind of problem?
12 MR. KEPLER:
I don't think so.
!(
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Both of them being utilities
\\
14 with a large number of nuclear plants, just relatively 15 speaking.
16 MR. KEPLER:
One of the reasons I say I don't think 17 so is Roger Walker, who now works for Dr. Grace, was in my 18 region before and he was very close to LaSalle and, in fact, 19 used to be the senior resident there at one time, and he from 20 his perspective sees no comparison between TVA and 21 Commonwealth.
But I do feel that Commonwealth perhaps 22 developed some complacency in terms of turning around LaSalle 23 sooner.
I think the learning curve has been very long for 24 that site.
You are now talking four years.
And I think the i
25 experience at Byron was not as good as it should have been for
i 36 1
a plant, for a utility with that much experience.
2 Now, Byron is making the turn at a pretty good rate,
)
3 we see.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Jim, to what extent do you 5
see variations in terms of the effectiveness of the site 6
management between the various Commonwealth stations, say, 7
comparing Quad Cities to LaSalle?
8 MR. KEPLER:
Let me qualify my comment first.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
10 MR. KEPLER:
I think you have to look at Dresden,
{
11 Quad Cities and Zion as one group of plants.
These plants are l
12 all basically above 10, 11 years old.
They are not as complex 13 as the newer plants.
They don't have all of the same i
14 technical specification requirements that --
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Which plants are you talking 16 about now?
17 MR. KEPLER:
Dresden, Quad Cities and Zion.
They 18 have less requirements to deal with, if I could state it that 19 way.
I think to achieve the same level of performance as we 1
20 view performance, I think you have got to be better at Byron 21 and LaSalle than you do at the other three sites.
i 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's a fair comment.
23 MR. KEPLER:
Now, Commonwealth plant managers, in my 24 judgment, vary in terms of their capabilities and l
25 performance.
We view the performance at Quad cities as one of i
3
37 1
the best in the region, and I have written and told the 2
utility that; but on the other hand, I view the performance of 3
LaSalle in the other direction and have so stated that.
4 We do feel that part of the problem to date at 5
LaSalle can be attributed to the station management, and the 6
company is working on steps to strengthen that.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Either you or the company 8
has been sending me these trending books that show the 9
performance since they have been keeping these figures.
10 MR. KEPLER:
It must be the company.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The sense I get from 12 looking at those charts is much as you describe. There is some 13 improvement. There seems to be a bit more at Byron.
Are they 14 still aggressively pursuing the question of continued i
15 improvement?
You don't see any signs of their being satisfied 16 with what they have accomplished so far, or not?
17 MR. KEPLER:
I'm very pleased. In fact, I met with 18 Mr. O'Connor on Monday of this week and we talked about all 19 six stations.
There is no question in my mind that the utility is doing everything they can to not have a Category 20 21 III SALP rating.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
23 MR. KEPLER:
And I am pleased at that.
But I don't 24 want to appear overly pleased with the progress.
There's a 25 long way to go, in my judgment, and I think it's important
38 1
that I keep the heat on.
j 2
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You know, Jim, I was out l
3 there at Byron two years ago, and I have to say I remember 4
much the same noises being made on all sides: not so great, 5
doing okay, need to get better, concern about the overall 6
management structure, perhaps.
Spread thin, I guess, was part 7
of the story at that time.
It would seem to me that probably 8
Duke is the best analogy in terms of size and commitment that
~
9 you would find.
I guess they are not-quite as bit.
10 MR. KEPLER:
I would say about half as big.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay, half as big, but 12 that's still pretty big.
The question is, when you say they 13
- (
are spread too thin, maybe they just don't have enough people 14 at those very high levels to exercise the kind of strict 15 oversight that needs to be exercised.
16 The only reason I am saying that -- and I always 17 have to approach these questions, as do most of us, I guess, 18 as one offering an opinion, and certainly not an expert in l
19 management -- but the thing I do recall is that at each of 20 those plant sites there was a point made of it that they 21 operated rather independently.
I don't know whether that is 22 still true or not.
23 MR. KEPLER:
It is.
l 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:
But that they were sort of 25 self-contained units managerially.
That surely has an up
[
~. _
39 1
side. I guess I would worry that the down side is, then, you 2
are going to have the random probability like you do with six 3
utilities running six separate facilities on their own.
It's 4
not quite true and it's an overstatement, I realize, but my 5
concern is that it's two years since I heard basically the i
6 same peried, and it's not getting better. At least your SALP 7
ratings seem to get worse.
8 MR. KEPLER:
But I think you have to look at it in a 9
perspective of the dates.
The SALP ratings covered the period 10 j
up through September of last year, and what I'm trying to i
11 leave you with the impression is that some of these things 12 took time to get the proper attention focused on them by the
(
13 utility.
But I think we have turned the corner. I think there 14 are very realistic signs to show that there is improvement 15 going on, and we are keeping the pressure on.
I don't intend i
16 to let this thing go on for a period of time where we are 17 dissatisfied like we did with Davis Besse.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I guess the thing that is 19 frustrating is that they ought to be one of the best.
20 MR. KEPLER:
I agree with that.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
They have got resources and 22 size.
They have got everything it takes, and they ought to be
'23 one of the best, by any measure.
They don't suffer from TVA's 24 handicap in salaries.and that sort of thing.
So mediocrity is 1
25 pretty bad here.
They ought to be one of the best.
They
40 1
should be a showcase.
2 MR. KEPLER:
One of the things that was very 3
interesting, I believe it was when Commissioner was out to 4
Byron with me, he asked the plant manager: What is your goal 5
for scrams?
And he said: Three for the year.
Well, that 6
shouldn't be anybody's goal, to have three scrams.
The goal 7
ought to be zero.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
We talked about that.
9 MR. KEPLER:
You might tolerate three.
But I think 10 that was indicative of an attitude of perhaps not searching 11 out excellence.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Darrell, did you have a
't 13 comment?
\\
14 MR. EISENHUT:
I was just going to second the 15 comment that Jim made.
You have got to put it in the context 16 of if you look over -- I think it must have been about 1982 17 when we licensed LaSalle.
Remember it was a very tortuous 18 process.
The plant got strung out, we had lots of 19 allegations, and then we went through 1983 and licensed the 20 other unit.
Remember at Byron we have a very tortuous process 21 through the hearing process.
They are still in the middle of 22 a very difficult situation at Braidwood.
So I think they just 23 simply got strung out too thin on that last group of plants, 24 and I think we have the management's attention and I think 25 management is going to make it happen.
41 1
So I think that is why we think it'is starting to 2
turn, but recognizing, as Jim said, it is going to take time 3
to get there.
I 4
MR. KEPLER:
I am convinced that they are working 5
very hard at trying to be one of the best now.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm glad to hear that because 7
being a large organization and having had an unfortunate set 3
i 8
of experiences with another large organization, we better 9
continue to give this attention and make sure that they are a
10 responding, and I gather they are.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Jim, as I recall, they 12 have made an effort to try and bring some additional corporate 13 level attention to particularly the Byron and the Braidwood in 14 addition to Cordell.
4
.15 MR. KEPLER:
They have strengthened the management 16 underneath Mr. Reed, and I think that we see that impact, but 17 I think we have to be very results-oriented and watch what 18 happens there.
I 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Absolutely.
Good.
l 20 MR. KEPLER:
Let me move on.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I had the same impression, 22 though, that they took aboard your comments and 23 recommendations, Jim, and also they were responsive, I think, 24 during my visit to the recognition that improvements were 25 needed, and I felt that they were certainly going in the right
42 1
direction and not only had the resources but the commitment to 2
improve themselves.
So I left with the impression that they 3
were certainly aware of the fact that they could do better and 4
they were going to make every effort to do so.
So that was, I 5
think, a positive, constructive attitude and certainly a 6
commitment to meet that.
7 Didn't you feel the same way?
8 MR. KEPLER:
Yes, absolutely.
9 Just briefly on Cook, my concern with Ccok is not 10 nearly the same as it has been with Byron and LaSalle.
I have 11 viewed this company as one content to be average, content to 12 be middle of the road, and we gave them three Category III 13 SALP ratings in perhaps not the prominent functional areas but 14 three important areas, nevertheless, and we have taken civil 15 penalty action., With Cook I think we issued three civil 16 penalties in the last, year.
17 They put together a regulatory improvement program, 18 and I mention that because I think sometimes we throw these 19 words around with you a little bit.
This was a regulatory 20 improvement program that, in my view, did not work.
They 21 developed that program three or four years ago, and it really 22 never progressed to the point where I saw results from it.
23 I had my staff conduct an assessment of the last 24 three years of operation there.
We met with the utility.
We think that they are now committed to improvement after the 3
25 I
i
43 1
.last SALP appraisal.
They havn refocused their performance 2
improvement efforts in the areas we feel need some attention 3
and instituted a program of quarterly management meetings 4
there.
5 I was over to the site a couple, three weeks ago, 6
and I can tell you that they have got a ways to go in certain 7
areas. I was extremely pleased with the efforts they have 8
undertaken to improve the discipline in the control room.
9 Crmpared to the last time I was over there, it looked very 10 professional this time.
They have instituted a program to 11 reduce the number of nuisance annunciators, and they seem to 12 be taking a greater pride in the plant right now, with efforts
(
13 being made to clean it up and make sure equipment is operable.
14 So we are seeing some improvement there and will 15 continue to monitor that.
16 Let me go to the conclusions.
I have put down some 17 conclusions to maybe stimulate some thought here.
18 I would tell you that clearly it is my observation 19 that Licensee management attention at every site in Region III 20 is focused on improved performance.
There isn't a CEO out 21 there that wants a Category III SALP rating right now, and 22 they are going to great extremes to try to achieve better 4
23 performance.
24 I think the second comment I would tell you is that 25 I really believe that we're seeing improvements at the plants
,y
-.r
44 1
to varying degrees.
Every Category III SALP rating, in my vit;w, is moving in the right direction at this time, and every 2
3 Category II that was on the declina, we believe programs are 4
in place to deal with that.
So I think that's a strong 5
commitment from me to you today.
6 As far as our own activities, I think we're 7
achieving better resolution of resources this way.
We're 8
getting a greater bang for our buck, if you will, by putting 1
9 people more on the problem plants, and we're starting to show 10 some confidence in the utilities in certain areas by backing 11 away.
12 And I might tell you that with the concurrence of l
13 Mr. Stello and Jim Taylor, we're going to be moving to a 14 program at three reactor sites in Region III where the only 15 inspections that are going to be done are those by the 16 Resident Inspector.
That's at Kewaunee, Prairie Island, and 17 Monticello, and that's based on long-term, sustained good 18 plant performance.
These plants have never received a 19 Category III SALP rating.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINoi Those were Kewaunee --
21 MR. KEPPLER:. Kewaunee, Prairie Island, and 22 Monticello.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I gather they don't get 24 too many 2s, either?
25 MR. KEPPLER:
We're a little cheap with the 1s, but
45 1
they get their fair share of 1s.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think that's the right way 3
to go, by the way, this idea of backing off on the utilities 4
that earn it, and devoting our attention to where the 5
resources are really needed is something that is overdue, I 6
think.
I believe that's the right way to move.
There should 7
be some incentive to sustain good performance and maintain it.
8 MR. KEPPLER:
Hopefully, this will be viewed as a 9
carrot by the industry, and, in fact, we intend to publicize 10 this.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
12 MR. STELLO:
You just did.
[
[ Laughter.]
13 14 MR. KEPPLER:
I think also that with this program of 15 master inspection plans and the specific plant --
16 plant-specific plans for inspections, that we're getting 17 better focused to our inspections than we did in the past, and 18 I think it has also caused a stronger regional management 19 focus on making sure that we're achieving the end results we 20 hoped for.
21 One comment I would make, which is Item No.
6, is 22 that I am convinced that our normal inspection program is not 23 adequate enough for a Licensee that has a large number of 24 Category III performance.
We need mors team inspections or 25 the type of inspections that I&E has initiated, looking at
46 1
engineering and looking in greater depth, like the Turkey 2
Point inspection was conducted.
3 And the last point, and I do need to emphasize it to 4
you, these plants do not turn around in performance in a short 5
period of time.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm sorry.
I missed that.
7 MR. KEPPLER:
They do not turn their performance i
8 around in a short period of time.
It is my view that to i
9 really get LaSalle where we want it, it's going to take a 10 couple of years.
We're going to keep working on that.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
But in the meantime, you know, 12 it doesn't take two years -- I get your message, but it seems
,(
13 to me that if you don't see some improvement in six months, 14 you ought to be concerned about that.
15 MR. KEPPLER:
I will.
That's why I've put that 16 burden on them.
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
And if you don't see it in a 18 year -- and I think you will, from what I saw, too, and the 19 commitment I saw to improve -- but I think it does take time; 20 I agree with you.
But it seems to me that when plants are not 21 performing to your satisfaction, two years is too long.
22 MR. KEPPLER:
I agree.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
They should get going sooner 24 than that.
25 MR. KEPPLER:
What I'm talking about is achieving
.---,e-e-.
r-,-
,a.-w-,
,-,,,,---~e--g
.,,,.,,-,,y,
,,m.e.,y--
-e wwy w -- m m-.
.,-e.en-g 7,
u m-s e,-,-e a -v,w
e 47 l'
total excellence.
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I understand your point.
I'm i
i 3
just not too -- not too happy about the curve that you're 4
showing us.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
He's expecting 95 percent in 6
something like a year.
7 MR. STELLO:
But there's a very important point 8
here.
You can try to cause change too fast, and in some cases 9
that turns out to make things worse.
It needs to be --
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Well, if it's not going like it t
11 should go, you ought to change it, you ought to watch it, and
]
12 it ought to improve.
(
13 MR. STELLO:
Agreed.
But I think Jim's point was, 14 how long is it going to take to get to --
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Well, I'm not satisfied with 1
16 three SCRAMS a year, and I'm not satisfied with two years to 17 do a good plant -- it is a good plant -- to make it run in an 18 excellent condition.
I think you can do better than that.
19 That's all I'm trying to say.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I agree with that, Lando, s
21 and I think the business about the radiation doors is a good 22 example.
That's a question of discipline.
It's caused by the i
23 ventilation system in that plant, and it's simply a matter of s
24 the people exercising some discipline, making sure that when 25 they go through the doors, the doors get latched properly,
48 i
1 pure and simply.
That's the kind of thing that ought to be 2
able to turn around pretty quick, and you ought to see some 4
3 demonstrable improvement pretty fast.
And I gather we're 4
seeing a little improvement, but not as much as we should.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You're making a good point.
We 6
know it takes time.
But the point is, we shouldn't be 7
satisfied with other than a real strong commitment to 8
excellence all the way across the board, 9
MR. KEPPLER:
Commissioner, I can assure you, I am J
10 not very complacent on this.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I know you're not, but I think 12 you --
. (
13 MR. KEPPLER:
We're exerting enormous pressure on
\\
14 some of these utilities.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I know you are.
I've watched 16 you do it, and I commend you for what you're doing.
I just 17 think it kind of, you know -- I think we can -- I think you 18 can expect better than to wait two years to see it even to 19 your satisfaction.
I'd like to think that you could, and I i
20 know you're doing exactly that.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I would just take one 22 example that would be interesting, if Jim Asselstine, 23 Commissioner Asselstine, were to go back and visit, because I 24 j
remember that you were down at Turkey Point -- what is it now, 25 a year ago?
49 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
A year ago.
And I was there l
3 six months ago more or less, and I think commissioner Zech has 4
been there not so long ago as well.
And if I'm not 4
5 misrepresenting your overall impression, it was not good when 6
you were there a year ago.
And when I went there six months 1
7 ago, it was clear that a lot of things were happening.
8 Now it wasn't finished, but there was a palpable 9
progress and change, even in the attitudes -- or maybe 10 especially in the attitudes of some of the people in charge of 11 particular programs, that, " Gee, yes, finally we're getting 12 the new building we've needed for so long, and we're all going a
13 to be here, and look at all the new equipment."
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That took more than two years.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, it may have.
But it 16 appeared to me that in six months time, there must have been 17 change from what you saw and what I saw.
Now it would be 18 interesting to see you go back --
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I'm going back in two 20 weeks, and I'll let you know how they've changed.
In fact, I 21 committed to go back to Byron and LaSalle after a few more 22 months to see the progress --
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
So did I, and I'll be out there 24 in a few more months, too.
i 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I gather they did get the l
l, _.
50 1
black board.
2 MR. STELLO:
Can we take that into account in 3
reducing the number of inspections?
4 (Laughter.)
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You'd better increase mine.
I 6
MR. KEPPLER:
But I think that's a point that 7
illustrates their commitment.
Byron now has a black board in 8
the control room.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think, Jim, there are a 10 couple of good points being made, that it's okay to recognize 11 what the reality of the situation may actually bring about, 12 but the target ought to be, as I think it is, to bring about l(
13 improvements as rapidly as you can.
i 14 Shall we go on to the third?
t 15 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
I notice we fell back ten 16 minutes.
1 17 Bob, we've saved the best the last, as we did this 18 morning, and you have the unenviable task of making up all the i
19 time.
l 20 MR. MARTIN:
Okay.
I'll go through a few points.
)
21 In terms of Region IV, in terms of some inspection 22 initiatives that we have looked at, I wanted to describe one 23 for you which is less of a focusing of inspection initiatives 24 against particular plants, as it is trying to get a data point 25 on all of the plants against a consistent set of standards, or
51 1
inspection criteria would be a better word to use in this 2
context than standards.
3 As I know you are aware and you have heard many 4
times, Region IV for a long period of time was impacted by 5
various task forces, so the inspection activities at a number 6
of plants became relatively uneven in certain respects.
So in 7
order to normalize it, to make sure that our SALP program is fair both to the utility and fair to the agency and the 8
9 agency's assessment, I wanted to go back, and the Staff wanted 10 to go back, and make sure in certain major critical areas that 11 we had a very good feel for how they were doing business.
l 12 One of those initiatives was to put together f(
13 basically a maintenance team.
During this calendar year, we 14 hope. to send a maintenance out -- this will be led one Region 15 IV inspector and two to three contract inspectors, who were 16 brought into the Region and trained in inspection techniques 4
17 and in the inspection areas -- to go out and essentially do 18 the same inspection at all of the plants.
I 19 Now clearly you must recogpize, in Region IV, about 20 half of the plants are quite old by our current standards, ten 21 years or more, and the other half are quite new, being all 22 relatively NTOLs within the last twelve months or so, so 23 there's a wide diversity of the standards they are committed j
24 to and many of the practices that they've adopted.
i 25 What we're doing is inspecting against a consistent 4
i i
-~..a
,m,
.-----.---~----4
--.4
,-y,
.,-,e
...m,g,--,,,-w,,---m--.,,.~--gn,.,
,,-3
,,,..,,-,,--,-g
,-,,-,,,m---
m,-nu,
t 52 l
1 set of criteria, if you will, just to see how, in fact, they j
2 are doing business, whether or not they have adopted any 3
particular regulatory requirements or have had them imposed on 4
them.
It's giving us a good baseline on the performance of 1
5 maintenance, if you will, at these plants.
6 We're doing some other things that fall in a similar 7
category.
But it's basically to get a new reference point on 8
all of the plants and their performance.
9 A second initiative we undertook as potentially 10 perhaps only a one-time initiative was to invite the Senior 11 Nuclear Executive from each of the utilities in the Region to
{
12 come to the Region, and they all accepted the invitation, to i
13 sit down and have a non-plant-specific discussion on a series 14 of topics where the interaction between the Licensee and NRC 4
t 15 is primarily at the Regional level.
16 The four topics -- we had a general discussion on to 17 get to know their concerns, for them to know our concerns, and 18 essentially, if you will, to calibrate each other on our 19 relative concerns -- were on the areas of emergency response; l
i 20 harassment and intimidation types of issues, Section 210 of i
21 the Act; employee concern programs, their conduct, how they 22 run, what we look for them to be doing if they're going to 23 have such a program; and the operator requalification i
24 program.
If you recall, the operator licensing function is a i
l 25 decentralized function in the Regions, and therefore we get l
1
53 1
heavily involved in the implementation of the operator 2
requalification program.
3 It was a half-day meeting, and it was -- I can only 4
tell you that it was very productive, very useful.
It was a 5
very candid exchange of concerns on both parts, yet we didn't 6
dwell on any particular plant problem, but rather the issues, j
7 I think we all came away with a much better understanding of 8
each other's views without necessarily changing anybody's i
9 views.
10 It was also interesting to note that a number of 1
11 these executives had never met each other, within the same 12 Region and having been there for some period of time, but 13 through a series of circumstances, they had never had contact 14 with each other.
I seemed to sense that they were going to 2
15 try to compensate for that.
l 16 A third area that I would mention is, I believe Tom 17 Murley last Wednesday mentioned to you the fact that he had j
18 been doing some probablistic risk analysis based inspection 19 activities.
One of the things we'll be participating in --
i l
20 and just before coming, I learned it's been delayed slightly 21
-- is in a process called PRISM, which is a small microcomputer-based, probablistic risk assessment model that 22 l
23 has been modeled for the ANO facility.
We're going to take 24 essentially a copy of that model -- Research has worked this 25 up through a contractor -- we're going to put it at the site 4
f
,,r_,-_.
g._,,-,r------ "
>mr'-ewas
-ceeww~,w<
r
~wme-www-=*--tq
--e*
e -me-o+"
=
- '*m*m=>**~-*
"-t'"v-*--'*v"-tv-*
54 1
and try to see if we can utilize that as a tool in basing 2
inspection activities.
3 I really don't know how it's going to work, but we
{
4 are going to try it and see, if by having that tool available 5
if events occur or actions occur within the plant, whether or 6
not this becomes a useful tool that the inspector can use to 7
be able to either refocus his attention or call issues to our 8
attention that might require further augmenting or support.
9 We hope to be able to do that and do basically a demonstration 10 run of it and learn something about it over the next six 11 months or a year.
At that point, we'll know more about how to 12 use it in the future.
13 MR. EISENHUT:
I'll just comment, in fact, the 14 program is, of course, as you also heard last week, is a lot 15 further along than that.
It's something that Research 16 developed.
We've been actually looking at the program on the 17 computer and gone through it.
I, myself, did last week.
18 It's something that I think -- there's a few bugs 19 in the program that have tn be worked out.
Then it's 20 something that at least the Resident can start using or the 21 Region can start using.
22 We're also modifying the report as we want to use it 23 in Headquarters.
There's a lot of things you can do, obviously, with -- if this system is out of service, what does 24 it tell ycu is the next most important thing, and there's a 25
{
i
55 4
l 1
process of a hierarchy that you can go through with this, l
1 2
which is a -- is one of the tools that has come out of a long I
3 research program in the area of PRA.
And we think it's i
4 something that has a lot of promise; we just have to wait and 1
5 see what it looks like.
i 6
MR. MARTIN:
Being in a geographical area that had J
j 7
a lot of oil walls, we have a lot of off-shore facilities, 8
both off the shore of Louisiana and of Texas.
Just before 9
coming, we sent a draft proposal for a memorandum of-I 10 understanding with the States of Louisiana and Texas where 11 they might be willing to participate under a cooperative 12 agreement, essentially by us paying them to conduct off-shore 13 inspections of materials licensees, radiographers as the l
14 primary focus.
)
15 We have yet to enter into those negotiations, but at 16 least we have gotten to the point that we have a draft notr and 17 have forwarded it to both Texas and Louisiana.
So that is 18 working.
f 19 One of the other areas that I thought would be of interest to you, and they don't represent initiatives but they 20 21 represent certain realities that we might have to deal with, 4
j is in the uranium recovery area.
I know you have had various 22 23 meetings in which you have been briefed on the general state i
24 of the uranium industry and what have you.
l 25 Two things that occurred at the uranium recovery i
l
,---e+
~- -
-p
.w.
w-a,------------.m----.
--n----
nnv-~,-.
,- m n-v gn,.a.,,
,..w,
,,-w,,onn n,_n+w,.,ge.,--.,e--.----,n,.,,-~evem---~,
l 56 1
field office that have been focused on.
We finally had a mill 2
operator go bankruptcy and had to go after the surety i
3 arrangements. Now, this is the state, it's not the NRC.
The 4
surety bonds were drawn out or made out with the state being 5
the beneficiary.
We have assisted the state, but they have, i
6 in fact, had to go and go through the legal steps now to l
7 recovery those bonds, and now the state will be developing the 8
plan.
)
9 The State of Wyoming is the state in case.
They
{
10 will be developing the plans for reclamation of the site, and i
11 then we will have to approve those plans, and we will have the 12 normal interaction, except now, if you will -- it's a bad term 13
- (
-- but the licensee, or the stand-in for the licensee is 14 actually now going to be the State of Wyoming and its 2
15 contractor doing the work.
l 16 We think this is the first time we have gone through i
j 17 this exercise.
My corporate gut feel is telling me it may not i
j 18 be the last time, with the current state of the industry as it J
19 is.
20 An associated reality that I wanted to bring to your 21 attention in the same area is that we see amongst the mill i
22 operators -- it is always sensitive to deal with a subject l
23 like this and not have it come off sounding wrong -- a 24 definite stiffening of the backbone by the mill operators in i
e 25 their interactions with us.
That is not to say an increased i
- - - _ _ _. -.,, _ _,.,... _,, -,.. - -., - -, - - - - _.. ~,...
57 1
frequency of noncompliance, but when money was good and 2
business was good, it was very easy to achieve change and 3
improvements.
Now it is much more difficult to achieve change 4
and improvements beyond the letter of the regulation with the 5
mill operators, and I am very convinced it is not a 6
recalcitrance on their part as much as it is a financial 7
reality.
As a generalized statement, I believe it to be true.
8 Those were the main topics.
I believe you do know l
j 9
that New Mexico has announced its intention to return the mill 10 program back to NRC.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What is that going to do 12 to the burden, Bob?
13 MR. MARTIN:
We are looking at that now, sir.
I g
14 think it is measured in numbers of people itss than tel but I 15 can't be that sharp on the numbers, and we haven't looked at 1
16 all of it yet.
l 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They had set a deadline of May 18 1st.
19 MR. MARTIN:
I believe they sent a request, sir, of 20 May 1st, not as much as a deadline, but they would like it.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We were planning on the basis 22 of May lat.
Can we meet that?
I 23 MR. DAVIS:
Staff will be meeting with New Mexico 24 tomorrow and Friday to get some preliminary determination of j
25 what they are doing.
I might mention here with regard to the
58 i
I j
1 resources, there is a ripple effect on these resources that 1
2 under the Low Level Wasta Act Amendments we have been looking i
3 to the downturn in mill tailings to give us some relief to
/
l 4
that. So now we will have to rework that issue also.
5 MR. MARTIN:
Those were the major issues I wanted to i
6 touch on.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are there any active mills 8
in New Mexico now or are they all inactive?
]
9 MR. MARTIN:
I think last month the last one went 10
- into standby.
They are the largest mill tailings piles, but I 11 believe there are no active mills.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
13 MR. STELLO:
What I would suggest here,
'l' (
j 14 Mr. Chairman, if we could, I would ask Regions III and IV now 1
i 15 to deal on the AIT issue, which ones were formed. I think you i
i will be surprised at the large number, and how do they decide, 16 17 what are the criteria and what purpose are do they serve?
i 18
)
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How long is that going to take, 19 five minutes?
20 MR. STELLO:
As little as you want?
I think they l
21 could probably make comments in a minute or two.
2 22 MR. KEPLER:
Very briefly, we have conducted three 1
23 AIT inspections, one at Lacrosse, one at D.C. Cook and one at 24 Perry.
I don't know that I would say we have any criteria we i
j 25 use for this, but the judgment of the significance of the 1
1 l.
g-.m
,,-w e--ww-mms.,y-,,pww97-.p 994--*-,t.
p..y,.y
, epi,..ee%uw.w-+w,.3y.
wes.w,,73--=9 w--
%ir-ge p-m 9 + -
4pov,p.ig"rg-esppq.+ ewe %-+
a,w y-v-m--wm y---*
<---w
-v-t+
l l
59 1
matters, whether it came up in consultation with the licensing 2
people or the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, and where i
1 3
we wanted to bring extra effort to bear on the problem.
4 We have done inspections of this type before.
We 5
haven't called them AIT inspections, but wherever we need to 6
bring an appropriate discipline in to deal with the issues, we 7
have done this.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You say at Cook?
9 MR. KEPLER:
Cook, Lacrosse and Perry.
Perry was l
10 the earthquake issue.
l j
11 MR. MARTIN:
To supplement Jim's comments, I 12 consider the labeling of an AIT really to be something 13 redundant to what I see my job as all the time.
I think it's r
14 just putting a label on my job.
I have probably conducted 15 inspections of the type since I have been in Region IV a good l
16 dozen times and have not thought to call them AITs.
The AIT 1
17 terminology didn't exist for half of them, and I didn't apply 18 it to the other half.
l 19 I think it is our routine job to look at events and 20 use whatever help we can, and it suggests something beyond l
21 what I think our normal job is.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Let me say I was the one that f
23 asked this question at the last meeting, and my question was 1
24 really what is the threshold, what is the crite'ria you apply
.t 25 yourself in your judgment in order to ask for an augmented i
}
l
60 1
inspection team?
In other words, to call the headquarters and i
2 say I would like to get an augmented inspection team to come 3
out and take a look at this particular facility.
4 In other words, what indicators do you use to 5
determine the plant is in the category or has met the 6
threshold?
I recognize it's a judgment call, but it would 7
seem to me it might have been helpful for all of us here, 8
Commissioners, to have a feel for you regional administrators 9
making a call that you needed an augmented inspection team.
10 I just thought it would be helpful to.get your own 11 personal assessment of when do you think that is necessary, 12 and then you can take it the next step and tell us, I think, 13 how it does add to your own and, hopefully, increases your own 14 ability and expertise in inspections that perhaps might be a 15 little more than you can handle.
16 That is exactly what I wanted to know. I think you 17 have kind of touched on it a little bit.
18 MR. KEPLER:
I think perhaps it's a combination of 19 relative seriousness or potential seriousness and then perhaps 20 some degree of uniqueness, something that doesn't happen every 21 day, and there may be better expertise in headquarters to 22 bring to bear on the problem.
I would sort of look at it as a 23 combination of those things.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I understand that.
Let me just 25 say this.
I think it's an excellent initiative, and certainly
61 j
1 if I were you, I would look on it as there in being if you 2
needed it, so I think it's an excellent initiative.
I was 3
really more interested in hearing from you, the regional 4
administrator, to see how you view it. I presume you view it 5
as something helpful to you, something that would reinforce or 6
perhaps give you additional ideas.
You can tap on it when 1.
7 necessary.
I know your judgment will be exercised carefully 8
when you do.
But it just seemed to me that it would be 9
helpful to hear from you as to how you felt about that.
10 To me it's an excellent tool and I'm pleased to know 11 that it's working, but it's fairly new, and I just thought it 12 would be helpful to hear from you.
I 13 MR. STELLO:
Mr. Chairman, how much more time do you 14 want to take.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have a busy afternoon after 16 this is over, so why don't we try to make it 10 or 15 minutes 17 at the most.
18 I am very interested in making sure we are 19 proceeding on fire protection, equipment qualification, and I j
20 would be interested in general comments or any plant-specific j
21 problems you are having.
My other question that I think came 22 out of the San Oncfra meeting is are these older plants i
23 becoming problem plants or do you see any problems or any 24 special attention needed for them?
25 MR. KEPLER:
Very briefly, let me start with EQ.
I j
i
.._______._--,._.....m.-_...
62 1
believe that the programs that are in place right now for 2
equipment qualification are working reasonably well, and I 3
think part of this has to do with the fact that we have had a 4
dedicated group of people within the Office of Inspection and 5
Enforcement to provide guidance on day-to-day problems that 6
have occurred.
7 I think that has really helped.
Right now we feel 8
comfortable performing the EQ inspections.
We are finding i'
9 some problems.
I believe I&E has sent down or will send down 10 shortly a proposed enforcement policy for use on EQ, and I 11 suspect with that policy, depending upon how the commission 12 treats that, that we will be finding problems from time to
((
13 time in the area.
i 14 One major problem that has already cropped up in a 15 number of sites has been with the qualification of wiring in 16 the limitorque valve operators.
1 17 So I feel comfortable with the EQ program.
I think it is fairly well defined and I think it is being implemented 18 19 okay.
I i
20 MR. VOLLMER:
Let me comment a little further.
We i
21 have geared up for three inspections per month.
We are i
i 22 looking at --
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nationwide?
24 MR. VOLLMER:
Nationwide.
But we are about to turn l
1 25 over the program to the regions as they come by the resources i
63 1
to do them, and we would still participate in the regional 2
inspections, so that would jack it up to a level where we 3
could probably pretty well close them out in fiscal year 4
1987.
As Jim indicated, enforcement policy is one thing that 1
5 has been difficult to get a handle on nationwide.
i.: have 6
enough experience now so I think we can address that,'and we 7
will very shortly.
8 As Jim had indicated, there are a few specific 9
problems that we have run into and we think we have a handle 10 on those, so I would agrce with him that the program is going 11 well.
12 MR. STELLO:
Do you want to finish EQ, Nelson?
13 MR. GRACE:
Yes.
I agree with what has been said so 14 far.
It is going very well in Region II.
I&E has provided s
15 the leadership and done an excellent job.
We have done so far 16 Brunswick and Crystal River, and Sequoyah is currently under 17 way, as you well know.
St. Lucia is next week, and Watts Bar will be done after Sequoyah, and we are currently reviewing 18 19 the proposed enforcement policy in Region II.
1 20 MR. MARTIN:
Again, in the same context, I see the
]
4 21 potential difficulty being the kinds of things that Jim 22 alluded to, some of the operability-type of decisions that 23 have to be made which are difficult calls when such is in the 24 limitorque operators, and those kinds of issues, by having the l
25 one focus, the one office focusing on it, at least we can stay
s 64 1
consistent with it.
1 2
So it's going to be a difficult area.
We have a 3
steep learning curve, but I don't see any unmanageable or very 4
significant or serious problems turning up.
5 MR. STELLO:
Why don't you start fire protection.
6 KR. MARTIN:
On fire protection I feel there has i
7 been a good convergence in the area of fire protection. I see 8
that, at least in my region, being much less of a contentious 9
issue than it was.
We have individual findings, they get 10 resolved, and plants look to be in pretty good shape in the 11 main.
Not all of them have been inspected in terms of the 12 full detailed inspection.
They have yet to be done, a few of i
13 them.
But in the main, the work that we are doing, the 14 clarification that we now have with the rules and the a
15 regulations and what is applicable, has helped substantially, 16 and we see that as much less of a contentious issue than it 17 was before.
{
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me expand my question on 19 fire protection. I remember reading fire protection will be 20 achieved in this plant by -- and I don't remember the year, 21 but it is quite a long way of 1986.
22 MR. STELLO:
It covers the spectrum.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
24 MR. STELLO:
I don't believe the regional 25 administrators that have the long times are sitting here.
I
65 1
think those were --
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I wasn't trying to pick 3
on any region.
I would like to know from the regions if they 4
4 have got any outliers out there.
It seems like fire 5
protection is something --
6 MR. MARTIN:
Not that I can identify.
If I do have 7
them, I don't know it.
8 MR. STELlo:
We sent you a paper.
9 MR. GRACE:
Yes.
We have done Appendix R 10 inspections at eleven sites in Region II.
We are planning 11 five more this year.
These eleven sites have covered nine of 1
1 12 the ten utilities in the Region, so we've got pretty good 13 coverage.
We're fortunate in having three good fire 14 protection engineers on our Staff.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did they pass?
1 16 MR. GRACE:
Sir?
I 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did they pass the inspection?
18 MR. GRACE:
Well, there have been some findings, but 19 we find that they're very cooperative.
At this stage, I guess 20 they would be.
They are concerned about the consequences.
21 But they've generally been very cooperative and gotten things i
j.
22 fixed.
{
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I came into the NRC as 24 the neophyte on fire protection, and I watched the old-timers i
saying, "By golly, we ought to get on with fire protection,"
25 3
66 1
and now I'm becoming an old-timer, and I feel that I can use 2
my emeritus status to see if I can't push a bit harder on 3
getting fire protection.
4 MR. GRACE:
Well, we haven't lacked any technical 5
direction, and, as a matter of fact, with oishinski and I both 6
having been on the Fire Protection Task Force with Dick 7
vollmer, we feel pretty well equipped.
The only thing we lack 8
is enforcement guidance.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Enforcement what?
10 MR. GRACE:
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What do you mean, we lack 12 enforcement policy?
13 MR. VOLLMER:
Well, since the Commission has voted 14 out SECY 85-360, I believe -- or 306 -- since the Commission 15 has voted out the fire protection package that was sent down 16 j
last year, we have all the tools that we need now, and we're 17 proceeding.
I think there have been a number, a fair number 18 of inspections have been conducted and have had very good 19 results.
So we think, except for the fact that a number of 3
20 plants will be in the outyears, if you will, achieving 21 compliance, even for those plants, many of them, it's the last 22 10 or 15 percent, and still a fair amount has been done in 23 fire protection.
24 I might add one thing, that since the Commission has 25 acted on that, we are planning to put together a seminar so
67 1
that the people who are involved in this, inspectors and so on 2
who are doing the fire protection inspections, will be brought 3
up to speed and that we're all going. forward on a common 4
basis.
We hope to do that within the next couple of months.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
6 MR. KEPPLER:
I don't think that there are any 7
plants'in Region III that have long-term dates, at least I'm 8
not aware of any.
9 Just a general comment on fire protection.
From 10 talking to my people -- and that's what I'm making my comments 11 on here today -- I sense less degree of comfort in the area of 12 fire protection than I do EQ.
13 In terms of EQ, the people, the Regional people at 14 least in my Region, felt that they have people back here very 15 knowledgeable of the issues, who can help drive day-to-day 16 decisions that come up.
In the area of fire protection, we 1
17 don't see that same degree of leadership back here in terms of 18 people familiar with the day-to-day type problems.
And I 19 think there's -- with all the guidance that has been 20 disseminated over the past' years, I think there is still some i
21 degree of confusion out there.
22 Maybe perhaps with what additional is coming up, it 4
23 will help.
t 24 We've done about 50 percont of the fire protection 85 inspections in the Region.
We don't have any major issues at I
68 1
this point in time.
But I just don't sense the same degree of 2
comfort in the fire protection area that I do in the EQ.
l 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you feel any less confusion j
4 on the matter?
5 MR. KEPPLER:
Well, I haven't been personally that I:
6 close to it, Dr. Palladino.
j 7
MR. STELLO:
You start aging.
8 MR. KEPPLER:
Okay, aging.
I don't know that I have l
9 any comments on aging.
I think some of the plants -- we get a t
10 j
number of the plants that are now ten, eleven, twelve years 11 old.
I think a number of the plants have not been wall cared 1
l 12 for over the years.
They were treated like a power plant l(
13 historically, and some of the equipment has rust problems and
)
14 leaks and so forth.
I don't know that I can say that I have 1
15 any specific thoughts, other than I do see a greater degree of j
16 attention now being paid toward trying to restore some of the j
17 equipment to a better looking state.
18 MR. STELLO:
Mr. Chairman, let me make a comment on i
19 aging.
I think aging is an important subject.
I think it's a i
20 subset of life extension, because you can't deal with life extension without dealing with the aging issue.
We have a 21 22 pretty large program starting up in Research to deal with this 23 issue, but it's going to take a lot of work before you -- I 24 think we have a definitive answer in the areas that we want to i
25 be putting our attention.
69 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But San Onofre did show 2
problems.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
{
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And I'm just trying to find 5
out, are we facing anything like that in other areas?
I-i 6
wasn't trying to solve the whole aging problem.
j 7
MR. STELLO:
Yes, but I want to make clear that I 8
view the whole question of aging as a subset of the initiative j
9 that you have tried to get started on life extension, because 10 I think you clearly have to have a good understanding of the 11 effects of aging.
I 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But it also comes into keeping 13 these plants that are capable of being run, capable of being
)
14 run.
j 15 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Joe, it might be a good idea to even think about a meeting focused on the aging and 17 18 the extension question.
I'd be very surprised --
19 j
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, when the Staff is ready.
20 I think they have been working on that.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
But I'd be
't 22 very surprised, for example, if like the cable failure at San 1
1 23 Onofre is an isolated event, and there isn't the potential for i
24 that with a cable near a heat source at lots of these plants, 25 particularly some of the older ones.
There are some real good
t' 70 l
questions that need to be looked at.
j 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I didn't mean to take all the 3
time that I allotted for questions.
But are there any other.
4 burning questions?
5 MR. STELLO:
Perhaps the other two Regions could 6
respond to the aging question.
7 MR. GRACE:
I guess I have no observations to pass 1
8 on on the aging of components.
We do have peculiar problems
)
9 at old plants, like tech specs, for example.
Turkey Point is j
10 doing a comprehensive review of design, as-built drawings, et 1
j 11 cetera.
We have that sort of thing.
i 12 Also, I have noted that the three facilities, the i
13 three plants that have failed our requal exams, involve i
1 14 operators who were licensed before TMI and have not yet been 0
15 brought up to date.
That's a common thing.
16 MR. MARTIN:
I have no real good -- the perceptions 17 of mine are very comparable to the other two gentlemen.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other burning questions?
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Maybe one quick question.
}
20 Jim, I wanted to ask you about your perceptions on 1
21 the C.E. Glass business and particularly in terms of the --
i
{
22 you have a lot of materials Licensees in your Region, and I 1
23 gather Region i is probably the other big one -- are there 24 some lessons -- and John and I have talked briefly about it; i
{
25 John, you may want to comment, too -- are there some lessons
71 1
in terms of the extent of inspection coverage that we have on 2
some of these materials Licensees that we ought to be learning 3
from the C.E. Glass experience in terms of how well we keep 4
track of these sources, where they are and what's going on 5
with them?
1 I
6 MR. KEPPLER:
I don't know that I'm prepared to talk
]
7 about it today.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
i 9
MR. KEPPLER:
Do you want to say anything, Jim?
10 MR. DAVIS:
Vic discussed this with me, so this i
11 won't be any surprise to Vic, I think, and we did reply to 12 your question.
/
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
14 MR. DAVIS:
One of the things we are looking at, 15 recognizing that some materials Licensees literally don't get j
16 inspected --
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
4 18 MR. DAVIS:
-- we were looking at some ways to have 19 the Licensees at least send us a notice annually or on some i
20 frequency that they still exist.
And I think personally this 4
is one thing we've looked at and talked about for some time, 21 22 and I think we'll be moving in that direction.
23 However, from my perspective, if we're going to have 84 such a notice from the Licensee, however it's worked out to i
{
85 be, I would like to be able to get some information of I
l l
\\-..
1 72 1
importance that would help us out, rather than just say, "Yes, 2
we do exist."
3 One of the things also that I'm very interested in, 4
as I mentioned to you, Commissioner Asselstine, we do have to 5
find some way to do this uith real attention on resources.
So 6
these will be areas we will be working on.
But I think the 7
time has come to make certain that we know Licensees exist, 8
and they know that we exist, because this was clearly a 9
violation of a requirement.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
11 MR. STELLO:
Let me suggest that I think there's a l
12 broader question.
That's only a part of it.
And John and I 13 have talked about this, the need to go back and take a look at 14 the whole issue in terms of licensing, how we're going about 15 it, and I mentioned to some of the Commissioners, I think 16 probably all of you, that we need to do that, and we're going 17 to do it.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good, good.
19 MR. STELLO:
We'll be getting specific in the next 20 few days.
But it will answer that question and many more.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Are there any other 23 questions?
24 (No response.]
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, we thank you, gentlemen.
73 1
It has been very worthwhile, and continue the good job you 2
have underway.
3 The commission stands adjourned.
4 (Whereupon, at 3:52 o' clock, p.m., the Commission 5
meeting was adjourned.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTI!?ICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING:
Periodic Briefing by Regional Administrators 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, March 26, 1986 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is 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 g
18 ff l~'
19 Y
20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23
~
24 25 l
3/19/86 SCHEDULING NOTES
.ITLE:
PERIODIC BRIEFING BY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS (REGIONS II, III, AND IV)
SCHEDULED:
2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1986 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPR0x 1-1/2 HRS PROPOSED NELSON GRACE, REGION 11 AGENDA:
- PRIORITIZATION OF WORK BY LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
- V0GTLE READINESS REVIEW
- STAFFING IN THE REGION NFS ERWIN JAMES KEPPLER, REGION lli PERSPECTIVE ON REGIONAL PERFORMANCE IN INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
- HOW PLANTS ARE PEACTING T0 REGIONAL STIMULUS BOs MARTIN, REGION IV REGIONAL INSPECTION INITIATIVES
- MAINTENANCE INSPECTION TEAM
- LICENSEE /NRC INTERACTION MEETING
- FIELD APPLICATION OF RES DEVELOPED PRA INSPECTION TECHNIQUES
- URANIUM RECOVERY ISSUES
- SURSTY BOND FORFEITURE
- RESISTANCE BY LICENSEES
- FOIA IMPACT ON REGION
AGENDA FOR REGION II PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONERS 1
STAFFING IN REGION II:
l l
REPRIORITIZATION OF WORK:
i l
NFS ERWIN UPDATE:
i l
STATUS OF V0GTLE READINESS REVIEW.
3/26/86 J.
N.
G.
i
CUTBACKS IN SELECTED AEAS OF THE INSPECTION PROGRAM AE BEING TAKEN AT MOST SITES TO PEET REGION 11 RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN AVAILABLE ESOURCES
~
FARLEY ROBINSON BButlShl&K SumER ST. LDCIE Oc0 NEE N. ANNA SUB81.
McGUIRE PLANT OPERATIONS M
M RAD. CONTROLS SM SM SM SM SM SM MAINTENANCE M
M M
a FIRE PROTECTION SM OUTAGES SM SM SM SM SM SM i
SECURITY M
M M
i SURVEILLANCE M
l EMERGENCY PREP.
M M
M l
QA M
i KEY: M = HIGH PERFORMANCE, MINIMJM PROGRAM AS DEFINED IN MANUAL CHAPTER j
SM = SUSTAINED HIGH PERFORMANCE, MINIMUM PROGRAM (SITE SPECIFIC)
BLANK = STANDARD PROGRAM 03/26/86
{
J.N.G.
FULL INSPECTION PROGRAM WILL BE APPLIED AT:
SITE BASIS TVA AUGNENTED INSPECTION PROGRAN V0GTLE NOT YET LICENSEDs READINESS REVIEW HARRIS NOT YET LICENSED j
CATAWBA SHORT OPERATING HISTORY i
i GRAND GULF SHORT OPERATING HISTORY l
CRYSTAL RIVER OVERALL PERFORNANCEs B&W PLANT i
i l
TURKEY POINT OVERALL PERFORNANCE HATCH OVERALL PERFORNANCE l
3/26/86 J.
N.
G.
l
~
NFS ERWIN CONTINUES TO REQUIRE INCREASED REGION II RESOURCES STRIKE IN ELEVENTH MONTH:
OPERATIONS CONTINUE:
SPORADIC VIOLENCE SAFETY ALLEGATIONS.
TWO' BRUSH FIRES AND ONE HOUSE FIRE (IN TWO WEEKS)
HAVE NECESSITATED ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND j
FIRE PROTECTION.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, INITIATED APRIL
- 1985, PROGRESSING BUT IMPEDED BY STRIKE.
l l
HOUSEKEEPING CONTINUES TO BE
- IMPROVED, PLANNING i
FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIONS UNDERWAY, INCLUDING DOE.
i i
NRC RESPONDED TO 2.206 REQUEST FROM UNION ON 3/3/86.
l 3/26/86 J.
N.
G.
l
VOGTLE READINESS REVIEW IS PROGRESSING SUCCESSFULLY i
l LICENSEE HAS COMPLETED 95% OF PROGRAM REVIEWS TEN SUBMITTALS REMAINING:
LAST ONE - MAY 1986.
i NRC HAS COMPLETED 33% OF THE REVIEWS COMPLETION TARGETED FOR OCTOBER 1986.
(BASED ON A DECEMBER STARTUP)
LICENSEE WILL HAVE SPENT $13M ON THE PROGRAM AND APPROXIMATELY $30M ON CORRECTIVE MEASURES.
}
{
NRC WILL HAVE EXPENDED 20 FTE.
2/3 IN REGION II.
l l
VOGTLE PROGRAM APPEARS TO BE COST-BENEFICIAL l
FOR GPC AND NRC.
i 3/26/86 J.
N.
G.
sh i
L COMMISSION MEETING WITH REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS REGIONS II,-III AND IV BRIEFING CHARTS FOR MR. JAMES G. KEPPLER REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, RIII
~
\\
MARCH 26, 1986 f
- 4 f
i
REGION III CONCLUSIONS 1.
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS FOCUSSED ON IMPROVED PERFORMANCE 2.
PLANT PERFORMANCE IS IMPROVING TO VARYING DEGREES 3.
REGION IS ACHIEVING BETTER UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES 4.
THERE IS BETTER PLANNING AND FOCUS TO OUR INSPECTIONS 5.
THERE IS A STRONGER REGIONAL MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON ACHIEVING RESULTS 6.
MORE IN-DEPTH INSPECTI0NS NEEDED AT PROBLEM PLANTS 7.
EXCELLENCE IN PERFORMANCE WILL ONLY BE ACHIEVED IN LONG TERM
,,~
i e
l l
REGION III INITIATIVES MASTER INSPECTION PLANS EMPHASIS ON WEAK AREAS: BACK OFF ON GOOD PERFORMANCE INSPECTION PLANS UNIQUE FOR EACH SITE TEAM INSPECTIONS FOR PROBLEM AREAS INSPECTION PLANS KEPT CURRENT TO REFLECT ONGOING PERFORMANCE ONGOING PROJECTIONS OF SALP RATINGS ACTION PLANS FOR IDENTIFIED / PROJECTED SALP 3 PERFORMANCE HEAD 00ARTER'S INVOLVED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REQUIRED: ENFORCEMENT (?)
MEETING WITH CEO USE OF 50.54(F) LETTERS
BYRON LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
MAY 198.4 - OCTOBEP 1985 RATINGS _ _ _
4 CATEGORY 3's (OPERATIONS; RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS; SURVEILLANCE; SECURITY)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONER VISITS RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
MODERATE IMPROVEMENT NOTED
LASALLE LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
MAY 1984 - SEPTEMBER 1985 RATINGS _ _ _
4 CATEGORY 3's (OPERATIONS; MAINTENANCE; SURVEILLANCE; OUALITY PROGRAMS)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS PROJECT ASSESSMENT 50,54(F) LETTER COMMISSIONER VISITS AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS MONTHLY MANAGEMENT MEETINGS PROJECT REAPPPAISAL IN SIX MONTHS RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
SOME IMPROVEMENT NOTED
D, C, COOK LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
APRIL 1984 - SEPTEMBER 1985 RATINGS _ _ _
3 CATEGORY 3's (SURVEILLANCE; SECURITY; QUALITY PROGRAMS)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT Fi'.LGRAM PROJECT ASSESSMENT AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS REFOCUSED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS QUARTERLY MANAGEMENT MEETINGS RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
SOME IMPROVEMENT NOTED j
a REGION III CONCLUSIONS 1.
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS FOCUSSED ON IMPROVED PERFORMANCE 2.
PLANT PERFORMANCE IS IMPROVING TO VARYING DEGREES 3.
REGION IS ACHIEVING BETTER UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES 4.
THERE IS BETTER PLANNING AND FOCUS TO OUR INSPECTIONS 5.
THERE IS A STRONGER REGIONAL MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON ACHIEVING RESULTS 6.
MORE IN-DEPTH INSPECTIONS NEEDED AT PROBLEM PLANTS 7.
EXCELLENCE IN PERFORMANCE WILL ONLY BE ACHIEVED IN LONG TERM e
G l
y
_-_o__..-,
,_m.m_.
s m_.
__r____
REGION III INITIATIVES MASTER INSPECTION PLANS EMPHASIS ON WEAK AREAS: BACK 0FF ON GOOD PERFORMANCE INSPECTION PLANS UNIQUE FOR EACH SITE TEAM INSPECTIONS FOR PROBLEM AREAS INSPECTION PLANS KEPT CURRENT TO REFLECT ONGOING PERFORMANCE ONGOING PROJECTIONS OF SALP-RATINGS ACTION PLANS FOR IDENTIFIED / PROJECTED SALP 3 PERFORMANCE HEADQUARTER'S INVOLVED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REQUIRED: ENFORCEMENT (?)
MEETING WITH CEO USE OF 50.54(F) LETTERS l
j
2 BYRON LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
MAY 1984 - OCTOBEP 1985 RATINGS _ _ _
4 CATEGORY 3's (OPERATIONS; RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS; SURVEILLANCE; SECURITY)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONER VISITS l
RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
MODERATE IMPROVEMENT NOTED O
i
LASALLE LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
MAY 1984 - SEPTEMBER 1985 i
RATINGS _ _ _
4 CATEGORY 3's (OPERATIONS; MAINTENANCE; SURVEILLANCE; QUALITY PROGRAMS)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS PROJECT ASSESSMENT 50,54(F) LETTER COMMISSIONER VISITS AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS MONTHLY MANAGEMENT MEETINGS PROJECT REAPPRAISAL IN SIX MONTHS l
RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
SOME IMPROVEMENT NOTED
I.
D. C. COOK LAST SALP PERIOD _ _ _
APRIL 1984 - SEPTEMBER 1985 RATINGS _ _ _
3 CATEGORY 3's (SURVEILLANCE; SECURITY; QUALITY PROGRAMS)
NRC ACTIONS _ _ _
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT ASSESSMENT AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS REFOCUSED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS QUARTERLY MANAGEMENT MEETINGS RESULTS TO DATE _ _ _
SOME IMPROVEMENT NOTED I
_, _.., _. ~ -, _
MSN0000AASTM)AAAAAAA0Nh(IMMMNk(W)Mk&&&Q F
9/35 3~
TRANSMITTAL TD:
// /
Document (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED (DPY TO: /
/
'Ihe Public Documnt Rxxn b
cc: C&R
/
tac FI n t:
SECY OPS BRAFOi
^
papers)
Attached are copies of a Cbmnission I:eeting transcript (s) and related meeting doctztent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placemnt in the Public Document Rocxn. tb other distribution is requested or regturoi. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual I
Meeting Date:
documents wherever kre n.
3%ea b obeting
Title:
[ertudte-el ncs J
J
,Md m (Sk MW%
~3l3(,lS(o Open )(
Closed DCS Copies (1 of each checked)
Iten
Description:
Copies Advanced original May Duplicate.
-e, To PDR Eccumnt be Dup
- Coov*
l
~
1.
TPAS$CRIPT 1
1 l
hhen checked, DCS should send a j
transcript to the copy of this/Sc d(ag j
LPDR for: (d OkM -
t M Of*1P S f
3 2.
z g
I 3.
- i
{i l4-c, e
ll il g
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document,
- Verify if in DC3, and tw of each SEEY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
l 0%%%%%%%%%%%%%WNNNhWWWMhWNNnWWNW@@OMNNMhW