ML20155F168
| ML20155F168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8810130174 | |
| Download: ML20155F168 (106) | |
Text
..
'l J R G \'A _
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l i
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF PEACll BOTTOM i
Location: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND l
l Date: OCTOBER 5, 1988 ,
l i l
Pages: 1 to 56 l
l l
l Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters l 1625 l Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- !A ?8a?A " 2 PT9.7 PNV Q2 oII ,
I
4' l l
DISCLAIMER This' is an unof ficial transcript of a meeting l of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on october 5, l' 88 in the Commission's of fice at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was l
open to public attendance and observation. This transcript j i
has not been reviewed, corrected or edi ted, and it may j contain inaccuracies, i The transcript is intended solely for general l
informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Exp.aessions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any ;
statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
m 4
0
1 t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON STATUS OF PEACil BOTTOM 6
6 PUBLIC MEETING see g
8 9
)
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 Wednesday, October 5, 1988 13 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10:00 a.m., the lionorable LANDO W. ZECll, Chairman 17 of the Commission, presiding.
18 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 21 LAN DO W . ZECil, Chairman of the Commission 22 KENNET!! M. CARR, Member of the Commission 23 KENNET!! C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 24
~ )
i 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT Tile COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3 S. Cl! ILK 4 N. PARLER 5 J. PAQUETTE 6 D. SMITl!
7 C. MCNEILL, JR.
8 J. COTTON 9 J. TAYLOR 10 W. KANE ,
11 B. RUSSELL 12 T. MURLEY 13 B. BOCER 14 15 16 17 1
18 19
)
4 20 l
21 22 23 24 25 m
3 1 PROCEEDIEGS 2 (10:00 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning , ladies and gentlemen.
4 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station has been shut down 5 by NRC Order since March, 1987. The Order resulted from 6 investigation results indicating pervasive inattentiveness 7 of licensed operators on watch in the control room and the a f ailure of Philadelphia Electric Coinpany management to correct 9 this inattentive behavior.
10 The purpose of today's meeting is for Philadelphia 11 Electric Company and the NRC Staff to brief the Commission 12 concerning the status of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant 13 and the actions being taken to determine the state of 14 readiness for re-start of operation at Peach Bottom.
16 Today's meeting is for information only. There is 16 no vote scheduled today. The Commission will meet again at a 17 later date in order to consider a re-start decision for Peach 18 Bottom.
19 I understand the copies of the slides are available N as you enter the room.
21 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 22 comments they would like to make?
23 (No response.)
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, Mr. Paquetto, you may begin.
25 MR. PAQUETTE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good 4
4 1
morning. I am Joseph Paquette, Chairman and CEO of s Philadelphia Electric. My associates and I appreciate this 3 Opportunity to give the Commission a status report on our 4 efforts to restore the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station to a operational readiness and to ultimate operational excellence.
6 With me at the table today, Mr. Corbin McNeill, our l 7 Executive Vice President for Nuclear Operations; Mr.
3 Dickinson Smith, our site Vice President at Peach Bottoms and i
l e Mr. John Cotton, Superintendent of Operations at the plant, to who is substituting for Mr. John Franz, the Plant Manager, 11 who incidentally la on his honeymoon.
12 Additional members of our corporate and plant 13 organization are also in attendance today and are available 14 to answer questions.
16 Our presentation today will focus on three areas.
16 Mr. McNeill will report on our nuclear organization and on 17 the results of our self-assessment of readiness for re-start.
Is Mr. Smith will discuss the status of the plant and its to operating personnel and their readiness. I will start off 20 by reviewing the significant changes made in our corporate 21 organizatior. to strengthen the management support, oversight 22 and quality of our nuclear operations.
23 Immediately following the shutdown, the company 24 embarked on major programs to institute changes of equipment, l
25 people, programs and attitudes at the plant. 'Although not l
1
4 5
1 initially recognized, a cultural change at corporate 2 headquarters was also required.
3 Let me reassure the commission today that your 4 message on this extremely important factor has been received, 5 is now fully understood, and is being implemented. The new 6 management of this company understands the seriousness of the 7 Peach Bottom situation and we are implementing the steps a necessary to support the cultural changes required to foster 9 effective self-acsessment, accountability by line management, 10 and positive attitudes towards regulation.
11 In addition, we have sent a clear message to our 12 organization that we personally are committed to these 13 changes.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. PAQUETTE: To begin, I would like to describe 16 the significant changes made in our corporate organization .
17 which provide for strengthened line management and improved 18 communication and accountability for the nuclear organi=ation 19 by corporate management.
M The key change was establishing a separate l
21 organization with full responsibility fer nuclear operations ,
i 22 under the leadership of Mr. McNeill in the new position of 23 Executive Vice President reporting.directly to me. The top !
i 24 officials at Peach Bottom and Limerick have been promoted to M Corporate Vice Presidents, thus providing them with direct
6 g access to the CEO on a regular basis and strengthening the 2 relationship between corporate and plant management.
3 We have also reduced layers of management, 4 streamlined the organization and, thereby, increased 5 management control and involvement in timely problem e identification and resolution. ;
7 In the area of quality assurance and safety review, j i
a we have consolidated and strengthened our nuclear quality and !
e safety review organizations and significantly reduced their to role and reporting level within the company.
l 11 As CEO, I realize I have ultimate responsibility [
i 12 for performance of our nuclear plants and have made a l 13 determined ef fort to keep fully informed about our nuclea'r 14 operations and to visit our plants frequently. For example,
- 15 since I re-joined PE in March of this year, I have visited f 16 Peach Bottom on nine occasions and Limerick on four others.
i 17 These visits have included a number of discussions with the l
.i 18 operators on shift and I intend to continue them when the l
19 plant is back in operation.
l 20 I have also instituted a new practice of having Mr.
21 .McNeill present a monthly oral report on nuclear operations f 22 to all of our corporate officers to improve their understanding 2 of this inportant aspect of our company. We have also 24 recently recruited a new Vice President for Human Resource 25 Activities. This individual is a career professional who
7 4
1 clearly understands the role of human resources in supporting 2 line management in carrying out its responsibilities.
3 We have also considerably strengthened the Board 4
of Directors' oversight of our nuc' lear operations. A new 5 Nuclear Committee of the Board of Directors is now in place 6 with a specific charter to provide oversight and management 7 assessment of our nuclear operations. The committee consists 8 of five outside members of the Board with the assistance of 9 two advisers with extensive technical experience in nuclear to power. The committee has direct access to Mr. NcNeill and 11 the entire nuclear organization including our quality 12 assurance organization and our Nuclear Review Board.
13 So far this year, the committee has met 24 times 14 including four times at Peach Bottom and twice at Limerick.
15 In addition, the entire Board receives a written and oral 18 report from Mr. McNeill monthly on the status of our entire 17 nuclear program.
18 In the final analysis, the key to success in any 19 organization is the caliber of its people and the level of 20 their dedication, integrity and professionalism. We have 21 increased the number of operating personnel and enhanced their 22 selection, training and qualification. I firmly believe that 23 our nuclear personnel under the overall direction of Mr.
24 McNeill, and with the able assistance of such people as Mr.
M Smith and the other members of corporate and plant managgment
'r>
8
~
t and supervision, are capable of providing the leadership, l j 2 expertise, integrity and accountability required to restoro Peach Bottom to operational excellence. I believe that the a
f 4 success of our Lime.ick station demonstrates our potential. f l
] 5 Today Peach Bottom is not ready to re-start but I f
- i 1 e am happy to report that we are well on our way to the !
l 7 successful achievement of that objective. Work is continuing j s to complete the remaining preparation for re-start items j l
j g identified in our recent self-assessment. When that is [
. p i to completed and when we have determined we are ready, we will !
1 !
I j 11 ask the commission for approval to re-start under a very i
! 12 deliberate and controlled test and power ascension program. l
! 13 Philadelphia Electric has devoted significant 3 i j 14 resources to the correction of the deficiencies uncovered at l 1
{ 15 the plant and in the management organization and practices (
j 16 which existed. Every action taken has been designed to ;
l !
l 17 restore the plant to operational readiness to assure l l i J le continued protection of the public safety and to restore i i I 19 public confidence in our ability to operate the plant in 30 accordance with the highest standards. !
l 21 We recognize that the many improvements we have l l
n made do not permit us to be satisfied and that we must s
j 23 continue the cycle of improvement, assessment and improvement l 24 again. Philadelphia Electric is committed to that course.
25 If there are any questions at this time, I will be
~ -
i 9 !-
- 1 very happy to attempt to answer them. i i i
- 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- You may proceed. Thank you. l a
! 3 MR. PAQUETTE: Otherwise, I will now ask Mr. ;
1 j 4 McNeill to discuss our nuclear organization. l
- t 3
I 6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. McNeill. l
) s MR. MCNEILL: Thank you, Joe. Good morning. I am I
7 Corbin McNeill, the Executive Vice President, Nuclear, of j l
1 s Philadelphia Electric. I joined the company in March of this !
s year after having been Chief Nuclear Of ficer of Public Service j t
to Electric and Gas Company for three years. Prior to that, I !
i i j 11 had served for three years as Plant Manager of the James A. t
- I 12 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant of the New York Power 1 e
! 13 Authority and earlier had served a 20-year career in the i
! i i 14 Navy's nuclear submarine program. !
l i 15 When I joined Philadelphia Electric, it was with [
i
! Is the understanding that the company was committed to quality )
I
[ 17 and to excellence. I would like to assure you that Mr. l
)
la Paquette and the Board of Directors by their active [
19 participation and resource commitment'have more than met the !
I I
) 20 test. i
} f l 21 Mr. Paquette has described several of the corporate j i
I 22 level changes which have been initiated to effect a new j i
j culture. I would like to highlight several of the specific 23 f
. 24 changes relative to the nuclear organization which improve !
i 1 25 our organizational effectiveness and ensure good management l i
)
- q .
1 10 1
control of both Peach Bottom and Limerick, 2 (Slide.)
3 MR. MCNEILL: We have concentrated our efforts for 4 achieving improved effectiveness in the four areas shown here.
8 I shall discuos each. The nuclear group has been established 6 as a separate organization with responsibility and 7 accountability for all functional areas related to nuclear.
s I report directly to the Chairman and Chief Executive of ficer.
9 (Slide.)
to MR. MCNEILL: As shown on this slide, I have six !
11 direct line reports representing operations at our two 12 stations -- Peach Bottom and Limerick -- completion of ;
13 construction of Limerick Unit 2 which will be ready for fuel 14 load by the middle of next year; a nuclear engineering 15 organization dedicated to our two plants; e nuclear services to organization; and a quality assurance organization which 17 includes independent safety and engineering groups and a 18 performance assessment group.
19 The independent safety engineering group at each m) site performs the traditional technical specification 21 defined role of independent significant event review, 22 operations monitoring, and safety evaluation review.
23 The performance monitoring group is our internal l 24 INPO type organization which monitors functional effectiveness
. 25 against the various INPO evaluation criteria and guidelines, I
l
11 1 as compared to compliance-related inspections.
2 As a dedicated organization, we are able to focus 3 on nuclear issues without dilution by other production matters ,
4 This structure has resulted in reducing the average number 6 of management layers from seven to five. Additionally, all 6 of the working forces at the station work for the site 7 organization, rather than being matrixed elsewhere in the 8 company as they previously were. Thus, on-site responsibility 9 and accountability truly rests with the site Vice president.
10 Reducing the layers of management and eliminating 11 the matrix structural organization has significantly enhanced 12 open two-way communication, particularly in problem 13 identification, analysis and resolution.
14 Mr. Paquette has described the fact that a major 15 cultural change is underway in Philadelphia Electric. That to change is most evident within the nuclear group. We have 17 attempted to set the attitude of the people in the work 18 environment by defining a virion and set of values which 19 define our management commitments and focus our employees' 20 priorities.
21 (slide.)
Zi MR. MCNEILL: As you see here, we have a lofty 23 vision of being world class, and we define our values set
'44 focusing on safety, quality, our people and their teamwork, 25 This value set is a key elemenc of the new culture we are 9
12 1
embracing in the nuclear group. Experience tells me that a 2 lofty vision and high standards are effective only if there L
3 are controls for ineasuring performance against these 'high 4 standards.
5 (Silde.)
6 MR MCNEILL: We have improved management control 7 by establishing definitive goals in all functional areas, ,
8 by developing performance monitoring reports which show our o progress, and, even more importantly, reports which highlight to areas where increased management attention is required. ,
11 We further enhance the process by requiring 100 l 12 percent performance appraisals and by ensuring that both l i
la plant and corporate managers visit the plants frequently. j
! Another element of control is oversight.
14 1
15 (Slide.) [
16 MR. MCNEILL: As Mr. Paquette has indicated, we L i l
- 17 have significantly improved our management oversight of 18 nuclear operations, starting with the Board of Directors and 4 ,
i 19 their standing Nuclear Committee. Likewise, we have i \
20 revitalized our Nuclear Review Board and have restructured ;
) 21 and strengthened our quality assurance organization.
72 (Slide.) )
l Z3 MR. MCNEILL: liowever, the most important thing we '
)
3 24 have accomplished in this area is to make a strong commitment, 25 organizational commitment, to effective oversight and to l
1 l
13 t create an environment which is conducive to self-critical
~
2 analysis. Without these, any oversight can be only marginally 3 effective.
4 (Slide.)
5 MR. MCNEILL: Our Nuclear Review Board C'hairman 6 and the General Manager of Quality Assurance report directly 7 to me. The General Manager of Quality Assurance is also held 8 responsible for ensuring that the quality is built into our 9 processes from the beginning and not just inspected in at the 10 end. This places a responsibility for involvement of Quality 11 Assurance up front in program development in all of our 12 activities.
13 Our Nuclear Review Board has been reconstituted to 14 have a full-time chairman and has employed three outside 15 consultants.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. MCNEILL: It reports directly to me and has 18 been aiven particular responsibilities for reviewing plant 19 operations, engineering and radiological safety. I have found M the Board's reports particularly useful in highlighting 21 issues such as diesel generator fuel tank erosion and 22 emergency cooling tower testing which have been unresolved M for several years.
24 In preparation for re-start, they have also 25 provided good insight as to the effectiveness of our internal 4 i ,
14 1 ' communications and the organizational response to the many 2 improvements that we have underway.
3 (Slide.)
4 MR. MCNEILL: The quality assurance organization 8 has been rostructured by consolidating four separate 6 organizations, each of which was operating under a different 7 program, into one organization. We have brought fivo new I
8 people into the top seven positions in this organization, 9 two of whom were from outside of Philadelphia, thus infusing to new ideas and viewpoints into the organization.
11 Additionally, we have added approximately 120 years 12 of outside experience into other various levels of the 13 organization. The quality assurance organization provides l 14 independent reports to the Nuclear Review Board, the Nuclear 15 Committoo of the Board of Directors and, at the site level, 16 to the site Vice President.
4 j 17 The effectiveness of this organization and its 18 respect within the nuclear group is demonstrated by the 19 decreasing trend in outstanding findings and the decreasing M trend in the average age of their findings.
21 In addition to those changes, we bevo also 22 demonstrated our commitment to safety and high standards by 23 instituting a strong drug policy which includes testing of 24 all personnel with unescortad access by November 1st of this 1
25 year and random screening during the following year. We have
15 1 terminated the employment of seven individuals who have been 2 identified as drug dealers either on or off our nuclear 3 facilities.
4 The changes within Philadelphia Electric's nuclear 6 group are significant and have produced positive results. We e now have the ability to effectively respond to NRC findings 7 and INPO evaluation results but, even more importantly, we 8 have the ability to identify and respond to issues and 9 weaknesses before they are identified by outside agencies.
10 Since excellence is an undefinable goal, we are not satisfied 11 with our current level of performance and we never will be.
12 However, when we have completed the open items which Mr.
13 Smith will discuss we will be ready for re-start and I am 14 confident that the weaknesses identified by the post shutdown is analysis have been satisfactorily corrected. i 16 This concludes this part of my presentation. I am !
17 free for questions.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Proceed.
f 19 MR. PAQUETTE: All right. Mr. Smith will detail i
20 specifica concerning the Peach Bottom station. ;
l 21 MR. SMITH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner si 22 I ara Dickinson Smith. After completing a naval career, I l
i 23 joined Philadelphia Electric in May of 1987, shortly after j 24 the shutdown. I came onboard as the Plant Manager and, as .
l 25 Joe has mentioned, with the reorganization of last fall, ,
i
16 1
became the station Vice President.
2 It is my pleasure this morning to talk to you about 3 the overall readiness at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power 4 Statica --
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. SM7TH: -- in these three areas -- people, plant 7 and programs. I hope to be able to cemonstrate to you some 8 of the results of our efforts in this past year.
g In the area of peop's, with the reorganization of to last fall, the station came under one leadership and I brought 11 in a number of new managers to help run the station. We 12 looked at what was available at Peach Bottom, what was 13 available in other parts of Philadelphia Electric, and what 14 we needed to bring in from outside Philadelphia Electric.
15 of my managers and supervisors, which are the top 16 two layers, and myself -- of us, 14 people -- seven were 17 brought in from outside Philadelphia Electric. Of those is seven, I am the only one without outside nuclear industry 19 experience. The other six people have an average of ten and M one-half years of experience in other parts of the industry.
21 (Slide.)
ZI MR. SMITil: The other seven individuala leadino 23 the station who were with Philadelphia Electric at the time 24 of the shutdown, of 'those seven only three were at Peach 25 Bottom at the time of the shutdown. The other four were
17 1
brought in as proven performers from other areas of 2 Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany.
3 In addition to bringing in top' leadership from 4
outside Philadelphia Electric and from other parts of the 5 nuclear 4.ndustry, we have hired 19 other professionals at 6 various experience levels to provide outside experience.
7 The average experience of thoce individuals is reven and one-g half years in other parts of the industry. We feel that the g infusion of these new managers from outside Philadelphia to Electric and from other parts of the industry -- other parts 11 of Philadelphia Electric -- has enhanced the leadership at 12 Peach Bottom. We have embarked upon numerous management 13 training programs and believe that we have enhanced the skills g of the managers there.
15 We have opened up lines of communication at the 16 station, partially by bringing everyone under the same 17 organization and under the same management. We have developed 18 3n attitude of teamwork and have sat out clearly the i 19 accountabilities of each of the people. The site meetings m that are' held under Mr. McNeill's leadership on a monthly 1
21 basis are critical appraisals of where we~ stand at the site n and where we are going.
23 We have developed a number of newsletters to keep l l
24 our people informed and I personally run a "Tell it to the 2 Vice President" program where people can '> ring any subject t
l 18 1
they want to my attention anonymously. I have received about 2 2,000 questions from the employees at the station.
3 I would like to d.well a little bit on operator 4 readiness.
5 (Slide.) .
6 MR. SMITH: I will talk to operator readiness in 7 three areas -- staffing, training and working hour a restrictions. Currently at the station we are on six shifts.
g We intend to be on six shifts for the re-start and for the 10 future. Each of those shifts is led by a Shift Manager.
11 This person is a qualified Senior Reactor Operator who was 12 a Staff Engineer at Peach Bottom at the time of the shutdown.
13 In addi'...; td having an SRO license, he has 14 received extensive nianagement training and was evaluated and 15 selected for this position. In addition to the Shift Manager, 16 on each shift there are two other Senior Reactor Operators 17 who fill the post of Shift Supervisors. Additionally, each 18 shift has three Reactor Operators wl.ich are required by to technical specifications. Therefore, we are presently manned 20 with one Senior Reactor Operator on each shift more than 21 required by technical specifications.
22 Our goal at Peach Bottom is to also add an 23 additional Reactor Operator to each shift. We will not 24 achieve that goal until late 1909 or early 1990 but the
. 25 training programs that lead to that are already in place.
O
19 1 Having these additional operators will give us the fle'xibility 1
2 we seek to control overtime, to provide more off-shift breaks 3 for the operators so that they can leave shift duty for a 4 period of weeks or months, and it will also provide off-shift l
5 career opportunities for operators so that once on shift work 6 they can see a future for them getting of f shif t work as they 7 come up through the levels.
s We also, with these additional operators, will be 9 able to embark on college programs for our Reactor Operators 10 that we have already scoped out but we are not presently able 11 to use until we have sufficient operators to make them 12 available for these programs.
13 (Slide.)
14 MR. SMITH: As I say, it will probabl- be early 15 1990 before we achieve these levels.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are you talking about people to 17 operate both units?
18 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. Both units, yes, sir.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And, your plans are to have that 20 number of RO's and SRO's that you mentioned in the control 21 ropm on both units.
22 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. We have a single control M room and on each shift operating the two units would be those 1
)
24 numbers -- three ERO's, one of whom is the Shift Manager, and ;
25 three Reactor Operators. l e
- 1 q .
20 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, tell me again, then on total 2
number in the control room, if both reactors were operating 3 at full power, how many RO's and SRO's would you have?
4 MR. SMITH: Three SRO's and three Reactor Operators.
5 One of the SRO's would be the Shift Manager.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Three SRO's and one of them would 7 be the Shift Manager.
8 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And three RO's.
to MR. SMITH: Yes, one on unit two, one on unit three, it and one we call the Chief Operator -- the required number by 12 technical specifications.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay. Thank you. And six shifts.
14 MR. SMITH: Six shifts.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
16 MR. SMITH: In the area of operator training, we 17 have done extensive training since the shutdown in the 18 simulator.
19 (Slide.)
m MR. SMITH: We began in the simulator at the i I
21 Limerick Generating Station late last year and early this 22 year and then shifted to simulator training in a Peach Bottom 23 specific simulator which was under contract and is being 24 finished at the Singer plant in Columbia, Maryland. That is l
25 not yet totally completed and is not in place at Peach Bottom s .
l
21 1 but we are able to do training on the factory floor. We -
l 2 are presently in the fourth cycle of simulator training, the 3 third cycJe in our own Peach Bottom specific simulator. That 4 last cycle of training began this week and will continue for 5 the next several weeks as we go through each of the shifts 6 to ensure that the people are in f act ready for the re-start.
7 In addition to simulator training, we have done 8 required professional training in the classroom and all of 9 our operators at Peach Bottom have gone through either 10 initial certification or recertification boards between the 11 time of shutdown and the present.-
12 In addition to the professional licensed type of 13 training, we have also done personal effectiveness training.
14 This was training to enhance the operator's ability to' deal 15 with other individuals, to deal with difficult situations, to 16 improve his communication skills. This training was 17 conducted for all licensed Reactor Operators and Senior 18 Reactor Operators who are presently on the shifts and will be 19 done for those that come on the shifts in the future. It 20 was also conducted for all of the Shift Managers and for the 21 operations leadership.
22 After we had conducted this pers'onal effectiveness 23 training, we formed the six shif ts into shif t teams and began 24 team training. One of the cycles in the simulator that I l
25 mentioned was devoted to this team-building, communications, a i
l '
i
\
22 1 I and working together. In addition to that, in each simulator 2 cycle we are evaluating their teamwork ability and emphasizing 3 a teamwork evaluation one day of the cycle.-
4 The training that I have described is the training 5 of the present operators. Additionally, we have five 6 licensed Reactor Operators who are in the final stages of 7 training before going into the control room. They passed the -
8 ST(C examination this July and are doing some last minute 9 training, including personal effectiveness training, this to fall and will come on watch before we re-start to gain the 11 experience in watching the plant go up to power. They will 12 of course only have restricted licenses to cold operations k
13 and will have to gain experience in the operating plant after 14 we get back to power.
15 Beyond that, we have put 16 non-licensed operators 16 into a pre-licensing course which will take approximately two 17 months. On the completion of that course, we have another 18 16 non-licensed operators who will go into a pre-licensing I 19 course for, again, a period of two months. Those who meet ;
20 our standards will take the NRC theory examination schedulo 21 for next February and, passing that, we will put about 16 22 into the complete licensing course leading to license's in 23 late 1989 or early 1990. It is from this group that we will 24 achieve the necessary numbers to have the flexibility that we 25 are seeking.
23 .
1 Looking further downstream to the future, we have l 2 hired 35 new helpers into the operations section. Of these 3 35, 32 are former Navy enlisted men that have a minimum of 4 six years experience in the Navy nuclear power program. The 8 other three have at least two years of college experience 6 before being hired as helpers.
7 In addition to the training shown on this slide, a we have put the next generation of shift managers into g training. We have seven carefully selected staff engineers to in S30 training at the present time and we will be developing 11 from among that group our next set of Shift Managers. We 12 also have plans to begin a Senior Reactor Operator license 13 class for some present Reactor Operators beginning early in 14 1989. That again, by late 1989/early 1990, will. give us 15 flexibility. of Senior Reactor Operators.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. SMITH: Finally, in che area of operator working t
18 hour restrictions, we have recently submitted to the NRC a 19 proposed technical speca:Ention amendment which af fects the m operator overtime hours, as well an overtime hours of all 21 people involved on safety-related equipment. This technical ;
l 22 specification amendment is based on the proposed policy 1 23 statement by the NRC and, as far as I know, we are the first 24 utility to embrace the principles of that policy statement.
25 The proposed amendment has short and long-term 9
24 I restrictions, hours allowed to work in one day as well as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> ' allowed to work over.the course of a year with various 3 intermediate. points.
4 We are developing the administrative controls and 5 they will ba in place prior to re-start.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. SMITH: Shifting from people to plant, I will 8 talk briefly about the plant readiness in the areas of 9 corrective and preventive maintenance, modifications, and 10 how we are doing in cleaning up the plant. First off, the 11 work orders. Would you put up the work order slide, please.
12 (Slide.)
13 MR. SMITH: In the area of work orders, we have 14 since the refueling outage which began shortly before the 15 shutdown order, we have completed over 14,000 separate work 16 items at the station. We are presently working on just 17 slightly over 1,000 work orders. These consist of preventive 18 maintenance items, approximately 250 preventive maintenance 19 items, slightly over 200 items relating to modifications that 20 we intend to complete prior to re-start, leaving about 600 21 corrective maintenance items that we anticipate accomplishing 22 prior to re-start.
23 Now, I'm not saying by that, Mr. Chairman , that 24 cach and overy one of these will be done but we anticipate i I
25 getting this down to a very small number and to be able to l
i 9
. 25 1
l 1 justify why those are not necessary for re-start when we get 2 to that point.
3 (Slide.)
4 MR. SMITH: The other preventive maintenance - we 5 had a backlog of overdue preventive maintenance at the station 6 that went back unfortunately for a number of years. The 7 standpipes on this graph show a great increase from last 8 December to early this year as we really got our hands around 9 the magnitude of the problem and reviewed all of the
- 10 requirements of the vendors manuals and other documentation 11 to determine what preventive maintenance was actually 12 reqdired.
13 Our workoff rate has been very marked. The 262 14 items shown are those items which are either presently due 15 or overdue or will come due before the 30th of November of 18 this year. We would anticipate by re-start that there will 17 be no overdue preventive maintenance items on unit two and 18 common equipment. Let me add, there will be some that are 19 due but no overdue items.* '
E) (Slide.) -
21 MR. SMITH: In the area of modifications, we are 22 tracking down to zero on the modifications. There are 28 l
'23 mods that are now totally finished'but each and every one of y i
24 these is in stages of installation and by the end of November 25 these shoold be totally closed out.
5
1
-y 26 1 (Slide.)
2 MR. SMITH: We think we have made great progress 3 in decontamination and cleaning up of the station. When we 4 met with you last September, Mr. Russell made the comment 5 that we were one of the most contaminated plants in the 6 region. I'm not sure if he said one of them or the most 7 contaminated plant in the region. But we were not proud of 8 our surf ace area contamination and we think we have made great 9 progress in that area..
10 Approximately 33 percent of the available surface 11 area was contaminated when we got heavily into this program.
12 We are.below the industry average for boiling water reactors 13 and we anticipate achieving our goal of ten percent somewhere 14 near the end of the year. The difficulty of course is that 15 as you get closer and closer you are cleaning up spots that 16 are harder and harder to clean up. But we have made a 17 significant amount of progress in this area.
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. SMITH: We also embarked two years ago on a 20 cleaning and painting program that we called the detailed 21 plant cleaning program where we paint the floors and the walls 22 and all of the equipment. We are over 80 percent completed M with that program and will continue on until its done but then it will be time to come back and start over in some of
~
24
. 25 the areas. So, this will be an ongoing program to keep the j .
i 9
1
27 1 plant in the condition it should be. Now, this painting 2 progress is units two and three and the emphasis has been on 3 unit two. So, unit two is higher than the 80 percent and 4 unit three is slightly behind.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. SMITH: Shifting then to the area of programs, 7 there are many, many programs that we looked at and tried to 8 improve our performance in since the shutdown. I have listed 9 only a few of them here. Just a word or two about several of to them.
11 In the emergency preparedness area, we have made a 12 number of changes. We brought the site emergency preparedness 13 under my control. Because of the numbers of new managers, we 14 have had to do a lot of retraining of people in various 15 positions. We upgraded our procedures and improved the 16 workoff rate on items that had been backlogged for correction.
17 The culmination of.this effort was in the emergency 18 preparedness drill of last week which was a successful drill 19 and was announced by the NRC in the exit interview as our M having demonstrated performance which was adequate to protect 21 the. health and safety of the public. So, we feel that program 22 is in good shape.
23 In the area of procedures, we reviewed all the 24 cla'sses of procedures at the station to determine which ones 25 individually or as a class should be revised prior to the
28 1 re-start and which on,es should be revised in the longer term
! 2 or which ones were fully adequate as they were. That effort 3 has been completed. Those procedures we need for the re-start 4 are either completed and in place or are very nearly completed 5 and will be easily in place shortly.
6 We have also set up a good document control system 7 such that procedures changes can be initiated easily by the 8 people in the field and actions taken on ther.. in a prompt 9 manner. The changes, when recognized, are put into the 10 procedures and those are delivered to the operators so that 11 they have'them available, and also they have the necessary 12 drawings to do the operation of the plant.
13 The operating experience assessment program was one 14 in which we were criticized by the Institute of Nuclear 16 Power Operations and we recognize that we did not have a good 16 strong program at the station. It was primarily being run 17 out of the corporate offices and we didn't have ownership of 18 it out at the stations. We have turned that around, We are 19 running a good program now but it is so now that we really M can't evaluate how good it is. It has only recently been put 21 into place with the controls that presently exist. That was 22 the comment of the Institute when they were in recently, that 2 it looked okay but we want to see it for a while.
24 The commitment tracking program is a similar i
- 2 program. We had a commitment tracking system previously'but l
i .> .
~
29 1 the people at the station did not feel cwnership of'the 2 commitments and it was not an easily retrievable system. We 3 have made major changes to that system. The new commitments 4 that have gone into the present program are recognized by'us 5 at the station as our yesponsibility and we are working on 6 those commitments. We are still working on the backlog to 7 bring that up-to-date.
8 In the configuration management area, we have 9 embarked on a two-pronged approach -- one the short-term and to one the long-term. We feel that in the short-term, we are 11 very close to demonstrating that we do know the configuration 12 of the plant and we do understand what in out there. The 13 drawings are in place and the procedures are correct.
14 As.a long-term program over the course of the next 15 two or three years, we will be doing a major effort to 16 reconstitute the design basis and do other things necessary 17 to get a top-of-the-industry configuration management program.
18 The other three areas on this slide I want to talk 19 about separately. Security is an area where we are not yet 20 ready for re-start. We are not yet at the stage we expect to 21 be or want to be. We have had a history at Peach Bottom of 22 poor SALP ratings in security, numerous violations in this 23 area, and poor morale among the guard force. We were making 24 some improvements but slow improvements and this spring 25 recognized with a detailed .scif-assessment by our own NQA k
(
30 1 or'ganization that we just were not making the progress that 2 we should. We brought in a new manager at the station and 3 we brought in a new contractor to run the secdrity for us.
4 Presently, we have much Laproved our management 5 involvement and by that I mean our Philadelphia Electric 6 Company management involvement. Again, with the reorganizatior ,,
7 security came under my control, rather than being controlled a from the corporate offices. We changed the leader of the 9 security force at the station. We brought onboard shift to security assistants so that 24' hours a day there is a 11 Philadelphia Electric person in charge at the station. We 12 have much closer working' relationships with the new contractor 13 than we had with the former cont'ractor. The transition to 14 the new contractor occurred at the end of August. This 15 contractor runs our security organization at Limerick which 16 has been rated SALP-1 and is SALP-1 at some other plants 17 around the company. They were selected primarily based on 18 per fo rmance.
19 We have improved the status of our equipment and 20 systems at the station ranging from flashlight batteries to 21 tho' perimeter intrusion detection system. So, we have good 22 solid systems at the present time.
23 We have upgraded the training not only for the 24 guard force but also for the general population and gener'al
- 25 employee training to enhance the understanding of the role
31 1 of the guards and the inter-relationships that are necessary 2 for this to work. We feel that he are on the way. There are
~
3 a few of these enhancements that are still being put into ,
4 place this month. We feel that we will have a solid
. 5 organization by the end of October.
6 In the area of radwaste, I highlight this area 7 because we had allowed a lot of radwaste to collect at the 8 station. 'We made a decision last summer to start shipping 9 radwaste within our barrel allotments and move it out of the 10 power block into our low level radwaste storage facility or 11 preferably to get it off the station. At that time we set as 12 a goal for dry active waste at the. station, no more than ten 13 percent of the capacity of the low level waste storage 14 facility. As you can see, we are way below that goal and-we 15 have at the station now about four percent of the capacity 16 of the low level radwaste facility.
17 COMMISSIONER CARR: What does that "DAW" mean 18 there?
19 MR. SMITH: Dry active waste.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR: All right.
21 MR. SMITH: Liquid wastes have shown a similar 22 decline, Commissioner. We had approximately 700 barrels of 23 liquid radioactive waste, some of which was high level 24 radwaste and some of which we didn' t know the contents. We 2 didn't know what the isotopes were, et cetera. It makes it
32 1 very difficult to ship it and very costly to ship it. That 2 number of barrels is down to about 150 now which is abou*, the 3 number that we would have on hand all the time as inflow and 4 outflow. We have also taken the liquid wastn way down.
5 (Slide.) ,
6 MR. SMITH: In the area of radiation protection, 7 this is another area that we were not up to industry standards
- 8 at the time of the shutdown. Since the shutdown, we think we 0 have made marked steps in reducing station radiation exposure.
10 We have instituted 100 percent dose accountability. That is, 11 if you go into the p'ower block, you have to record your entry 12 into the power block, and we keep track of the dose that you ,
13 received in the power block. That did not occur previously.
14 The reportable uptakes have significantly decreased 15 as shown on this next chart.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. SMITH: Positive whole body counts which are a 18 measure of the uptakes have decreased from 14 in 1986 to 19 three in 1987 and so far this year we have had no positive M whole body counts. I am told the industry average is about 21 two whole body counts.
22 Finally, I want to talk about the pipe replacement 23 that was conducted on unit three at Peach Bottom.
24 (Slide,) ll 25 MR. SMITH: I have shown on thic chart a number of 1
w .
33 1 similar pipe replacement.9 that have been conducted throughout 2 the country. They are not in chronological order. They are 3 in decreasing order of personnel exposure.' You can'see on 4 the left, the highest exposure recorded for similar activity 5 was at Peach Bottom unit two in 1984. The lowest is the 6 Peach Bottom unit three which was just completed. The level 7 of effort at Peach Bottom unit three was greater th&n the' 8 level of effort shown on any of these other standpipes, and g the exposure was of course the least ever achieved in the 10 industry to th'is date. This has been cited by the Institute 11 and by your own inspectors as a very positive achievement.
12 (Slide.)
13 MR. SMITH: In summation, Mr. Chairman and 14 Commissioners, in the area of people, programs and plants, 15 we are not yet ready to start up Peach Bottom but we are 16 coming close. People -- we need to finish the cycle of 17 simulator training that we are going through now to assure 18 ourselves that our Reactor Operators are fully ready to run 19 an operating plant. ,
l 20 In the~ area of programs, we need to improve the !
21 performance of our security area and have that pass our own 22 self-evaluation before we are satisfied with security. And, 23 we'have der.reloped a master open items list in all other
_ 24 program areas such as open non-conformance reports, NQA 25 deficiencies, et cetera, that we are tracking down to zero 4
. 1
e 1 34 t before re-start.
2 In the area of the plant, we think the. plant is 1
3 ready for re-start with the exception of that approximately 4
1,000 work orders that we.will continue to work on in the 5 area of modifications, preventive maintenance and corrective 6 maintenance. We will of course be operable in the tech spec 7 definitions of all systems prior to re-start.
8 That concludes my comments subject to your 9 qu'estions. If not, we will go back to Mr. McNeill.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank'you very much.
11 MR. MCNEILL: The determination of our readiness 12 for re-start, as' subject to completion of the items that Mr.
13 Smith has noted, was made upon the recommendation of a 14 Re-start Review Panel consisting of senior Philadelphia 15 Electric pe'rsonnel not associated with Peach Bottom and 16 sever 31 consultants of national stature as shown on this 17 slide.
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. MCNEILL: The assessment process was conducted a during three sessions of two days each with most functional 21 managers appearing at all three sessions. These sessions ,
l 22 combined with in-plant observations by the re-start panel 23 members resulted in a recommendation for re-start. The panel 24 reviewed the 19 functional areas shown in this slide.
. 25 (Slide.)
i k
35 1 MR. MCNEILL: These areas were selected based not 2 only upon.their relation to safety but also because in some 3 we had identified problems during'the shutdown period. In 4 each functional area, the responsible manager was required 5 to identify the set of issues which the function had addressed 6 during the shutdown and to verify that list that the list was 1 complete. 'This verification was accomplished by reviewing s each of the items noted in the slide.
9 In each area, the manager was required to decide'the 10 various corrective action programs that had been undertaken 11 either as a result of the formal re-start program or otherwise 12 and then to describe the results of the action plans and how 13 they had been ver.ified.
14 Mr. Smith has shown you some of the information 15 that demonstrates the types and magnitudes of improvement 18 which were demonstrated. The re-start panel members by their 17 own observations verified many of the results. The 18 sufficiency of the results were substantiated by observation 19 as in the case of plant cleanliness or by comparison with 20 industry values in the example of radwaste accumulation.
21 Analytical techniques were used to confirm several M configuration management deficiencies that had been found.
M Finally, the panel required that each member 24 demonstrate the permanency of the improvements. Since the 25 many changes that were made would not land themselves to one
. 1 4
)
36 I common ' method of' ensuring permanence, broad latitude was 2 accepted. >
l 3 (Slide.)
4 MR. MCNEILL: Some of the types of issues that were 5 accepted are shown here -- proceduralization, continued '
6 management support. They were also required to highlight 7 areas of continuing improvement where they had long-term ;
a programs such as the one that was described by Mr. Smith for 9 configuration management where we are going to have a design to basis documentation' revision program.
11 I am also pleased to report that on September 30th
, 12 we completed the last of the 138 action items described in t i
13 our formal re-start plan.
14 (Slide.)
i 15 MR. MCNEILL: During the last several months we :
16 have dealt closely with the State of Maryland and the !
17 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to resolve comments which they 18 had submitted at the invitation of the NRC with respect to 19 our re-start plan. We reached agreement with the State of j
- 20 Maryland and are continuing' negotiations with the ,
21 commonwealth.
22 In addition, representatives of both states have
, 23 exercised full access to the Peach Bottom facility and have 24 kept themselves informed of our progress and have participated 25 with your inspactors in some observations in the plant.
i .
' 37 1
Our self-assessment will be confirmed by an INPO evaluation 2 which is currently in progress, and we expect an NRC 3 assessment to follow. We anticipate that we will be ready 4 for the NRC assessment mid-November.
5 I believe that Mr. Paquette has some closing 6 comments and remarks.
7 MR. PAQUETTE: I would just like to summarize, 8 Comraissioners, by saying that I personally am very proud of g the accomplishments of the team at Philadelphia Electric and 10 we are proud of what has been accomplished at the plant. I 11 would like to extent an invitation to all of you and your 12 staffs to pay another visit to the plant, if your schedule 13 will permit it, before we come back and ask for re-start 14 permission.
15 We also at this time.would be very happy to answer 18 any questions that you have.
17 CllAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
18 Any questions from my follow Commissioners. Commissioner 19 Carr.
20 COMMISSIONER CARR: No.
21 Cl! AIRMAN ZECll: Commissioner Rogers.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS : No.
n Cl! AIRMAN ZECII: You say your anticipated re-start 24 at this time is when?
25 MR. MCNEILL: In the normal progression of events,
, 38 1 we would look forward to actual re-start mid to late December, 2 if we follow in the normal progression of events from a team 3 inspection by the region in mid November.
4 Cl! AIRMAN ZECH: Late December.
1 5 MR. MCNEILL: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECHi All right. Let me just make a I 7 couple comments then before we ask the Staff to come forward.
8 In my review of all of the actions that led to the shutdown, 9 specifically the operators and then ultimately the management 10 situation that we were concerned about, I came up with a 11 couple statements that I want to give to you here just to 12 make sure that you understand at least my feelin.gs on the 13 importance of operating all of our power plants safely.
14 First of all, concerning the ope'ators themselves, 15 I believe that the Peact. Bottom operators should be reminded 16 that they o.ld a license from the United States government i 17 which confers upon them the special trust and confidence that 18 the American people place in them for the safe operation of 19 nuclear power facilities.
20 This obligation, in my view, places the operators
)
21 in the position where their performance is expected to be j l
22 above reproach. Now, this applies, as far as I am concerned, 23 not only to the Peach Bottom operators but to all operators 24 in our country.
25 As far as the management is concerned, and I know k
l t we don't have to review all that because you have made 2 significant management changes, most impressive changes. You 3 have taken obviously some very significant actions. But as 4 far as the enforcement action was concerned and management is 5 concerned at Peach Bottom, I'll try to summarize very briefly 6 my feeling in that regard in this way.
7 The only reason that I was able to approve the 8 enforcement action that we did take without insisting on the g revoking of individual operator license permanently was ,
10 because of the poor performance of senior utility management 11 at Peach Bottom who, at least in my view, either condoned 12 this inattentive behavior or were unaware of it. Either is l 13 acceptable.
14 Management's failure clearly contributed to and 15 exacerbated the situation, in my view. That is behind us now 16 I hope. That is what you are trying to do, I know. But I 17 think those are important lessons for all to be aware of --
18 not just Peach Bottom but all nuclear facilities. We expect l 19 the operators to operate the plants above reproach. We 20 expect management to be aware of what's going on, to be 21 concerned about what's going on, to be committed to quality 22 and to excellence, and to demand safe performance.
M Unless there are other comments from my follow 24 Commissioners --
25 (No response.) .
40
'l CHAIRMAN'ZECH: -- I would like to thank you for 2 your presentation, all of you', Mr. Paquette, you and your 3 colleagues. It is clear from your standpoint you have made 4 significant progress towards making the improvements that are i 6 clearly necessary at Peach Bottom.
i 6 We do know, from what you tell us this morning, l j 7 that there is more to be done but I believe your focus on j 8 people and on people performing in such a way that you should i
2 9 expect a commitment to excellence, that those are the things .
i i
j 10 that certainly should encourage you and us that you are,
] 11 indeed, making progress at Peach Bottom.
12 I would only submit that you continue to do what l 13 you are doing as far as leadership and the people programs l '
t 14 are concerned. Changing of culture and changing attitudes is 15 extremely difficult but also very important. That of course ,
16 leads to, at least in my view, the technical safety changes ;
17 that are needed to ensure the public health and safety will ,
18 be protected.
19 We will look forward to your continued progress and M to seeing you again before making any re-start decision.
21 Thank you.
I M MR. PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.
23 MR. MCNEILL: Thank you very'much.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. The Staff may come 25 forward, please.
9 .
41
~
1 (Pause.)
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. With me at the table
'4 today from the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are Tom 5 Murley and Bruce Boger, and on my left from Region 1 is our 6 Regional Administrator Bill Russell and Bill Kane.
7 I woul.d like to give you an overview of the Staf f's 8 t. -
't Peach Bottom. I would like to make one or two points.
9 9ts. .' ";e has been considerable erfort placed on the bi .. .vei v' - 0 Peach ' Bottom since the shutdown and, as d . .e . wv .
.:. cLrn otaer stations, the Staff has set up a
( ,
12 i sr.n<.M c :' at.f the panel is representud by Bill Kane and 13 ,rv -
-e These cre senior managers who are providing 14 specla_ aversight of the work at Peach Bottom by the Staff Il and coordination of that work.
16 I would also like to emphasize that in the past l 17 yaar - over this year -- we expect to expend somewhere in 18 the order of about 9,000 direct inspection manhours in i 19 overview of the Peach Bottom work and recovery. This is
- 3) somewhere on the order of four times what we might normally i 21 expect at a station of this size.
22 I emphasize this because the Staff since the 1
23 shutdown has been deeply involved in overviewing the company's l 24 work and in reviewing the progress of their recovery and 25' re-start plan. ,
1
1 42 1 I will now ask Doctor Murley to start with his 2 comments.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. You may 4 proceed.
5 MR. MURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have 6 briefed the Commission on a couple of occasions over the past 7 year and a half on Peach Bottom. The problems that led us to 8 this situation are well known, so there is nc need to go 9 through those here today.
10 Philadelphia Electric we believe has now gotten 11 through the first two phases that we see develop as a pattern 12 in these. cases. The first phase is a recognition and 13 acknowledgement of their pr'oblems. The second phase is 14 analysis of their operations and their problems and making 15 the necessary fundamental changes in their organization.
16 The Staf f believes that the management changes 17 that Philadelphia Electric has made have been substantial 18 improvements. In particular, we have worked severa~1 years 19 and have several years experience working with Corbin McNeill 20 and with , John Frantz, the Plant Manager, who was not here 21 today but who was the former Plant Manager at Limerick. We 22 have confidence that they can bring good operations to Peach 23 Bottom.
24 Philade'1phia Electric is now well'into the third
- M phase that we see which is implementing the improvements and
43 I developing a smooth operating team at the site. We see 2 attitude changes throughout the operations but there is still 3 some important work that needs to be done before they.are 4 roady to resume operations.
6 In addition, the NRC Staff is going to have to make l 6 a thorough assessment and come to our own conclusions on the !
7 readiness to' resume operators.
8 Bill Russell will describe those activities.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECll: Thank you very much. You may 10 proceed.
- 11 MR. RUSSELL
- May I have the slide entitled
, 12 "Restart Criteria" please?
13 (Slide.)
! 14 MR. RUSSELL Mr. Chairman, we have tried to ,
i 15 summarizo here in one slido correspondence and responses 16 that have gono to congressional and the states in regarding 17 the critoria that the Staff will uso in judging their 18 readiness for re-start. !
l 1
19 The first two bullits, the licensee identification
) :
i 20 of root causes and the licensco correctivo actions which :
I 21 address those roou causes, are in the main complete. The l 22 full root causos of the shutdown woro identified in tho 1 23 licensoo's re-start plan. They were a lack of loadership ,
l 4
24 and management skills at the plant, of slowness in developing i
25 replacement operators which you.have just heard about, a j l
k ,
l
)
44 i I station culture for which the operators appear to be in !
2 control, rather than management in control of activities, 3 and the failure by the corporation to recognize the problems 4 which existed and to take timely action.
5 Now, those root causes are being addressed in a 6 comprehensive re-start plan which the Staf f has under review 7 and subject to receiving some written confirmation of f 8 information which has been verbally reported to the Staff, 9 we expect to issue a safety eva'luation approving that re-start l 10 plan in mid-October.
11 The key elements which have to be demonstrated to l 12 the staff to go beyond the plan -- the actual offectiveness 13 of operation -- relate to conclusions regarding the operator's 14 readiness to operate the plant safely. We will be doing 15 additional evaluations of the simulator training which the [
i le company has described and will necessarily reach conclusions l l
17 on operator performance and ability to effactively operate ;
18 the plant. L 19 Now, we are looking for a stable and effective !
20 licensee management and staff, stable in that the programs 21 that they have put in place are effectively being implemented 22 and that they hava the ability to assess their own performance 23 and take appropriate corrective action.
24 We are going tc be looking for demonstrated 25 improvement in the areas which were rated as unsatisfactorp
I
. 45 1 in the last SALP. By unsatisfactory, I mean that the 2 performance was such that we did not rate'it as a category 3 three but it was concluded to be in fact lower than that.
4 It was not rated. Now, these are the. areas of operations, 5 assurance of quality and training. And, we must assure 8 ourselves that the facility is physically ready for re-start.
7 That is that the equipment is in conformance with the required 1 .
8 technical specifications and that the other material 1
9 deficiencies which the company has described have in fact j 10 been corrected and the plant is physically ready.
i 11 We do expect .tx) complete a systematic assessment of
)
12 licensee performance and I do anticipate that we will be l 13 issuing that report next, week. You heard the company describe
! 14 their concerns in security. That is also a conclusion 15 preliminarily of the SALP Board. That area has degraded and 16 will be so reflected in the SALP report. We do expect that 17 that area will be improved. It does not appear at this point 18 to be on a controlling path. The issues that are necessary 19 are well defined and with the nea security contractor and the M emphasis that the company is now placing on security, we 21 expect that that can be resolved between now and the time 22 that the plant is estimating the re-start to occur.
2 I must admit the overall schedule described by the 74 company may be somewhat optimistic. We are looking at a team 25 inspection on the order of two to three weeks. If that starts
J 46 i
1 in mid-November, it takes time for us to evaluate those 2 results and to bring in a recommendation to the Commission.
i 3 Based'upon the experience with other facilities, that may be f
4 more on the order of six weeks, rather than the few weeks the
- 5 company described.
6 We will not bring that recommendation until such i
7 time as we are assured that the company and the facility is l
- 8 ready to operate.
- i j 9 I would like to have Mr. Kane, who is the Chairman
- 0 of the Re-start Panel, address the major Staff activition i
11 that need to be accomplished between now and the time we will 12 be prepared to come back to you with a re-start recommendation ,
13 Cl! AIRMAN ZECH: Fine. You may proceed. ,.
l l 14 MR. KANE: Could I have the next slide, please?
15 (Slide.) f IS MR. KANE: As Bill said, the way that we have !
l
!l 17 managed the review of the re-start of Peach Bottom is through f 18 the Re-start Assessment Panel. I would like to just at this f I
- 19 point acknowledge the other members of that panel. There is l M Mr. Boger of course, Mr. Regan of NRR, the Branch Chief, Mr.
3 21 Wenzinger, Mr. Gallo and Mr. Bellamy, Branch Chiefs in Region i 22 1, and Mr. Liaville, the Section Chief in my division, bthers j d
23 who are principal contributors to that of course, the senior l l i j 24 resident from the site, Tom Johnson, and the Project Manager, f 25 Bob Martin. So, it was through this process that we have been l
,_./_.-,,_,.--_,
_ _ _ , , _ . _ . - _ ,..._._.--_.._____-,,,,__,__-_e_-_.___
47 1 able to focus and control the myriad of activities that are 4 2 involved with a major re-start such as this.
3 What we do as a panel is to provide an overall l 4 focus for the control of activities and the assignment of ,
5 inspection resources to assure that the proper priorities are 6 achieved. !
l 7 I would like to touch on the safety evaluation 8 report at this time. As Bill mentioned, that has been 9 substantially prepared and is in the final editing stage ~and to we are awaiting some additional correspondence from the l 11 utility in order to finalize that report, ,and we would expect {.
12 to issue that on or about mid-month. The purpose of that 13 report I would point out is to assess the quality and the 1
14 timing and tha scope of the commitments to the individual l 15 actions that are in response to the root causes. It does not ,
1 j 16 in any way make a determination as to the adequacy of how i
17 i those actions are being implemented. That is a very important !
1 18 j process that follows. So, if you can understand the a 1 18 J
distinction between that activity and what that safety j 20 evaluation report will represent
- 21 The next major activities that have been ongoing 3
22 and will continue are the inspections and licensing actions. !
1 a
j 23 There certainly have been a large number of inspections
) 6
) 24 conducted to dato and very important inspections. One of the 1
! 25 most important I would remind the Commission is the day to ,
3 9
i .
4 48 I day evaluation by the resident inspectors of the acti.ities i 2 at the site. It's the principal input into how we manage a
3 the inspection program at that site and direct other 4 resources.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Wasn't there a'recent maintenance ;
6 team inspection? l 1 7 MR. KANE: Yes, sir. I wanted to go into somd of !
4 <
! 8 these other more important inspections. !
i t l 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Tell us a little bit about that, if 10 you would.
T 11 MR. KANE: Certainly. We have conducted major 12 inspection of the emergency operating procedures. There has a ;
l 13 been a comprehensive maintenance inspection. Peach Bottom ,
l 14 was one of the pilot plants for that and the results of that I
j 15 were very good. There have been inspections of simulator i
j 16 team training, of the operators as a team. There has been l 1
17 the recent emergency exercise that was conducted prior to and i 18 very early in the process, major inspection of the [
1 19 rehabilitation program, the operators, and its effectiveness.
[
t :
20 Those are some of the inspections. There are many [
t i
) 21 others that have taken place. But those are the kinds of !
i
' l 22 major activities that we have at this point. There are l 1 i j 23 several licensing actions that must be completed prior to i
. 24 re-start. Those are hardware issues related to the minimum I i 25 !
source range, count rate, file protection and degraded i
l
o
, 49 1 voltage, all of which appear to be manageable prior to 2 re-start.
1 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are you satisfied at this stage
, 4 concerning the overall material condition of the plant, unit ;
i 8 two in particular? i 6 MR. KANE: I would say yes but of course we have 7 got a major inspection coming up which I will get to which 8 that will be one of the major components of shat inspection.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Then you will make a judgment at l l
10 that time. ;
11 MR. KANE: Yes. i r
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
i 13 MR. KANE: There have been'a number of public
[
14 meetings. I would say that we have I think been very activo i 15 in seeking out public comment on the adequacy of the re-start i l
16 plan. There were three public meetings held after the f i
17 submittal of the first plan -- one in Maryland and two in ;
18 Penney 1vania. The utility of course had to make a major 19 modification to that plan and, again, there were public 20 meetin9s held -- two in Ponnsylvania and one in the State of I 21 Maryland -- to receive public comments on that revised plan.
22 Those public comments have all been assessed and 23 will be evaluated in on appendix to the safety evaluation 24 ;
that we will be issuing shortly. All of the public comments
.I ES will be addressed in that plan or in that safety evaluation 4
1 50 I report.
2 I would like to go into state involven~::t. There 3 has been extensive stato involvement by both states. The 4 comments from the State of Pennsylvania and the State of 5 Maryland have been forwarded to the Philadelphia Electric 6 Company. They have responded to the Maryland comments. As 7 was discussed earlier, Philadelphia Electric Company and 8 Pennsylvania are in the process of negotiations.
9 The issues that were raised by the states which are 10 relevant to the re-start are of course addressed in the safety 11 ovalua', ion report. Both states have been very active in 12 attending.all of our public meetings that we have held. I 13 think without fail the states have attended each of those 14 meetings. There has been involvement at the entrance and 15 exit meetings for a number of inspections and observation of 16 one of the major inspections which involved the simulator 17 examinations by the State of Pennsylvania, 18 We have also invited the states to several~of our 19 Re-start Panel deliberations following meetings with the 20 utilities. So, there has been extensive involvement 21 throughout with the states. '
22 The next slide, if I could have it please, will I
23 deal with the forthcoming actions and, hopefully, will answer '
24 some of the questi~ns o that you have raised.
i - M I (Slide.) l l
l 9
- j. 51 f 1 MR. KANE: The Philadelphia Electric Company 2 self-assessment which has been described, our review of that
- 3 self-assessment would be a major factor in our assessment of i'
4 the ability of the company to identify the problems and l 8 assess those problems and make a judgment with respect to j .
e their ability to go forward and operate the plant. We will 7 of course, following their deliberation and notification, we 8 will conduct our own self-assessment process or assessment 9 process, which I will get into.
10 That will be in the form of an integrated team 11 inspection which is an inspection that is called' integrated 12 because we look at really all of the functional areas. We 13 will look at operations. We will look at maintenance. Wo 14 will look at radiological controls, security, engineering, 15 and really the inner-relationships of all of these functions.
16 Principal factors that we would look to in these 17 inspections are the horizontal and vertical communications 18 within the organization and the effectiveness. We would look 19 at certainly the teamwork of the organization, the attitudos.
20 We would look at the use of procedures. We would look at the 21 way in.which they prioritize work. We would also look at the 22 status of equipment to confirm the overall readiness of the 23 plants to operate.
24 It is of course an inspection in which we will have 25 to be able to forecast from e plant that is shutdown. In e
. . . - - - _- - .. - . -- = .. - - . ._ - - - - .
7 52 f J -
a i looking at the way in which the organization is functioning, 2 we will have to make a judgment from this inspection about 3 what we see and the ability of the company to operate that [
4 4 plant at power.
5 So, in a sense there are certain things that you (
i 6 simply can't observe with a shutdown plant and we have to I j 7 make some judgments about that. j 4
i a The next major activity that has taken place and
- 9 will be issued shortly -- again, about mid-month -- will be ;
d i
10 the SALP report. That again is an assessment of the !
1 11 organization at Peach Bottom during the shutdown period. :
i >
12 Necessarily that looka back in time but it is important in l 4
t 13 terms of understanding again how the organization has !
l 14 progressed from the time it was shutdown, and get an I i 15 understanding of these areas that were rated unacceptable in T l
16 tcs past. I t
i 17 I would note just for the record the training area l
! l 18 was not evaluated by the previous SALP Board. Operations and l
- 19 assurance of quality areas were rated unacceptable. The area
- 20 of training was one in which we did not have sufficient i 21 information at the time in order to make a decermination 22 because we did not understand at the time we issued that 23 SALP report the relationship of training to what took place.
24 But, in any event, there will be an update in all those 25 functional areas. That of course will be followed by a S
~
53 l 1 management meeting'with the utility.
2 The importance of the GALP report, in terms of 3 looking back in time, is that it establishes a base line from l 4 which we have to move forward in time and, with this, it i
! 5 establishes a base line for this integrated team inspection. !
i 6 The integrated team inspection again, as you will recall 7 earlier, I pointed out that we are looking at all these l 8 functional areas again. So, the areas of weakness, concern, '
i j
9 identified within the SALP'will be a principal focus in this l
l
. 10 integrated team inspection to really update where the :
i 1 1 11 organization stands at the time of the inspection. l 12 The principal inputs of course to a re-start ;
i l 13 recommendation to the Commission are the safety evaluation l 14 report which again is an assessment of the plan, the SALP 1
l 15 which is an assessment of the previous operation of the I
i 16 facility for the last 12 months or so, and then the integrated i i t j 17 team inspection which is to really tell us are the safety ;
18 evaluation commitments in fact being implemented ef fectively ,
I 18 and in fact, in going back and looking and updating the SALP l M functional areas, are they improving? l l
21 Those then will be the major inputs to a re-start
- 22 determination.
1
- 23 I would like to also point out in the next bullit, l l
i 24 the ACRS briefing, we have of course on the Pilgrim plant,-
j 25 we have interfaced with the ACRS. They have held a !
i
. , _ _ . _ _ __. . ._.'_2__________ .,_- . _ -_ _ . ... _ _ _._ -
l
54 1 subcommittee meeting at the site and a full committee meeting.
2 We would expect to follow the same process on Pilgrim, and l 3 we have discussions ongoing with the ACRS to best determine 4 at what point they wish to hold the subcommittee meeting and 5 then follow it by the full committee meeting which I would ,
6 anticipate based on the schedule would be maybe in the 7 December timeframe.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Bill, correction. You mean follow on 9 Peach Bottom as you did on Pilgrim.
10 MR. KANE: Peach Bottom.
11 MR. TAYLOR: You said on Pilgrim.
12 MR. KANE: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we would , follow a 13 similar process here at Peach Bottom as we did at Pilgrim.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
15 MR. KANE: And, then the Commission briefing to be 16 determined really as a result of all of these activities --
17 the re-start recommendation, the results of the ACRS input.
18 Following all of this, if we come to the Commission with a 19 recommendation that the Commission believes that the plant 20 is acceptable for re-start, we would have an expanded power 21 ascensi'on pr'ogram monitoring by the region. It would be 22 patterned very close to tho one at TMI whien I was responsible 23 for in which we would have an opportunity to really observe 24 all aspects of the operating plant. This is important 25 bocause the plant is operating obviously at this time. We
55 1 would -- certainly during this period there would be an 2 opportunity for retraining of the operators and a conversion 3 of cold licenses. Our inspection would include -- certainly 4 a major component of it would be around-the-clock observation 8 of shift operations, and there would be NRC hold points within 6 the power ascension program at several levels so that we 7 would have an opportunity to review with the company their 8 assessment of operations up to that point and our assessment 9 of operations and then see what else needed to be done if to anything prior to going to the next power level.
11 I would point out that we are still reviewing the 12 power ascension program with the utility and have not 13 approved it as of this time.
14 Those are some of the actions, major actions, that 15 would take place. That completes our presentation.
16 Cl! AIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
17 MR. TAYLOR: That concludes the Staff's brief, sir.
18 CilAIRMAN ZECit: All right. Thank you very much.
19 Any questions from my fellow Commissioners. Commissioner M Carr.
21 COMMISSIONER CARR No.
22 CllAIRMAN ZECll Commissioner Rogers.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
24 C11 AIRMAN ZEC!!: Let me point out, first of all, I 25 should have mentioned at the open3ng of the meeting that -
56 1 Commissioner Roberts is not with us today. He is on overseas 2 travel, 3 Well, let me thank the Staff for this status report.
4 Of course we will meet again later on at an appropriate time 6 prior to re-start. In the meantime, we expect that the Staff 6 would continue to closely monitor the Peach Bottom program 7 and be able to continue a rather extensive monitoring program 8 which Mr. Taylor pointed out has already been in place. 1 9 There has been a lot of management changes and, although they 10 l certainly would appear to be positive and constructive, I s 11 think it is important, Mr. Russell, that you and your people 12 watch the s,atus of the re-start plan and actions very 13 carefully.
14 We will need of course the Staf f's recommendation 15 before we make the decision. We will also be interested in
]
to hearing what the ACRS has to say in their deliberations. So, 17 we will look forward to hearing from the Staff again and ask 18 that you continue your very aggressive monitoring of the 19 Peach Bottom situation.
M Are there an'/ other questions from my follow 21 Commissioners?
22 (No response.)
4 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, thank you very much for a ,
24 very fine briefing from both the Staff and Peach Bottom 25 officials. We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon,'at 11:28 a.m., the meeting adjourned.)
1
~
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaaission entitled: BRIEFING ON STATUS OF PEACH BOTTOM ;
I TITLE OF MEETIMG: Public Meeting PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING: October 5, 1988 -
i i were transcribed by me. I further certify that said '
transcription is accurate and complete, to the best
. of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and I
accurate record of the foregoing events, i
k:f , ' i B (L lt%i blG!B pJOHNTROWBRIDGE, C V.R.
v I
I i
1 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. ,
i e
l l
l l
9 4
^
~_4,----e e-~-.- -< - . . . ~ - - - - -- --,-~,w,,,-% ,-r,r-
1 1 l
OCTOBER 5, 1988 SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE: BRIEFING ON STATUS OF PEACH BOTTOM SCHEDULED: 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1968 (OPEN)
DURATIO!!: APPROX l-1/2 HRS PARTICIPANTS: LICENSEE (PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC ColiPANY)_
JOSEPH PAQUETTE 5 mills CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO CORDIN McNEILL, JR. 15 mitis EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR DICKINSON SMITH 15 MINS VICE PRESIDENT-PBAPS JOHN B. COTTON SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS NRC JAMES TAYLOR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 15 MINS ;
DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS WILLIAM F. HANE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS, REGION I I
l l
1 1
COMMISSION BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF PEACH BOTTOM .
OCTOBER 5, 1988 l
l
e 4
e 9
PRESENTATION OUTLINE BACKGROUND RESTART CPITERIA STAFF RESTAPT ACTIVITIES FORTHCOMING ACTIONS l'
e
i l
l
. r i
l I
i i
l BACKGROUND !
l )
- SHUTDOWN ORDER MARCH 31, 1987
- LICENSED OPERATOR INATTENTIVENESS l i
l
- LICENSED SUPERVISION PARTICIPATED IN j t
AND FAILED TO CORRECT OR REPORT
)
j INATTENTIVENESS d ,
- INABILITY OF LICENSEE CORPORATE AND SITE MANAGEMENT TO IDENTIFY AND CORRECT !
! PROBLEMS :
21
!
- STATION CULTURE DID NOT ADAPT TO CHANGING :
i REQUIREMENTS I ,
1 L i
i b ,
i !
l a,
i 1 I i !
l i l l 1 !
! l j
~+-e--9 ,,+ e +--.e,,<y..%,,r-% , ,m..-$,----.ww,,,.--.-m em #.- - . . ~ , , . , - ~.ne,.--.-,er-,--,,--,r...,-,%w.-.,,-wi-,w ,-y-.e %4 , , --.y&,.
4 4
1 i
i RESTART CRITERIA
- LICENSEE IDENTIFICATION OF ROOT CAUSES
- LICENSEE CORRECTIVE ACTION WHICH ADDRESSES ROOT CAUSES
- OPERATORS READY TO OPERATE SAFELY ,
!
- STABLE AND EFFECTIVE LICENSEE MANAGEMENT j AND STAFF
!
- IMPROVEMENT IN UNSATISFACTORY SALP AREAS DEMONSTRATED l
l
- FACILITY PHYSICALLY READY FOR RESTART
) -
l 1
i
4 STAFF RESTART ACTIVITIES RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL SAFETY EVALUATION PEPORT TO ASSESS LICENSEE RESTART PLAN INSPECTIONS AND LICENSING ACTIONS PUBLIC MEETINGS STATE INVOLVEMENT PEC0 RESPONDED TO MARYLAND COMMENTS PECO AND PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS ON ISSUES IN CONTENTION 4
-~
~
FORTHCOMING ACTIONS
- PECO SELF ASSESSMENT / POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM REVIEW
- INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT TEAM INSPECTION (IATI)
- SALP REPORT 8 MANAGEMENT MEETING
- ACRS BRIEFING
- COMMISSION BRIEFING
- EXPANDED POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM MONITORING I
4 J. . PAQUETTE e
l l
1 I
~1
~
NRC COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 5,1988 .
l PECO PRESENTATION AGENDA l
J. F. PAQUETTE OVERVIEW CHAIRMAN AND CEO C. A. MC NEILL, Jr. NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS NUCLEAR
)
D. M. SMITH SITE READINESS VICE PRESIDENT - PBAPS C. A. MC NEILL, Jr. .
RESTART SELF- ASSESSMENT --
j
SUMMARY
L
--_----_,-_.----------e . , . - - - , - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - , - -
I t
C. A. V c \ E _.
l l
. I
'l i
- IMPROVED ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS .
i
- Ouality People
- Structure i
)
- Culture 1
1 i
- Effective Oversight -
j i
4 l
l l
l 4
e
- - _ - _ _ _ es w --A EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT C. A. McNEILL, JR.
noctsan nsva.
DG6Jto 04AenesAN E.C. RIST9En i 1 I 4
_ D,T, L__n , _ _ .e .An .- A. , _ _
(yog8Bc PowEM STAitOg GE9sERAidfee 57 AT90eg Cote 5T3tucit0N 19808ME EfMeeG N} oWAlffY AssunAtocE
,,cs entsetwr vecs m setwr sa vics enssecar vesenn eEmi vics eviumsM1r osmnAt asAnAosa D A
' . Segg e 88. LEFTQt J 1 EEasPER S J. KOW AL548 J W.GALN D ft SOELWlG ORGANIZATION CHART
~
NUCLEAR GROUP
NUCLEAR GROUP ORGANIZATION
- Dedicated Organization 4
- Reduced Layers
- Increased Span of Control
,
- On-Site Corporate Direction 4
at VP Level 4
i
- Accountability j
- Improved Communications l
1 I ,
i 1
l
~
VISION, MISSION and VALUES
~
VISION
!
- World Class MISSION
- Safe, Economical Reliable Power
} VALUES i . Safety
- Teamwork j
- Quality
- People
- Dynamic Business Focua
- lptegrity 1
i i
i
- . . - . . . , , - - - - - ~ - , - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - _ + - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 l
SENIOR MANAGEMEN .
i
- Corporate Commitment i
J to Effective Oversight 4
- Climate That Promotes
! Self-Critical Analysis .
1 I
i i
i
)
i
)
- _7_
I 4
NUCLEAR REVIEW BOARD OVERSIGHT 4
- Advisory Committee Reporting Directly i
to Executive Vice President, Nuclear
- l
- Provides independent Review and Audit i in Areas including:
J Operations
- Nuclear Engineering i - Radiological Safety
)
j = Assess PBAPS Readiness for Restart 1
i i
i 4
j 1
NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE OVERSIGHT i
. Consolidated Four Separate Organizations
. Elevated Reporting Level ~
to Executives to NRB and NCB to Sites i . Added Outside Experience '
=
Increased Effectiveness 4
4 I
I- ,
9 e
I i
e l
- e me me e 9m BOTTOA1 27 0 '0 94 4pg 6, ' ! '.
e Ex c.
l l8nc
- dp :
i
- % EERSTAT M '
e t
j l
._- ._,---- -_,. ,_,_ _,__ ,_,, _.,, __ __y__
(
f 8 I
l .
1
) .
l l
l l
l
( 1 I
, D. V. SV T-1 l
\
l l
a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____m
S S
E N
I D
A E s R m l
e a r
p t g
5 o n a o T
I P e l P
r P
1 S * *
- L L
A R
E .
V O
9
i
! PEOPLE
- New Management j
- Increased Nuclear Industry Experience j
- Erihanced i_eadership/ Management Skills
- improved Communications i
l I
)
l l
l 1,
4
- 2.-
i i
l i . . . .
ll i
)
i OPERATOR READINESS i
).
i 1
8 i e Staffing 4,
!
- Tra. .ining i a Working Hour Restrictions i
i 4
1 s
l l
l
\ -
i i
l i -
1 I
- l OPERATOR STAFFING l
t
. current
- 6 Shifts
- Additional SRO on Shift
4 l
l i
i 4
i 4
l i
j :
h l _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ..
9 4
.6 o O .E N
.s D
6 .C- e F ct3 O .c
- 6 Z u C C e
- E H *E *E a
( O O
c/)
e g
C g 6 3 1
C $ 0 -
C H g 5 ! .F'- s ; E ,
x 0 io 4 o m se e
u m c
i O u e o C e q') ,
C
). oa p< N m
$ $ = u.
[
- O 3 C O 3 M C g N b 5 o I e Q e !
Q., D W b .9 g Z l
' d .J O .E 1
W e F c e e
LO M ,
e a e e e e l t
i I
- l -
OPERATOR WORKING HOUR RESTRICTIONS .
- Tech Spec Amendment Submitted
- Based on NRC Proposed Policy Statement
- Short and Long Term Restrictions
- Administrative Controls l
1 1
1 O
PLANT READINESS
- Corrective Maintenance
- Preventive Maintenance
- Modifications
- Decontamination and Painting
~
l 4
i
),
)
l l
l !
l i
I l
I .
WORK ORDER PROGRESS UNIT 2 AND COMMON i THOUSANDS
,384 15 _
i I
N,_U Id 10 &
d$j TOTAL WORK
{ ORDERS COMPLETED
} SINCE 3/18/87 5 e j
{ WORK ORDERS 1,094
?[$$6 IN PROGRESS g i
INCLUDES CN, CM, AND PM SECTION 6 WORK ORDERS i
_ [3 _
(
l l PREVENTIVE. MAINTENANCE l UNIT 2 AND COMMON
- l TOTAL MRF OUTSTANDING 3000 2.900 2500 2000 1.830
- 1500 -
1000 -
l 624 000 -
1 262 l I O O-12/3/8 7 2 /11/ 8 8 8/18/8 8 10/4/88 RESTART
_g_
UNIT 2 AND COMMON OPEN RESTART MODIFICATIONS (TOTAL - 167) .
100-90 -- - - - - - -- -
80 - - - -- - - - -
-- - - - -~ - -
70 - - - - --- -- -- -- -
- - ^ - - - -
60 -- --
50 -- -
M - - - - -
\
28 MODS REQUIRE 40 -
--- - - INSTALL ATION -
30 -- - "- - -- - - - - -
x., -- - - - - -
20 -
- - -\ - - - - - . _ --. O MODS REOUIRE_-.-_ ,. _ _.
INITIAL ENGINEERING ', -
_ 10 - -- - - - - - - - - --
- ?' c:; --
O !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H !!!iii!!!!!!!! N !!!!
3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1/89 ACTUAL -~~- FORECAST @ 9/16/88
4 UNIT 2 & COMMON DECONTAMINATION PROGRESS
% CONTAMINATED
, 35
~
gg _.
n3; _. .. . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . .
25 - - - - - - - ' - -
20 --
'" -It{gUSTRY-AVG.-CON TAMIN ATION 15 --- ----- - --- - ---- ----
2"4-.-- .....
10 - - - - -- - --- -- - --- --- - - ---- . _ ...'
PECO GOAL (MAX) 5 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
i o ! i i ! l l ! ! ! H -1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l l 8 D M J S D M J S 'D 87 88 89 MONTH ENDING MONTH ENDING
""-- Scheduled l Actual
_ ij _
e e
STATION PAINTING PROGRESS .
UNITS 2 AND 3 100
'^
1 J 1.14 4.864 SO . F T 80 - --- - - - - - - --
g ...
._853,265 SO F T .___
60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . __
,3g _ _ - - .__ ___._. ., . ._ _ 572A42 SO FT . __
20 - --- --- - - - - - _286.221 SO F T. .
0- !l l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H -t-i i l l l l l 1i!!l l 1l l MAMJJASONDJFMAMJ.JASONDJFMAMJJASOND 1986 1987 1988
.}
i PROGRAMS .
- Configuration Management i
!
- Procedures and Document
- Security Control
!
- Operating Experience
- Radwaste i Assessment Program i
- Commitment Tracking Program
- Radiation Protection i
5 I
I i
I .
i i'
l i
SECURITY
- Background '
- Improvements
- Management involvement
- Contractor Transition
- Equipment / Systems
- Training I
I I
l - 14 .-
l I
i l
UNITS 2 AND 3 RADWASTE INVENTORY-DAW CU.FT. (THOUSANDS) 60 50 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -- - --~- - - - - - - - -
TOTAL 40 - - - --- - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - -
] 30 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - --- - - -- ~~- -- - --- -- --
~
^ U^
20 -
! PROTECTED
\
10 . A R EA -- - - -- - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - _ _ _ ~ -.- - -
i / x : :
, O i
i
, LLWSF, i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 7iiiii;iiiiiiiig , , , , ,
i A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 1987 1988
~ MONTH ENDING MONTH ENDING i ! TOTAL GOAL
..n--, -- - -- - _ --, ,- . , . , , . - - - - - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RADIATION PROTECTION REDUCTION OF STATION RADIATION EXPOSURE 100% Dose Accountability Achieved -
. Reportable Uptakes have Significantly Decreased from 1986 to 1988
. Unit 3 Pipe Replacement Exposure was an Industrv Record Low for Plant Type 4
4
- t l l l
! l I i i I
! ! l C
- m I
l- ! i
- l Z !
i D i !
O ,
! l ; !
o )
i i
i i
i i
1 f !
O !
1 I ! l ! H O :
i z o
m m
rs.. .c s ;
O p ;-? . .*r . g I
-Q' b N rk. a:I.[.w .:+.s. >- -
J .
O . s O ,
! W-Y i
O e
l g
3: ! '
i : E I '
4 i r
._ 1 I
O c.W~.y G,m.y y.TyM. s <ag .m,.,E.m';n e ....- . w:y o
.' I y w. . v .h : . y. .-
. ~.m. v. $ /eA >n... c.. new 7
w p.Y.
E.d'*tSI Diff M M343h kg.y y, % '?,iN fs6/,7h. -
a l
l a - ratr2.w-t i t i i i i i e
v m
o o e v a o t
l _. , - , . . . _ - , . . ---, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' '
I
\ .
, PIPE REPLACEMENT COMPARISON .
l PERSON REM
! 2500
{ PBAPS UNIT 2 2000 -
i.[N
-- DRESDEN VE R M O N T ~~ -~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ' - ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ -
' I[el YANKEE PILGRIM J- ,$. .I$h i- y . ,,,.. MONTICE LLO
. ..u ,1; ..e-e , ,,,g 1500 -
- n. ; - - -- ?Mk i jff!
C oopsn
- - ~ ~ - -
' @l- ..
,T i UNIT 3
- ,000~g,,J gna g as ~
4M m g&: .
4 q: %
app y ap(:
.f:g N{-/
500 -
- h$
E .hf, - - -
uq!
i k .r-II ikf - $f.+7 j)E .
is j jL; d$
ee lid) 1 O- . . , , , , u. -
UNIT 3 99% COMPLETE l
}
}- - - - - - - _
OVERALL SITE READINESS .
- PEOPLE
- PROGRAMS
- PLANT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - --- '-- ~ -- - ^ -
C.A.Vc E LL e seto w e ,ge e.g m yg g w q ,, q gg,g, % , g , ogy-4 , _
RESTART REVIEW PANEL MEMBERSHIP C.A. McNEILL E.C. KISTNER J.S. KEMPER E.P. WILKINSON G.M. LEITCH S. LEVY D.R. HELWIG L. BURKHARDT l
l l
l
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
- Nuclear Quality
- Emergency
- Design Engineering Assurance Preparedness
- Modifications
- Human Resources
- Security
- Procurement and
. Operations a Fire Protection Material
- Technical Support
- Training and
- Outage Management Qualifications
- Plant Support
- Power Ascension
- Configuration
- Maintenance Management
- Licensing and Commitment
- Industrial Safety
- Document Control Tracking
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
,
- Shutdown Order
- NRC Inspections, SALP, etc.
- INPO Evaluations
- Seli - Evaluations I
- Other Extc .. Evaluations l
l l J
O 1_INE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT .
RESULTS
- Walkdowns l- = Trending
!
- Statistical Analysis i
- Observations MBWA l - By Outsiders 1
4 1
}
1
- f i 1 1
)
LINE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT -
i 4
t I
i i
SUFFICIENCY OF RESULTS
{
- Walkdowns
- Comparisons with:
l
- - NRC l - INPO l - Industry Guidelines l - Averages I.
- Observations I
- Analysis i
j J
i 1
!~
t j i 1
O LINE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PERMANENCY OF CHANGE
- Procedura!ization
- Budget
- Management Support
- Line and Field Acceptance
- Areas for Continuing improvement
OVERALL RESTART STATUS
- Self Assessment
- INPO Assessment t
- NRC Assessment
- PECo Anticipates Being Ready for the NRC Assessment by November 14,1988
= "
._.--------.-.._-------____w - - - -A -- w + e w w w
M M %d%%%%d%%%%%%%%%6%%dffffdf%f6fdQ g tg gegeg g, i
P l- tut i TPAHSMITTAL TO: Document Control Desk, 4 & Phillips i T
i ADVANCE 0 COPY T0: The Volic Document Roem
,3 OATE: /O' 7 - ff' SECY Correspondence & Records Branch i FROM:
E
- " Attached are copies of a Comission meeting tranteript and related me(ting docurent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or f'g. required.
Meeting T1 tie: be l<.$r n M J t kt/ind aj kmj! _/
L L ..
j Meeting Date: ./M- f - Mf Open / Closed ,
I! -
ij Item Description *: Copies '
!: Advanced DCS
'8 ij to PDR Copy, i
lli 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1
/d b zW Vtm// u -
/
! ;l & // Jnb_ , a v s_W ,) l p>
ji i :" 2.
1 :
_1 m :
3 l 3' - .
3
,~ _ %
2:
- l i' 4.
1 =
3:
3 3
[=
S.
]:l a
l s !! --
i:
_C ag 6. _
- 2. \
Bi kPp 0
i
$
- POP is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
- Cod Branch files the origir.al transcript, with attachments, witheut SECY t j
papers.
I h 310 $
l ll lI I l lh a kli i t
c--- -____- . _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _