ML20206H302

Transcript of 990506 Briefing in Rockville,Md on Operating Reactors & Fuel Facilities.Pp 1-73.With Related Documentation

ML20206H302
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/06/1999
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9905110156
Download: ML20206H302 (83)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:< L ORG'4A'. l l,, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l' l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 's s

Title:

BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES Location: Rockville, Maryland b Date: Thursday, May 6,1999 0 li c/ t Pages: 1 - 73 ,gx '10073 9 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 I -l l Washington, D.C.20036 (202) 842-0034 I 9905110156 990506 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR s,.~.....

w DISCLAIMER 'This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States-Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 6,'1999, in the Commission's office'at One White Flint North,1 Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public I attendance and observation.- This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general 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. Expressions of opinion in,this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinationior beliefs. No' pleading'or other paper may be-filed with the i Commission in:any proceeding as'the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as -the? Commission may authorize. 9

i-S- 1 l' . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t-2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ' '4 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 5 6 BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS 7 AND FUEL FACILITIES _ l 8 9 PUBLIC MEETING j i 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 One White Flint North 12 Building 1, Room 1F-16 13 11555 Rockville Pike i 14 Rockville, Maryland 15 16 Thursday, May 6, 1999 17 The Commission met in open session,. pursuant to 18 ' notice, at 9:12 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 ' Chairman of.the Commission, presiding. 20 . COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 21 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 22 ' NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 23 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN,- JR., Member of the Commission j { 24 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission 25 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Member of the Commission l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.20036 (202) 842-0034 l

S-2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS: 2: 3 STEPHEN BURNS, Deputy General: Counsel 4 ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, Assistant Secretary 5. WILLIAM TRAVERS, Executive Director for Operations 6 -7 DR. CARL PAPERIELLO, Director, NMSS 8 SAMUEL COLLINS,- Director, NRR 9 LUIS REYES, Region II Administrator 10 HUBERT MILLER, Region I Administrator 11 ~ ELLIS.MERSCHOFF, Region IV Administrator 12 JAMES DYER, Region III Administrator .13 14 15 16 .17 ' 18 19 20' 21 22 23 l l 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-3 1 PRO'CEEDINGS 2L [9 :12 a.m. ] '3 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON: Good morning. Today the 4 Commission once again is pleased to have our Agency senior 5 managers. including the Regional. Administrators here to brief 6 us cn1 the results of the April, 1999, Senior Management 7-Meeting. On behalf of the Commission I also would like to .8 welcome those here in the audience, whether you are NRC 9-Staff, Congressional staff, licensee management, members of 10. 'the public or press. We thank you for your. interest in our 11 -briefing today. 12 The Senior Management Meeting provides an 13-opportunity for selected plants for the Agency's Senior 14 Managers to review our latest assessment of plant 15 performance,-such as periodic plant performance reviews and-1 16 the plant inspection matrix data as well as various 17 indicebers.that are not directly associated with the 18 regiohalfinspection program. 19 The Senior Managers review these results in the 20 aggregate to aid in allocating or deciding what level of 21 attention the facilities warrant. The primary purpose is to 22' ensure that we are on top of licensee performance-well 23 before there.are any.significant declines that may lead to 24 unsafe. operation, so I.would request that all of you today 25 consider the results presented by the Staff in the proper 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ) Court Reporters 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 . Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)c 842-0034

S-4 1 context. 'That is, the plants to be discussed have been or 2 will be potentially discussed in terms of whether there will 3 be some increased Agency level focus or regional focus or 4 routine focus. '5 The NRC has other mechanisms, regulatory 6 mechanisms to respond.promptly to correct situations that l 7. present an immediate threat to public health and safety. ] i 8 The NRC Staff, with direction from the Commission, has been 9 evaluating and modifying the assessment process for the past 10 few years. Consequently, as a result of some of these 11 changes, we are in an interim period as we transition to a 12 new integrated assessment process. 13 While implementation of the new process is 14 scheduled to begin at nine pilot sites next month, the 15 remaining vast majority of our sites remain under our 16 existing process. 17 Some interim changes that have occurred for all 18 plants are the switch from a biannual to an annual frequency 19 for the Senior Management Meeting, elimination of the Watch 20 List, and changes to correspondence or the documentation 21 that'results from Senior Management Meetings, correspondence 22 to licensees. 23 The new process will implement even more 24 fundamental changes that are planned as a result of input 25 from our various stakeholders as well as a recognized need ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 8%2-0034

F L' 1 L S-5 t i to address weakness in the previous process. I have only ) l 2 briefly touched upon some of the aspects of what has 3 changed. We have had a number of Commission meetings 4 relative to the new' reactor oversight program. Dr. Travers i 5 will further elaborate on the details of the current interim 6 process we are applying today, and so let's turn now to 7-discussion of those assessment results, and unless my 8 colleagues have any comments they wish to make, we will try i 9 to let you get through your presentations. There's never a l l 10 guarantee but we will try to do that -- I will try to do 11 that anyway, since I am the guilty party. 12 So Dr. Travers, will you please begin. 13 MR. TRAVERS: Thank you, and good morning, 14 Chairman Jackson and Commirsioners. I am glad to be here 15 with a significant portion of the Agency's Senior Management 16 team. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And we not like to have 18 somebody drop anything on this building or at least this 19 stop in the building with the Commission here and all of you 20 -here. 21 MR.. TRAVERS: It would be a mixed blessing, I 22 would say. 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Some might think that. Let's i 24 not give people any ideas. 25 [ Laughter.] l t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

F S- '6 1 MR.. TRAVERS: We will be sensitive to any 2-Lvibrations that. occur from-any side of the table. 3 We are here,.as you said, Chairman, to discuss 4. .with1you:the'results of the 26th~ Senior Management Meeting, L5: which'was h' eld April-20th and 21st in Region IV in '6 l Arlington, Texas. 7 Joining me at the table from the program offices 8 are Sam Collins from NRR and Carl Paperiello from NMSS. 'On 9) this side, of course, the Regional Administrators beginning 10 with Hub Miller'from Region I, Jim Dyer from Region III, 11 _Luis Reyes'from Region II, and Ellis Merschoff from Region 12 IV. Introductions are really not necessary but we thought 13. we would-make them in'any case. 14 Since its inception the Senior Management Meeting 15 has been an important part of the NRC oversight process. ~16' .However, the recent meeting had'special' significance because .17 it reflected many of the changes which are ongoing in our 16 ' transition-to a new performance assessment process. In 19 particular, it'was the first meeting to be conducted, as you 20 mentioned, Chairman, on an annual basis. It was the first 21; to be-conducted'following the suspension of NRC's systematic 22 assessment of licensee performance or SALP process. It was 23 the first. meeting to take advantage of-the modified plant { 24

performance review or PPR process.

25 The meeting also marked the end of both the i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . Court Reporters j -1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 - i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

{ S-7 Agency's Watch' List and our recognition of superior plant 1 2 performance,.and the meeting was the first meeting to be 3 conducted prior to the Agency's expected piloting of the 4 proposed new performance assessment process. 5 In the transition to the new assessment process, 6 .new terms, Agency focus, Regional focus, and routine 7 oversight have.been developed to characterize the level of ] l 8 NRC oversight and inspection activity at a given facility. 9 Sam will be discussing these terms in some more detail in a 10 - moment, but I should emphasize that they do not correlate 11 directly with the former categories, Category 1, 2 and 3 12 designations, which have been used in connection with 13 previous Senior Management Meetings. 14 In the future the Staff has proposed that the 15 Senior Management Meeting be held in the context of the new 16 performance assessment process used in the pilot plant 17 evaluations as discussed in SECY's 99-007 and 99-007A. 18 The briefing today will provide the Commission 19 with the results of the meeting and the decisions made by 20 the Senior Managers regarding plant performance. 21 Additionally, we will provide further details on the level 22 of Agency oversight to be taken as a result of the Senior 23 Managers' deliberations. 24 It is important to emphasize that although we will 25 ~ be discussing only nine of 103 operating reactors at five Ll.- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

r S-8 NL sites at today's meeting, the performance of each nuclear 2 facility has been considered in the NRC's overall and '3 ongoing assessment process, which'is structured ta provide, 4 as I mentioned, an ongoing evaluation of licensee 5 performance. 6 Prior to the Senior. Management Meeting, screening 7 meetings-were conducted by.NRR, the regions, and NMSS with ~8 participation by OE, OI, and Research to determine which 9 plants would require discussion by the Senior Managers. The 10 NRC's inspection program implemented by the regional offices 11 has provided the framework for the overall assessment 12 process. The'results of the inspection program at each 13 facility have been integrated into the plant performance 14 reviews and the licensees have been apprised of NRC's-15 assessment of their overall performance. 16 -Finally, I would like to note that the changes 17 which I have-described and which will be further discussed 18 resulting from the latest Senior Management Meeting should 19 be considered as a significant interim measure towards our { 20 goal of a more effective objective oversight process, and at 21 this point I would like to turn the presentation over to Sam 22 Collins, Director-of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 23 Regulation.

24 MR. COLLINS:

Good morning, Chairman. Good 25 morning, Commissioners. My portion of the presentation will ~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036-(202) 842-0034

l S-9 I 1 provide for some background, the objectives of the process j i 2 and a little more detail on the transition that was utilized 3 in the most Senior Management Meeting. I will by way of 4 that discussion introduce the Regional Administrators who 5-will discussing the specific plants. Upon completion of 6 those discussions, we will then return to the process itself 7 -in a go forward direction, and then we will proceed with Dr. 8 Paperiello and the NMSS facilities. 9' As was articulated by the Chairman in her opening 10 remarks, the Senior Management Meeting process has two 11 principal objectives that we focused at the most recent 12 Senior Management Meeting, that is, to identify performance 13 trends and to effective utilize agency resources by ) 14 acknowledging ongoing actions at the plants and, if 15 appropriate, by responding to those issues that are brought 16 forward as a result of the Senior Management Meeting. 17 To accomplish these objectives, an integrated 18 review of plant safety performance is conducted using 19 various forms of objective information. Inspection results 20 are included, operating experience, probabilistic risk 21 insights, performance indicators, trend charts, allegation 22 information, including Office of Investigation history and 23 Enforcement history are reviewed, not only in the screening 24 meetings but in the Senior Management Meeting itself for 25 those selected plants. O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,'D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-10 1 Special attention is given to the effectiveness of I l 2 licensee self-assessments and the effectiveness of l 3 corrective action programs. As a part of the process, we j 4 also discuss planned inspection activities, those existing 5 at the time of the screening meetings and the Senior 6 Management Meeting, and those potentially desired as a 7 result of those discussions. We review NRC management 8 oversight and the level of that oversight, and the 9 allocation of resources in the form of the PPR results, 10 plant performance reviews, those issues in the PIM, and the 11 resultant inspection programs proposed by the Regional 12 Administrators. 13 I would like to briefly review the changes to the 14 Senior Management Meeting process and the other licensee 15 performance evaluation processes that have been recently 16 implemented to make the process more effective as we 17 transition to the new revised oversight process as the 18 Chairman mentioned in her opening remarks. 19 I would also like to point out that several of the 20 aspects of the Senior Management Meeting process remain 21 unchanged. As with the last 1998 Senior Management and 22 screening meetings that were conducted in July, these are 23 conducted with participation by agency senior managers, 24 including the directors of the office of Investigation, the 25 Office of Enforcement, excuse me, Research, NRR program ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 841-0034

9 S-11 1 representatives as well as the Regional Administrators' 2-allegation advisor-and myself. 3 As chair of the screening meetings, I actively 4: solicit input regarding plant-performance. Any one 5 participant of the screening meeting could potentially move 6 a designated plant on for discussion at the Senior 7 Management Meeting, process, that is the initial screening 8 process. j / i .9 Trend charts were developed through the Office of 10 Research and were used at the screening meetings, along with 11 other objective data that 1 have mentioned, in selecting the 12 discussion plants. Plant performance trends.were discussed. -13 And for those plants that exceed the performance trend 14 methodology threshold, they were discussed in detail, and 15 they were dispositioned as appropriate, some moving on to i 16 -the Senior Management Meeting, some not. This analysis and 17 the disposition was captured in the screening meeting 18 minutes for the record. 19 'In addition to the trend plots, we continued to 20 utillze the pro / con charts in the evaluation matrices, as in i 21 the past,. as an integral part of the process. j 22 Background information, including plant 23' performance review packages, the plant issues matrix, 24 pro / con charts and evaluation matrices were provided to 25 ' meeting participants prior to the Senior Management Meeting i l-ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES,,LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,. D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

p S-12 for-appropriate review and form the bases for the 1 l 2 discussion, along with other supporting information. I 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Excuse me. You had a question. 4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It is a question, it j 5 goes back to something Mr. Travers said about where we are 6 trying to get to. Some of the materials that you discuss 7 are public and some aren't. Is there -- like the PPR 8 letters are public but the' materials that fed into the PPR 9 letters are not at the moment, as I understand it, the trend 10 charts are not. Next year all of that will be transparent, 11 at least for the pilot plants. Why -- is there a reason 12 other than predecision or whatever to keep some of the paper 13 work that led into this process, to keep it closed? Is 14 there a reason to open it up? To make our current process 15 more scrutable. Next year's will be scrutable. This year's 16 is still a bit inscrutable to the public. 17 MR. COLLINS: The bases for the PPR letters are 18 essentially the PIM. The PIM information is derived from '19 inspection reports. The only information that I believe 20 without a detailed review, and I would have to rely on the 21 . staff insights also would be the allegation information and i 22 any OI insights that are provided at the screening meetings 23 themselves. The other information is a matter of public 24 record, perhaps not in the form that is presented, but the 25 basic information. It is a matter of LERs, license reports, l \\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 o

i S-13 -1 inspection findings. L 2 If the Commission expresses a desire for that 3 information to be made public, then the staff will certainly 4 do a review and provide for that. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that the important 6 point is that the basis of the PPR evaluation is public. I l 7 believe in more openness than not. On the other hand, you 8 know, there are some things that would represent in a 9 certain, sense a duplication. So I think we can discuss that 10 as we go along. But why don't we go on. l 11 MR. COLLINS: To proceed, there have been several incremental changes since the last Senior Management Meeting 12 13 in July, as Bill mentioned in his opening remarks, as we 14 move forward to the implementation of the revised oversight 15 process scheduled presently = for the year 2000. 16~ As you are aware, the SALP or the systematic 17 licensee performance process was suspended-in September of 18 1998. As a result, the plant periodic reviews, PPRs, were 19 enhanced to ensure that licensee performance was effectively 20 monitored and the public was more informed regarding the 21 plant performance review process. 22 Key improvements include providing a greater 23 amount of assessment information, an explanation of the PPR -24 process.in-the letters that are made public and then 25 presenting the PPR results to the licensees during public 1 a I ~^ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034 l.

n S-14 1 meetings at least once every two years. Presently, the 2 letters and the press releases have been issued for the most 3 round of periodic plant. performance reviews, and the l discussions are ongoing starting in the first quarter of 4 5 1999. 6 In March of 1999 the staff sent SECY paper 99-086 7 to the Commission with the recommended improvements to the 8 Senior Management Meeting process, including, as indicated 9 in the Chairman's remarks, eliminating the watchlist, 10 eliminating recognition of superior performance, and to 11 issue docketed correspondence as a result of the Senior 12 Management Meeting only when the agency's intended actions 13 are different from those conveyed in previous 14 correspondence. These interim changes are consistent with 15 the direction of the revised oversight process. 16 The most recent Senior Management Meeting provided 17 not only for a review.of those plants that reached the l 18 threshold of agency action, but as a carry-through to the 19 last Senior Management Meeting, all plants that were i i 20 previously categorized in the July 1998 Senior Management 21 Meeting were discussed. 22-The Commission approved the staff's 23 recommendations and the staff requirements memorandum on 24 April 16th and the Commission noted in the SRM and the 25 related vote sheets that the staff should maintain good ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j

F. S-15 i 1 communication.with the stakeholders regarding process l 2 improvements. This.has been done as a result of the PPR, 3 -the' associated press releases, but we intend to continue with'this communication, not only by elaborating in quite an 4 5 amount of detail at the meeting here today, but in follow-up 6 press releases as a result of this meeting,'which will also 7 articulate the changes to the processes that have been made. 8' The Commission also noted the need to develop 9 clear definitions of the terms used in the interim Senior 10 Management Meeting process,.and, in fact, we will discuss 11 that terminology today, and a modification made to the 12 terminology as a result of the Senior Management Meeting 13 process to help i as far as clarity is concerned. 14 Jha begar. implementing improvements during this 15 most recent meeting, as Bill mentioned, in Arlington, Texas, 16 .on. April 20 and 21. We did refine the definitions of the 17 terms " Agency focus," " regional focus," and " routine -18 oversight" as' presented in the next-few slides. And we 19 . discussed licensee performance, developing a consensus 20 opinion.. The appropriate NRC actions and regulatory 21 . oversight were also determined in accordance with the 22 definitions. 23 The process provided for presentations, as I have 24 mentioned. All major. office directors or representatives 25 attended the meeting. The meeting participants were divided I I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ( Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I i

U S-16 1 into two groups. Each group voted separately on the l i 2 disposition of the plants. Comparison and reconciliation of l 3 the results took place on the second day of the meeting. An 4 agreement and discussion of the diverse views was completed. 5 May I have slide 2, please. 6 Per Commission direction, as refined at the senior .7 management meeting, the NRC review of power reactor 8 performance has resulted in a graded response in terms of 9 regulatory tools and level of involvement. These are 10 articulated on slide 3, which defines the three levels of 11 Agency focus and response to plant performance. 12 Agency-focus plants are those plants that are 13 receiving the highest level of Agency attention. Agency-14 focus plants are receiving the direct attention and/or 15 involvement by the EDO and/or the Commission to coordinate 16 NRC resources and maintain cognizance of licensee 17 performance. As indicated in the slide, there are various 18 examples that can be articulated of this level of attention, 19 including the issuance of an order, including the issuance 20 of periodic briefings, and/or level of attention and 21 cognizance at the EDO or the Commission level. 22 May I have slide 4, please. 23 Slide 4 articulates the regional-focus plant, 24 which has been defined as those plants receiving the direct 25 attention and/or involvement by the regional administrator { l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l

r-S- 17 1 to coordinate NRC resources and maintain cognizance of 2 licensee performance. Again, this definition can be 3 characterized by a number of examples, including 4 confirmatory action letter, which are issued by the regional administrator, with concurrence of the NRR office director, 5 6 our process which we call manual Chapter 0350, which is the .7-process used to coordinate issues for restart of a power { i 8 plant, or a regional level inspection beyond the NRC's i 9 routine inspection program, i 10 Slide 5 indicates the third area, which are the 11 remainder, in fact the majority of the operating reactors in 12 the' United States -- 13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman? i 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, please. 15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On the regional focus, 16 the last clause, enactment of a regional level inspection 17 beyond the NRC's routine inspection program, my recollection 18 of looking at the Web and reviewing these PPR letters is 19 there's a lot of folks who are getting beyond routine 20 inspection. They're getting additional OSTIs and whatever, 21 but they are still considered routine inspection, even 22 though they have enactment-of a regional-level inspection, 23 an OSTI I think is a regional-level inspection, that goes 24 beyond. So I'm not sure whether the last clause really 1 25 belongs in the regional-focus definition, or at least it's a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters '1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

e--- S-18 1 'little ambiguous, because, you know, you might well think 2 that -- several things. 3 One of the publications that watches us went ~4 through,all'those letters and noted how'few plants were 5 getting only routine inspection-you'know, and-they had a 6 chart of.every plant that was -- and described what they 7 were getting in the way of an additional maintenance 8 inspection _or an additional operational inspection and j 9 additional plant support inspection. So that last line, 1 10 isn't'it a.little -- -11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How do you reconcile what he's 12 'saying? 13 MR. COLLINS: I think there's a graded approach, -14 and again, the definition is a combination of all of the 15-examples. Plants that would be receiving an inspection that 16 -is meant to confirm or discover issues would be the premier plant starting at the Agency level. That would probably be 17 18 a diagnostic. It may be what were called the safety 19 evaluation type of inspection, which is a combination of 20 Agency-level effort and industry-level effort. It may in i 21 fact be or result from an IIT, incident investigation team. I 22 I would characterize that as the Agtncy level, t 23 The regional level is a little more combined i 24-between the routine program and those attributes of the ( l 25_ routine program which are meant to be confirmatory. I would i l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 e

y l S-18 l1 _little ambiguous, because, you know, you might well think 2 that several things.

3 One of the publications that watches us went

[ 4 through all those letters and noted how few plants were 5 getting only. routine inspection,'you know, and they had a 6 chart'of every plant that was -- and described what they 7 were getting in the way of an additional maintenance 8 ' inspection or an additional operational inspection and 9 additional plant support inspection. So that last line, 10 isn't it a little -- i 1 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How do you reconcile what he's 12 saying? 13 MR. COLLINS: I think there's a graded approach, 14 and again, the definition is a combination of all of the 15 examples. Plants that would be receiving an inspection that 16 is meant to confirm or discover issues would be the premier 17 plant starting at the Agency level. That would probably be i 18 a diagnostic. It may.be what were called the safety l i '19 evaluation type of inspection, which is a combination of 20-Agency-level effort and industry-level effort. It may in 21' fact be or result from an IIT, incident investigation team. j 22-I would characterize that as the Agency level. 23 The regional level is a little more combined 24 between the routine program and those attributes of the 25 routine program which are meant to be confirmatory. I would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters f 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-19 1 assume that a plant that's in the regional level would be 2 contro11e'd by the regional administrator as far as resources 3 are concerned, and it would be the type of inspection which is meant to be more confirmatory and less of a discovery 4 5 technique. ;OSTI is confirmatory -- 6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think you may need an 7 adjective there, enactment of significant or -- 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Special. 9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Special regional level 10 inspection beyond the NRC's so as to characterize it 11 differently from routine regional level inspections above -12 the routine. inspection program. 13 MR. COLLINS: Certainly we can do that. 14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: There's an adjective 15 missing there. 16 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Or drop the "or." Because if 17 you drop the "or," you know, every time we have a regional 18 plan, we always have, you know, a regional level inspeccion l 19 program irregardless of what comes above it. There might be -20 an "or" there, there might be something, but we always i 21-have -- so it is an "an" rather than an "or." 22 DR. TRAVERS: We will try to make it clear that 23 just by virtue of the fact that there is some additional 24 level of inspection that that doesn't equate to -- l 25-COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The reason I'm also ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. { Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-20 1 pressing this line of questioning is the 99-007-A, which is 2 where we're headed. actually has four categories, five if 3 you include the unacceptable, but it has sort of routine 4 plus one degraded cornerstone, repetitive degraded 5 cornerstones, and that -- repetitive degraded cornerstones a 6 year from now may be, you know, we may shorten that to 7 Agency focus, and one degraded cornerstone may be regional 8 . focus, and one or two inputs may be regional-plus, and then 9 all inputs agreeing are going to be true routine. And 10. .there's a sort of interim category there that next you'll be 11 dealing with or two-years from now, I guess, when you're 12 fully implemented. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think it's fair to say that 14 much of the discussion, but you can' correct me, Sam, focused 15 on in a certain sense the disposition of plancs that had 16 already been examined by virtue of already being on the 17 previous watch list and/or ones that came up for special 18 discussion this time. 19 But I think your point is valid in the sense that 20 at a certain-level if one were going to do this, one would 21 have to go through and do a sort of all the plants that have 22 some heightened level of regional attention and decide where 23 they fall out. But I think that because this is an interim 24 step that, you know, we're kind of moving down the path, and 25 you're right that in the end all of the plants according to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (2021 842-0034 l i

7 S-21 l 1 the new graduated scheme are going to fall out somewhere. 2 MR. COLLINS: 'Right I L3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Chairman?. j 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please. I'm sorry. 5 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Since Commissioner. 6 McGaffigan opened the door, I've got a related question I l 7 want to ask, actually, on the previous slide, slide 3. 8 LYou talk about enactment of Agencp-level oversight 9 .or inspection, and I just want to get some better grasp of ~ 10 what you mean by.that. Does that mean site visits by NRC' 11 executives qualified for Agency-level oversight? Is it 12 high-level NRR support for licensee amendments that quality 13 for Agency-level oversight? I expect we have a relatively 14 high threshold for this, and I just want to get some 15 understanding of what constitutes Agency focus and what kind 16 of bounds you intend to put on it, just so it's clear to 17 ourselves and to licensees. 18 MR. COLLINS: Sure. The. intent was to focus on 19 the words above, where are involvement by the EDO and/or the 20 Commission, and that involvement being necessary to 21 coordinate resources,, maintain cognizance, or take a 22 specific Agency action at that level. So using the examples 23 tlat you provided, Commissioner Merrifield, site visits for 24 the sake of status would not qualify. That would not be 25 considered to be an action. A meeting with the board of l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. [ Court Reporters f 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

P I L l S-22 1 directors, which would prompt focusing on issues or 2 expression of concerns perhaps would if that meeting were i 3 . meant to be a, tool to communicate a level of action. So 4 there is'a threshold there where the same individuals can'be i 5 involved,-but the intent would be different-that would 1 6 qualify or not for Agency focus. I 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You might need to' add "or take i 8 specific action" as part of your boldfaced large print 9 definition of Agency focus, because what.you described { l 10 initially is not perhaps being Agency focus would be ) i 11 cognizance. But it would be a cognizance or a coordination 1 j 12. of resources that's special and/or taking a specific Agency 13 action, and your examples down below are specific Agency 14 actions. 15 MR. COLLINS: Right. Again, we believe -- it's 16 very hard to find one definition if it's all that fits on a 17 slide. And there is some tailing off. I think we'll see 18 examples of that as we discuss plants where in some cases 19 the actions that have been taken may reach a lower 20 threshold, but the interest of the Agency is still at a 21 heightened level because performance has not yet been 22' demonstrated, even though the inspection level to confirm 23 that performance may be at a lower level. So there is some 24 overlap, if you will, of the areas, and our intent here was 25 to defer to the higher level when that's appropriate. I: i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i l {

Ti S-23 1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I finally looked at the r l 2 action matrix I'had in front of me. Next year, I mean, if 3 the action matrix isn't changed, getting:the one notch below 4 acceptable, which is EDO or Commission -- presumably that 5~ translates to agency-level sort of focus; that they meet 6 with the senior licensee management, et cetera -- there, we 7 lump CALS and, orders and 50.54F letters and demand for 8 informations as typical actions that might be occurring if 9 ~ there's repetitive degraded cornerstones. 10 One catego7y to the left, the one degraded 11 cornerstone has a regional administrator conduct the meeting with the licensee, but the typical regulatory actions 12 13 discussed-for this one category below is a docket response 14 to a. degrading condition -- degraded condition -- degrading 15 condition. 16 So it looks like next year, really both regional 17 focus as you're defining it now and agency focus would be in 18 that right category, because here, you're making a l 19 distinction between orders cn1 the one hand and 0350 20 processes and CALs on the other hand, and in the action j 21 matrix, they're all lumped as, you know, that's what you get 22 if you're in the next to the far right category. You may 23 need to rationalize that as the year goes on. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, the action matrix is just ) l 25 an over-sort because it's saying who is going to take the l t l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l S-24 1 action, you.know, at what level is that action going to end ? up being taken. But, you_know, your point is right, that 3 one needs to rationalize the two, but let's just keep in 4_ mind this is a migratory path and this is the interim step ~ 5 on that migratory path. And so to try to force where we are 6 completely into where that is is not the appropriate thing .7-at this point. 8 DR. REYES: In fact, the objective is to do just 9' what Commissioner McGaffigan is pointing to: let the 10 actions that we've decided -- 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. Govern. 12 DR. REYES: -- appropriate speak for themselves as 13 opposed to, you know, the attribution of labels or 14 terminology. 15 MR. COLLINS: We have outstanding action to -- 16 which I'll articulate at the end in the go forward direction 17 to reconcile where we are today with the go forward 18 direction of the oversight process. In fact, a decision has 19-not yet been made whether there will actually be terms used 20 to describe the agency response inasmuch as that response is 21 prompted by performance at the time that it happens, and .22 therefore, performance is as performance does. 23 I didn't invent that term, but I'll take advantage of it. 24 It fits so nicely. 25 [ Laughter.]. AJR7 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

S-25 l 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Careful of creating a stick y 2 --somebody may beat you with it. 3 MR. COLLINS: It's pointed at both ends, right?

4 Slide'5, please.

5 As~was discussed here, the remainder of the 6 majority of the operating reactors are characterized by 7 warranting. routine oversight based on licensee performance. 8 These plants receive oversight under the auspices of the NRC 9. . inspection program as described'in NRC Manual Chapter 2515, 10 Lightwater. Reactor Inspection Program Operational Phase. 11 As was noted by Commissioner McGaffigan and 12 others, the 2515 inspection program includes both the 13 current core and regional initiative. inspections, and 14-there's a fairly broad spectrum of inspection options that 15 are available as tools to the regional administrators under 16 .that routine program, 17 May I have slide 6, please. 18 Slide 6 provides a summary of the overall results 19 of the recent senior management meeting. At this time,,the 20 regional administrators will discuss the facilities that 21 warrant regional and routine oversight as a result of the 22 senior management meeting. 23-In additional to those plants listed on Slide 6, 24 there were three plants that were discussed as a result of 25 the previous categorization, which is a category 1 facility. 1 V' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 J

S-26 1 Those plants had been previously removed from what used to 2 be termed the Watch List. They were discussed during the senior.manageme't meeting to' ensure that performance 3. n 4 improvements which prompted the removal from the Watch List 5 continued over the period of the next two senior management 6 ' meetings. Those plants were Crystal River 3, Salem 1, 2 and 7 Dresden 2 and 3. As a result of the discussions, those 8 plants will receive routine oversight in the future. 9 At this point, I would like to turn the discussion 10 over to regional administrator Hub Miller of Region 1, who 11 will lead'the discussions of the Millstone facilities. 12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Good morning, Chairman, 13 Commissioners, f 14 The Millstone units were first discussed in June 15 1991 at the senior management meeting at that time and have 16 been discussed at each meeting since. Subsequent to the 17 June 1996 meeting, the Commission designated Millstone a 18 . Category 3 facility requiring Commission approval of restart 19 of the units which were shut down at the time. 20 ~ At the time of the recent senior management 21 meeting, the Commission had not approved startup of unit 2. 22 On this basis, the unit was identified as an agency-focus 23 plant. Although the Commission authorized restart 24 subsequent to.the senior management meeting, the facility 25 remains an agency-focus plant pending completion of that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-27 i 1 restart and a period of sustained successful plant 2 operations. 3 Having recently discussed the status of unit 2 activities in some detail in the Commission meeting of April 4 5 114th in connection with the unit 2 restart, unless there are 6. questions, I will proceed to our assessment and decisions 7 regarding unit 3. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there any subtlety or 9 ' wrinkle with respect to providing differing levels of 10 oversight for two plants on the same site? 11 MR. MILLER: Well, much of the oversight in the 12 area of, for example, employee concerns is something that . 13 cuts across both units, and in that sense, it's the same. 14 -But unit 2 has not operated. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, I'm saying relative to how 16 you carry out the job and -- 17 MR. MILLER: Yes. I think on the restart of unit 18 2, we will have a kind of oversight for a period of time. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: A different level -- 20 MR. MILLER: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 22 MR. COLLINS: Chairman, we're also aware that 23 there's Commission level interest in the performance of 1 24 Millstone 2 since the plant has not restarted and does not 25 have a sustained period of operation. That was an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 k

m L '; S-28 i 1, additional reason for the categorization of agency focus. 2 MR. MILLER: Following Commission approval, unit 3 3' restarted on July'1st of last year. The unit has operated 4 at power most of the time since then and it was shut down 5 several days ago for a scheduled refueling outage. I 6. While the licensee has characteristically made 7 safe conservative decisions in operating unit 3 and has 8 worked to raise standards, operational problems which 9 surfaced in the six months following restart gave rise to 10 some concerns. I 11 This included several plant trips and entries into j l 12 technical specification action statements requiring 13 initiation of shutdowns that were related in part to 14 previously identified problems and equipment concerns. 15 The licensee took steps to address these concerns 16 by extending the outage associated with the last plant trip 17 in December to address a number of control room deficiencies 18 and operator burdens. This increased focus on supporting 19 plant operations has recently yielded some positive results 20 in operations. 21 In the area of corrective actions, progress has 22 been made in addressing the backlog of issues deferred at 23 the time of restart last July. However, a large station 24 workload associated with unit 2 restart, the unit 3 25 refueling outage and the still large backlog of corrective I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-29 1 action items, constitute a significant continuing challenge 2 for the station. At the same time, the licensee will be '3 completing a major reorganization. 4 While-progress has been made in developing a 5 safety-conscious' work environment and handling of' employee li concerns, continued heightened monitoring of.these areas is .7 warranted. 8-For these reasons and the need to observe a more t 9 sustained period of successful operation, the senior 10-managers determined that unit 3 warrants oversight as a 11 regional focus plant. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Merrifield, did 13 you have a question? 14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Yes. I just wanted to 15 get a -- I'm aware that I believe currently, unit 2 is under 16 a temporary restraining order by a -- I don't know if it's a 17 state judge or a Federal -- 18 MR. MILLER: State. 19 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: A state judge. And I'm i 20 just wondering what the legal status of that is and what 21' --do you have any indication of where that stands? 22 DR. REYES: Perhaps OGC could address that. 23 MR. BURNS: Essentially. It was a -- a TRO was 24 sought by private parties before a state court judge in the 25 State of Connecticut dealing with matters regarding state l ( 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 { (202) 842-0034 L..

L S-30 1- . environmental regulation. My understanding is although NU 2 may go back to the' judge before the -- I think the TRO runs .3 Lout.sometime early next month or at the end of this month. 4 = Essentially, what the NRC has done, as is indicated from the 5 standpoint of its regulatory authority and responsibility 6 under the Atomic Energy Act, it has made the decisions or 7 determinations it needs to make with respect to authorizing I 8 restart recognizing that there -- just as in any plant that 9 may require state approvals, a certificate of convenience 10 and necessity from a state PUC or something else. But those 11 are other matters 1that may be resolved. 12 As I say, you know, we -- the NRC itself has not 13 been a participant in those proceedings'. You know, we try 14 to follow them as we can. But my understanding is that 15 although there may be an opportunity for the utility to go 1 16 back before the judge and seek some relief from the TRO, it 17 would ordinarily run out, I think, if I'm correct, at the 18 end of this month or in early June. 19 Part of it, as I understood, it was keyed to the i 20 spawning season of certain fish species in the Long Island 21 Sound. 22 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: As a related question, 23 obviously.the licensee had been gearing itself up for 24: operation of that facility. What has been the response? 25 .Have they continued to work on their backlog? Have they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Rep'orters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l S-31 1 been progressing with the work that they had anticipated? I 2: just want.to getla.better understanding of how the licensee 3 is acting in response to this restraining order and how that 4~ affects the operation of that plant. i 5 MR. MILLER: It is on hot standby and have 6 continued-to work on the backlog, do maintenance otherwise 7 prepare themselves for restart. As you know, we have an 8-' expanded staff,. resident inspectors and we are following ] i 9 that. I think they are using this time to their advantage j 4 10 from.the feedback I am getting. 11 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you. 12 MR. COLLINS: If there are no more questions, I 13 will' acknowledge that as a result of the screening meetings, 14 there were no plants moved forward for discussion at the 15 Senior Management Meeting in Region II. At this. time we 16 will proceed with those plants that were forwarded for 17 discussion that are located in Region III. 18 ' Jim Dyer, the Regional Administrator from Region 19 III, will discuss plants. We are going to start out with 20 the agency focus plant, D.C. Cook. Jim. 21 MR. DYER: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. 22 'The first plant I would like to discuss is the D.C. Cook 23 Nuclear Station. Both units of D.C. Cook were shut down in 24 September 1997 after an NRC architect engineering inspection 25 identified significant concerns about the design and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

p S-32 i 11 operation of:several safety systems. 2 -In March'1998 a restart plan'was developed that l j, 3' . included system readiness reviewsJof safety systems that 41 ~were performed.by American Electric Power staff and the NRC. .5. entered the-Manual Chapter 0350 process. 6 After the July 1998 Senior Management Meeting, 7-D.C; Cook received a. Trending Letter and the NRC staff was t 8 -directed to validate the system readiness review process J 9 with a safety system functional inspection. At the l 10-licensee's. request,--the safety system. functional inspection i 11 "was subsequently performed by an independent contractor with a 12 NRC oversight. l 13. Since the July 1998 Senior Management Meeting, 14 both units have remained shut down. The auxiliary feedwater 15' system, safety system functional inspection identified 16-significant operability issues that were missed by 17 licensee's earlier system readiness reviews. An NRC 18 inspection also identified concerns with numerous \\ \\ 19 motor-operated valves that should have been previously ) 20 resolved. 21. In January 1999, in response to these findings, 22 American Electric Power delayed the scheduled restart of 23 D.C.-Cook indefinitely and revised the restart plan to L 242 include expanded system. readiness reviews of safety systems 25 using both their staff and independent contractor resources. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 t' Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

q S-33 1. The expanded system readiness reviews have identified 2 7significant findings, some of'which may require system ) 3 modifications and license amendments to resolve. 4 LThe NRC has continued to focus inspection 5 activities-through the Manual' Chapter 0350 restart panel. 6 To'date, inspections of the expanded system readiness review 7 process indicates that* a thorough review by the licensee. 8' Our final' validation of the expanded system readiness review 9 results will occur later this summer. 10. # The Senior Managers' discussions focused on two 11 considerations in order to determine the appropriate level 12 of agency response. First, we considered the factors in 13 plant evaluation template for increasing or decreasing 14 attention at a NRC trending facility. The licensees' 15 initial systems readiness reviews failed to identify 16 existing problems and were considered an ineffective 17 self-assessment. However, the expanded system readiness -18 reviews appear to very thorough assessments. 19 American Electric Power is utilizing external 20-expertise to identify longstanding design problems, 21 instituting program changes to prevent recurrence and 22 delaying restart until an integrated solution is developed 23 to resolve the identified problems. As a result, the Senior 24 -Managers determined that additional NRC action was not 25 necessary to address D.C. Cook performance at this time. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I L

f l-l S-34 1 Second, we considered the current level and L 12 expected level of NRC resources required for support and -3 oversight.of restart activities. We considered the current i 11evel of NRC oversight during problem discovery activities 4 { 5 to currently be beyond the regional level. A Commission 6' meeting.was held in: November 1998 with American Electric \\ 7 Power executives. Several NRC executives have already made 8 site visits. And a public restart meet'ing was held in NRC 9 headquarters to better coordinate agency support. 10 Additionally, the restart inspection efforts to 11 date have been augmented with contractor and staff resources 12 beyond Region III. In looking to the future with the 13 significant issues currently identified, additional i 14 resources to s'upport the expected licensing inspection for 15 the. problem' resolution activities are anticipated. 16 In summary, the Senior Managers determined that I 17 D.C. Cook is currently-receiving an agency focus level of - 18 oversight. No additional regulatory actions are considered 19 necessary as the licensee's current restart plan appears to 20 be a thorough approach to identifying and resolving problems 21 at'D.C. Cook. 22 We concluded that the continued agency focus is - 23 appropriate for D.C. Cook oversight to ensure necessary NRC l 24 resources are applied to the restart efforts. The NRC staff 25 will continue to monitor and inspect licensee performance i le, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L'

l S-35 1 through the NRC Manual Chapter 0350 process and evaluate 2 . whether additional _ action is necessary in the future. The 3 NRC staff will also ensure the Commission remains informed 4 of licensee recovery efforts. This concludes my 5 presentation on D.C. Cook. l 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What assurances do we have the l 7 difficulties'in engineering performance and design areas are 8' limited to those areas? I 9. MR. DYER: Well, I think the expanded system 10 readiness reviews go'far beyond design. Some of the issues 11 that are just -.if I get the question right, some of the l 12 issues that we are finding now, that the licensee is finding 13 now and we are observing in their process, have to do with maintenance and operating procedures and expand beyond just 14 ~ 15 design control issues. 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are we sufficiently involved to' j 17 understand the significance of their findings? ) 18 MR. DYER: We are, well, right now, still in the 19 problem discovery phase and, as luck would have it, I drove I J 20 in, I came in this morning with Rich Barrett on the Metro 21 and we were talking about, I understand, you know, the 22 Office of Research is also conducting a review of what is 23 the integrated assessment of all the problems that are being 24 discovered at D.C. Cook of the initiated projects. So I 25 .think that indicates some of the agency focus that we are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

lU. p S-36 i 1-still trying to get our arms-around, as well as the l 1 i 2 licensee. 3. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: JAre.they still trying to get- ) 4 -theiriarms around the scope of the issues? i i 5: MR. D(ER: Yes, ma'am. I l 6 MR. COLLINS: Madam Chairman, we have two points 7 of focus for the agency oversight to ensure that the level 8 and-the depth of attention is appropriate. 1Df course, Jim 9 Dyer, as a Regional' Administrator, is a primary contact. 10 NRR is in a support role for the region as far as resources

11' and,the. licensing. actions that may result from the design j

12 basis.discoveri's. e 131 Jim ~and.I are both involved, I.have been to two 14 0350 panels,-one:at the site, and the approach that is being ] . 15 used is a little different than has been used in the past. I 16 As.you know, we have been involved in the discovery efforts l 17 at D.C. Cook bef.:re. d 18 Jim's approach -- Jim, I am going to hand'it off - 19. her to you in just a moment -- is to allow the licensee to 20 go through an initial' discovery phase with us understanding 21 the process that is.being used, and then, after an initial 22- . implementation of that process with a number of systems,. we . ill go forth and test-the results independently, therefore, .23-w 24 ' validating the process and the scope and depth of the 25 process. And then we would allow =the licensee to proceed l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NN, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C.'20036 '(202) 842-0034 h

g S-37 1L with thel implementation of that process. That is opposed to y 2 waiting until the end of the process and coming in and doing 3 .a; confirmatory review. And Jim.is managing this process 4 day-to-day. Is that accurate, Jim? 5 MR. DYER: Yes, sir, 6 .CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Taking off from my colleague, 7 Dr. Diaz,'you know,' language is always important,. and as you 8 were describing the level of activity, you used terms like 9 " support restart," and if they are still in a discovery 10 phase'and they are still bounding the problem, and we have 11. yet to go through these measured steps that Mr. Collins 12 outlined, we should be careful that we are not sending the -13 wrong message in talking about supporting restart. In the 14 end, our job is to support oversight of restart when they 15 get to that point. So, I just would like to sensitize you 16 in that area. Please. 17 COMMISSIONER DICUS: It is my understanding that 18 D.C. Cook uses a lot of outside contractor support to 19 perform their work. Is that fairly accurate? 20 MR. DYER: Yes, ma'am. 21 COMMISSIONER DICUS: There is a point in time, of 22 course, they need to rely less on contractor support, but 23 are they trending in that direction or are they so far away 24 from being able to not have contractor support that it is 25 premature to even consider that? l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~ g. V S-38 ') 1 MR. DYER: Right now, I would say I know of no 1 2 plans to back away from their current contractor support 3 _ efforts. We haven't really focused on any of their restart 4 activities,for resolution of the problems yet, and what l 5 their plans are. The contracted support was brought in to 6 provide the independent review of their systems and one of 7 'the principal problems or root causes for missing the issues 8 with the system readiness reviews was a lack of this 9 contracted or independent assessment. So at this stage, 10 very much still in the problem discovery phase. 11 I think as a status, the licensee identified three 12 -- grouped their systems into two or three different groups. 13 The first phase was the most safety significant systems, of 14 which there was around 20 or 19 systems. That discovery 15 phase, right now, when we held our last 0350 restart panel j 16 about two weeks ago, was the first system, containment 17 systems, had** report had been just been issued, and they 18 still have -- the other ones were still in various stages of 19 development. And so, as-Sam was saying, our review of that 20 discovery phase-will occur when they finish this first 21 group. But it is still very much contractor driven. 22 MR. COLLINS: Commissioner Dicus, I think there is 23 -- just to be sure that we are clear in your question and 24 the response, the plant being in discovery and then recovery 25-has many layers in these processes which are not typical of i e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 i

p._ S-39 ~1 an operating reactor. 'The majority of the support for those 2 unique reviews and the~1ayers of review are individuals who il are from the outside as contractors, to use a general term. 4 Theresis the.second aspect which is that the 5 majority of their senior staff have come in from the 6 outside, other utilities, other recovery plants. The .7 majority of those individuals are permanent employees, but 8 they are, in fact, new to the site. 9 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. 10 MR. COLLINS: So.there is a difference between i 11. those two views. Is that fair, Jim? 12 MR, DYER: Yes. And I think one other thing that 13

would, w'

'.her it is a contracted or AEP employees doing the 14 design edgineering work afterwards, as part of the expanded 15 system readiness reviews, they are developing a library of 16 design basis information that is retrievable,. computer 17 assisted in that. Part of the problems in the past with 18 D.C. Cook is they haven't had the recoverable calculations, 19 drawings, to capture all the modifications to systems, and 20 that is part of the problem that we had in not penetrating 21 and finding these problems earlier through our inspection 22 process, as well as their engineers facilitating, doing 23 comprehensive design change reviews and that. 24 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Although I haven't had l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-40 s k 1 an opportunity to go up to D.C. Cook.yet and it is my { 2 intention to do so soon, I did ask'one of the members of my 3' staff,; Brian'McCabe, to accompany Sam-Collins there to get a 4 report on what was_ going on, and which he did provide to me. 5 One of the' issues that I have raised concerns 6 about in the past is the -0350 and whether we are 7 appropriately bounding that process'in our review of these i 8 plants. 9 I would be interested in knowing how the -0350 1 10 process has enhanced our oversight efforts at D.C. Cook and i 11 what steps you and your folks in the region have taken to i 12 make sure'that we are utilizing that process with the I 13 appropriate bounding efforts. 14 MR. DYER: From my perspective, the true value of 15 the -0350 process is I have a designated SES level manager. 16 In the case of D.C. Cook it-is Jack Rowe, the Director, 17 Division of Reactor Safety, who briefed the Commission at 18 the November 30th Commission meeting and Jack runs the -0350 19 process and it is really an effective way of managing our 20 resources we are dedicating to the site. 21 We have a significant amount of resources that we 22 are in the ready position to inspect the licensee based on 23 when they accomplish specific milestones. As they are going .24 through this process, these dates slip. They change. l._ 25 Sometimes they move up, sometimes they move back as things l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

FE S-41 1-go.well or poorly'during their restart process, and us 2 targeting key milestones.such as completion of a discovery 3 phase, if.that is extended I.need to have a manager who 4 knows..to reprogram a rather significant amount of resources 5-and particularly in the case of D.C. Cook we were receiving 6 inspector, contractor support from NRR. We were also- ~ 7~ receiving inspectors from the other regions -- 'i 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What is the value added from a' j9 -health and safety point of view.of our -0350 oversight? 10 EMR. DYER: It is prompt' identification of ' 11 ' problems. 12 MR. COLLINS: I think it is an efficiency and 13 effectiveness argument -- how do we focus our resources, how } 14 do we determine what.is important, talking process-wise, not l 15 the specifics that Jim just articulated. 16 Also, perhaps one of the greatest benefits is 17 being able to create a forum by which the licensee and the 18 NRC, and these meetings are open to the public. At the 19' meeting that Mr. McCabe was at we had other stakeholders 20 present and we talked to those other stakeholders as a 21 result of the meeting, so that there is a common 22 understanding of what issues are within the regulatory 23 purview of the NRC, how we will handle those, and what is 24 within the control and auspices of the licensees which we do 25-not intend to confirm. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

F! S-42 1 That common understanding then drives the overview ). 2 processes and that changes at every meeting as discovery l, 3 continues. We also have a unique aspect of D.C. Cook. L 4 Cecil Thomas is the SES Manager who is represented on the S -0350 panel. There is a potential of a significant amount 1 6 of licensing activity to come forward as a result of the 7 reconstitution of the design of the plant. Those licensing -8 actions in the arena that I operate in are very important i 9 for us to schedule and to provide resources towards and they 10 may have a tendency to drive other initiatives in other 11 arenas, so that is not an insignificant benefit to the -0350 12 process. 13 MR. MILLER: Could I add just a little bit from 14 the experience at Millstone, Salem, and some of the other 15 cases. I think this might go to your question. 16 In addition to assuring that the reviews are 1 17 comprehensive, the -0350 process brings a discipline to our 18 reviews and among other things, what we are sensitive to is 19 not using restart as a way to have new issues come in that 20 really aren't critical to restart, to-do a sort on the 21 issues and to among other things say that for example here's 22 an. issue that comes up that somebody on the Staff has had 23 ~for some period of time. It's a good issue but it is not a 24 ' restart issue -- so it kind of works both ways. 25 The discipline that is brought by Senior Managers, L. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

S-43 1 andfit is not just from the region, it is from the program 2 office'that is an another important facec of this. 3: COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Just so it's clear, 4 based on the information that my staff has provided me I do 5-think'your folks up in Region.III are doing a good job at 6 that process. I didn't want to leave that ambiguity with -7 you. 8' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you have been inspected and 9-passed the test. 10 MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Shall we go on? 12 MR.'McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, just one 13 question -- 14 CHAId1AN JACKSON: Oh,'I'm sorry. 15-MR. McGAFFIGAN: -- on D.C. Cook, just to try to i 16 get us all on the same page. The plant performance review 17 _ letter and the press release that Region III issued, the { 18 press noted this was among three plants, and I will get to 19 the other two later, where we did not give a pass or fail 20 grade or acceptable or unacceptable grade. We sort of 21 punted. Since I am uncomfortable having somebody ungraded, 22 where today if you were sending a PPR letter and issuing a 23 PPR press release would D.C. Cook fit? l24 MR. DYER: I think I would punt again. 25 MR. COLLINS: Let me answer -- l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034 L

E l. S-44 1-MR. DYER: I think Sam -- l 2 MR. COLLINS: Jim, you can answer the specifics. L, 3 In fact, Ewe didn't punt. What we did was follow program l .4 office guidance and the program office guidance would 5 indicate that if a plant is in an extended shutdown then the 6-assessment of'the plant performance should focus on those 7 recovery efforts and-not the anticipation, if you will, that 8 the plant :Us operating at an overall acceptable arena like a 9 plant that is operating under their license conditions, so 10 -what we need to do in the future, in the go-forward area, 11-Commissioner McGaffigan, is to be sure that we are clear, if 12 we continue to use these letters, that when'we do use a word 13 like " acceptable" -- and we may in the future, to help that i 14 clarity issue -- for a plant that is shut down, it would be

l l

15 focused towards those recovery efforts and whether those j 1 16 - recovery efforts are making sufficient acceptable progress I 17 or not. 18 MR. McGAFFIGAN: My recollection is, and Dr. 19 Travers can correct me, that during the entire Millstone era 20 where he where he was head of the Special Projects Office, 21 we tended to say things like they are acceptable for the 22 condition that they are in when he would have public 23 meetings there, so I am not sure why he did one thing at 24 Millstone.and we are doing another at D.C. Cook. 25 You know, the question is are the acceptable in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L -(202) 842-0034 L

g S-45 l' the' mode that-they are in at the moment, which is a shutdown 2 mode, and-are their actions. acceptable, so that is why I am '3 a little confused. 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well he, as far as I recall, I 5 think I-heard-him right, did say as part of his presentation 6 .on D.C. Cook that the path they are.on is. acceptable. ~ 7-MR. McGAFFIGAN: Right, yes. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that is as far as it goes,. 9 and they are not ready to restart. There's the -0350

U3

' process and so the path they are on is acceptable. They are 11 already shut down. Now if they were operating, then there 12-is an issue there -- 13 MR. McGAFFIGAN: -- in a minute -- 14 [ Laughter.] 15-MR. TRAVERS: But Commissioner, in response to 16 .your question, you are right. I mean there is -- first of 17 all, we are in transition. We are sort of looking at how 1-8' .best to communicate these kinds of things, but from my 19 experience at Millstone, since you related it, there was 20 some considerable interest in the safety of whatever mode 21 the plant happens to be in at the time, whhther it is 22' shutdown or not and there may be some value in expressing 23 that in some way in connection with these communications '24 'following the PPR, and Sam and I have been discussing that. 25 I am sure we are going to look at that very ' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 .J t

E l S-46 L 1 seriously. l 2 MR. COLLINS: We are doing a lessons learned based 3 on the.overall process,. which includes not only the letters 4' we are sending out for the PPR and how they communicate, but j 5 the press releases, whether the PPR process gets us to where 6 we need to go as far as inspection resources and that input '7 along with others by OPA, Office of Public Affairs, that we 8 have received will be part of the lessons learned. 9-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Would you go on then. 10 MR. DYER: Okay. The next plant I would like to 11 discuss is the Clinton Power Station. Clinton shut down 12 September, 1996 after a recirc pump seal failure event 13 raised questions about operator and equipment performance. 14 After the January, 1997 Senior Management Meeting Clinton 15 was. issued a trending letter for declining performance and 16 an NRC Manual Chapter -0350 restart panel was established. 17 At the June, 1997 Senior Management Meeting, 18 Senior Managers concluded that the trend was not arrested 19 and that an independent safety assessment with NRC safety 20 evaluation team oversight should be conducted. This was an . 21. alternative to the diagnostic evaluation program. 22 At the January, 1998 Senior Management Meeting i 12 3 Clinton was identified as a Category 2 Watch List plant 24 after inadequate corrective actions of circuit breaker l.. 25 problems were discovered and the independent safety ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 .(202) 842-0034 l t L

y S-47 1 assessment identified broad problems in al1~ functional -2 : areas. 3 Later_in January, 1998LIllinois Power issued a-fthree-year contract to PECO' Energy to provide management 4 5. service?to the C1'inton Power' Station. . PECOL Energy; brought 6. in a new management team and created the " Plan.for 7 Excellence," which include the actions necessary for s-8 restart. After the July, 1998 Senior Management Meeting, ~9 Clinton remained a Category 2. Watch List facility. 10' Since the July, 1998 Senior Management Meeting, -11 Clinton has focused on the actions in the " Plan for 12 Excellence" necessary for restart and delayed some of the 13 non-restart actions. Three areas were of most concern for 1 14 restart -- operations, corrective actions, and engineering. .15 NRC inspections revealed that with PECO Energy's 16 support, engineering products were sound. However, the 17 operations and corrective action programs were slow to 18 improve and achieved acceptable performance for restart only I 19 after extensive remediation and mentoring by contracted i 20 personnel. i 21 Shortly before the Senior Management Meeting, the i 22 NRC -0350 restart panel completed its review of the l 23 case-specific checklist items for restart. After the Senior 24 ' Management Meeting on April-27th, 1999, I closed out the 25 Manual Chapter -0350 restart action items after consultation j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

P p i l S-48 l 1. with'the EDO and the Director of NRR. 2 To help assure that long-term performance remained 3 acceptable after restart we decided to continue the Manual 4 Chapter -0350 panel to review the results of the NRC restart 5 inspections and'the licensee's updated " Plan for Excellence" 6 with'the.new milestones for completion of non-restart items 7 and to develop a post-restart inspection plan for the 8 Clinton Station, 9 In determining the appropriate NRC response to 10 Clinton performance the Senior Managers considered the 11 factors in the evaluation matrix. Clinton performance 12 improved sufficiently for restart with the support of 13 outside contractors. Self-assessments were identifying issues but the corrective action program was not ensuring 14 15 timely resolution. Senior Managers were concerned about the 16 continuity of performance at Clinton given the high reliance -17 on contractor support for improvements, and the possible 18 change in ownership of the Clinton Station. It was decided 19. that continued direct attention of the Regional 20 Administrator was necessary to coordinate the increased 21' inspection and monitoring activities. 22 As a result, Senior Managers concluded that 23 Clinton should receive a regional focus level of oversight. 24 This. concludes my presentation on Clinton. 25- -CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do we have confidence in the l l l. J. I-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

s S-49 1 clicensees' ability to find and correct " correct" being 2-capitalized -- probleme? 3: MR. DYER: Under their -- with their current 4 management' structure and augment and support from 5 contractors, yes. 6-COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman? 7-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please. 8 ' COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: The next punt, Clinton 9 was one of the other plants that, as of the April 5th, 10 perhaps for the reasons that Mr. Collins mentioned earlier, did not have an acceptable or unacceptable grade since they 11 12 are now opera' 3 3g? Do you want to give us a grade if you 13 were issuing the PPR today? 14 MR. DYER: Yes, sir. Given that they're operating 15 now, their performance would be acceptable. 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. Thank you. 17 'MR. COLLINS: Our understanding is Clinton is in -18 the startup -- 19 MR. DYER: They're currently starting up. 20 MR. COLLINS: It's in the startup mode. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you know my basic 22 position. Performance is as performance does, and if we're 23 going to punt most things over to the corrective action 24 program, we better be darn sure that the corrective action i 25 program on its own legs works at these plants. We can't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-50 1; just'say that's the closet into which everything gets swept n 2 and'not.open the door to the closet and ensure that it gets 3 cleaned out. 4 MR~ DYER: The 0350 restart panel is, in fact, one 5 of the -- one of the planned inspections-that are going to 6 come out of that.is an approach for addressing the 7: corrective action program post-restart. We do need to focus I 8

on that area.

We're very concerned of any kind of a 9. . backsliding in that arena. 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner? 11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: I had a question about the 12 corrective action program. The' Chairman asked it for me, so 13 I appreciate that. 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You're welcome. 15 COMMISSIONER DICUS: But I would emphasize the - 16 _ importance of it and the confidence level that you would 17' have in their corrective action program'as they go forward. 18 The other thing is just a short question. Did 19 '_ they replace the breakers or did they repair them?~ 20 .MR. DYER: They replaced some and refurbished 21 some. It was -- 22 COMMISSIONER DICUS: 50/50 or -- 23 MR.' DYER: I don't know. I saw -- 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Maybe you can get that 25 information. ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,_NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 842-0034 1 L i l i L i

S-51 1 MR. DYER: Yes. We'll have to get back. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Merrifield? 3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I know Dr. Travers a 4 recently wrote a letter to Illinois Power in which a point 5 was made that PECO Energy was providing significant 6 management and technical support at Clinton, and it 7 reflected, as was commented on by Mr. Deyer, that we had a 8 concern that a substantial reduction in the enhanced support 9 provided by PECO could hare -- may be of concern and may 10 necessitate increased inspection and monitoring. 11 Subsequently, there has been an announcement that 12 Amergen is pursuing an interest in purchasing the Clinton 13 plant and they have signed some documents related to that. 14 But I remember when we had our meeting regarding the restart 15 of Millstone Unit 2, I think it was Commissioner Diaz who 16 asked the question, is the licensee ready to stand on its 17 own and effectively operate the plant? If Amergen woke up 18 tomorrow and decided that Clinton was not such a good 19. investment and decided to pull its folks out of there, can 20 this licensee stand on its own and operate that plant? 21 MR. DYER: Yes. And if Amergen -- well, Amergen i 22 is separate from PECO Energy, is our understanding -- 23 COMMISSIONER MFRRIFIELD: Presumably -- 24 MR. DYER: -- and they have a contract, a 25 three-year contract, to provide the management services to i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i S-52 Illinois Power separate from the Amergen purchase, is my 1 l 2 understanding. i e 3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: So they're locked in -there irrespective of the decision made on Amergen --' '4 5 MR. DYER: Yes, sir. 6' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And with their outside' support. 7-MR. DYER: With their outside support. And should 8 that -- I mean, if PECO Energy would pull all its-support-9 away, the licensed operators, we would have to evaluate the 10 overall management team that's left and what's going on at 11 the site and make a decjsion. 12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 14 MR. COLLINS: If there are no more questions, 15 we'll proceed with LaSalle units 1 and 2. 16 MR. DYER: The next plant I would like to discuss 17-is the LaSalle nuclear station. At the January 1997 senior 18 management meeting, _LaSalle was placed on the Watch' List as 19 a' category 2 facility following the shutdown of both units 20 to address a number of human performance and hardware- '2i deficiencies. 22 Comed implemented a restart plan and -performance 23 improved; however, as of the July 1998 senior management 1 -24 meeting, both units remained shut down and LaSalle remained 25' .a Category 2' Watch List facility. ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034 4

S-53 1~ Since the' July 1998 senior management. meeting, 2

both units have restarted and we have observed improved 3

. safety performance. Overall, recovery from the extended 4 outages at both units'was conducted well.. Unit 1 restarted 5' Lin August 1998 and~ experienced a scram and forced outage due 6 .to equipment' problems shortly afterLrestart. Operators 7 handled these transients well. A short unit 1 maintenance 8 outage was also successfully conducted in December 1998. 9 Unit 2 restarted in April 1999 without problems of 10 note, and to.date, dual unit operations'have not created any 11 . additional problems. 12 During a recent' radiological cont'rols inspection, 13' we did note problems with radiological' worker performance; 14 however, a recent follow-up inspection-identified that 15 corrective actions had been implemented by the station to 16 address these concerns. 17 The senior managers discussed LaSalle performance 18' .in relation to the factors and the evaluation matrix to 19- ' determine.an appropriate agency response. 20 The root cause of previous problems had been-21: identified and corrected, self-assessment and corrective 22 action programs were improved, and management oversight had 23 .been enhanced and an NRC assessment had been successfully 24 completed. 25 The'only remaining question was whether LaSalle . ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

) S-54 { 1 could sustain successful plant operation under dual unit 2 operating conditions. The senior manager determined that f { 3 additional focused inspections were not necessary based on j 4 the observed performance of unit 1 and the successful 5 startup of unit 2. 6 Overall, the senior managers concluded that 7 LaSalle had~made sufficient progress at improving 8 performance to warrant routine-oversight under the auspices i 9 of the NRC inspection program. 10 This concludes my presentation on LaSalle. 11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'll ask my -- 12 MR. DYER: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: This was sort of a half i 14 punt because the press release in the title said NRC finds 15 performance acceptable, but the letter -- where that 16 normally occurs in these letters says, overall, performance 17 at LaSalle improved as discussed below. So where is LaSalle 18_ today? 19 MR. DYER: Performance today is acceptable. 20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Thank you. 21 Can you explain why couldn't we say that back on '22 March 31st? 23 MR. DYER: We struggled with LaSalle in particular 24 because, as I said and Sam.said, the program office guidance 25 is, the performance is either acceptable or they were shut ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-55 1 down as part of a restart 0350 or another restart 2 process. In LaSalle's case, we had started up one unit, one 3 unit had been started up and we had assessed that. The 4 second unit was still shut down and still coming out of the 5 0350 restart process. We had scheduled as a result of the 6 PPR two restart inspections, one a significant engineering 7 review, and second, an operational readiness inspection. 8 We were worried about sending mixed messages with 9 one unit shut down, one unit started up, going out and doing 10 significant team inspections to support the restart plans 11 and the final closecut of the 0350 process, and so we 12 deferred-to the non-conservative approach for fear of, if 13 things did not go well in the inspection, then we would be P 14 saying acceptable in March, and in April, we would be saying 15 unacceptable. 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think there's a lesson 17 to be learned, but I'm not sure what it is. I honestly 18 think that we should go back to the practice that we had at 19 Millstone of deciding whether a plant's acceptably being 20 --for the condition it's in, whether the performance is 21 acceptable, rather than have this ambiguous area where if 22 they happen to be shut down, they don't get a grade. I 23 think that we would be better off communicating to the 24 public our overall view of the plant as it exists at the 25 time. But that's just one -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

c S-56 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think the difficulty is -- I 2 don't disagree with that, If it's acceptable or the path 3 they're on is acceptable for the condition they're in, we 4 should so state. But we also should be saying, you know, 5 this is what we found, this is what we didn't find, but this 6 is why they're acceptable for the state they're in. I 7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But the whole rest of 8 the LaSalle letter uses words " improved" in every paragraph, 9' " effective" almost in every paragraph, a few notes of the 10 sort of thing that Mr. Deyer has talked about. So it's 11 among the more positive of the letters we sent out, and then 12 there is the ambiguous message. 13 MR. COLLINS: Your point is well taken, and we 14 have that under advisement. The one phrase I would want to 15 be cautious with is that the intent of the PPR letters was 16 never to_give a grade. The intent of the-PPR letters was to 17 acknowledge trends in performance and the agency's proposed 18 response to those in terms of resources and process to set { 19 the stage to have open communication with the licensee in a 20 public forum about those topics. The word acceptable is a 21 threshold, I-think, that we should strive to acknowledge. 22 If a plant is~not acceptable in any condition, then we 23 should be taking a subsequent action. So I agree with your 24 point. . COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think that what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-57 1 happens, you know, any effort to communicate with the public .2 inevitably results in somebody-trying to do NRCology, you 3 know, like criminology, and, you know, you end up using 4 other adjectives -- consistent, improved, you know, decl'ining'in a couple of them -- and so people then try to 5 .6 figure out, you know, compared to baseline, what is the -7 impact of these letters-, As soon as we 'can get to something 8 that's more scrutable, the better off we'll be, which is'I 9 know what you think, too. But everything you do is going to 10 be read. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 12 MR. DYER: Next plant I'd like to discuss is the 13 Quad Cities Nuclear Station. After the January 1998 senior 14 management meeting, Quad Cities received a trending letter 15 following the shutdown of both units to address concerns 16 regarding the ability to safely shut down the plants in the 17 event of a fire. At the July 1998 senior management /18 meeting, senior managers noted that Comed had implemented an 19-improvement plan at both units, and both units had started

20 up-from extended outages.

However, the plants experienced 21 several transients after startup, and both units scrammed 22 shortly before the senior management meeting. Because of 23-this inconsistent performance, the senior managers concluded 24 that the adverse trend had.not been arrested. 25 Since the July senior management meeting, overall ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-58 1.. -safety performance at the Quad Cities Nuclear Stations has 2-improved, although challenges continue to occur from . configuration management and material condition problems'. 3 4-Both units started up from their scram successfully.and 5 showed improved operational performance with fewer 6 challenges. Unit 1 operated at power for the period with 7 the exception of one scram due to an operator error and a 8 ' successful 28-day refueling outage. Unit 2 operated at 9 power during the period with the exception of an equipment 10 outage and a planned maintenance outage. During the maintenance outage, an improper valve lineup resulted in 11 12 unintended transfer of approximately 7,000 gallons of 13 ' coolant from the vessel to the torus. This event was a 14 process control breakdown that did not threaten the safety I \\ 15 of the fuel. .16 The senior managers discussed Quad Cities' 17 performance in relation to the factors of the performance 18 evaluation template for increasing or decreasing Agency 19 attention.to a trending facility. 'As discussed earlier, 20 operational performance of the units has improved. 21 Additionally, as discussed during a previous Commission i 22 meeting, the risk from fire had been reduced through better 23 understanding of some system configuration, improved 24 procedures, and system modifications. The self-assessment 25' program -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

g S-59 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Don't you really mean that the 2 estimation of the risk was reduced because of analysis? The 3 risk was reduced because of modifications. 4 MR. DYER: Yes, ma'am. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. There's a difference. 6 MR. DYER: I merged it all together. 7 The self-assessment program, corrective action 8 process, and surveillance testing program were also 9 improved, and material condition backlogs were reduced. 10 In summary, the senior managers concluded that 11 Quad Cities nad arrested the observed declining trend in 12 safety performance, and that routine oversight was 13 appropriate under the auspices of the NRC inspection 14 program. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan. 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Just a general question. 17 I mean, if I were a member of the public looking at this, I 18 would say there's a very large vote of confidence by the 19 senior managers and Mr. Kingsley, Mr. Rowe, and Comed, 20 because all of their plants now are in routine oversight. 21 And yet I remember the last time we had a Commission meeting 22 Mr. Kingsley warning us that he was still, you know, there 23 was a road to go there, and you still have the C POP. 24 So how does -- what is the message with regard to 25 the overall performance? Am I reading it properly, that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j

I S-60 this is a large vote of confidence in where Comed is today? 1 2 MR. DYER:

Yes, I mean, as much as I'm not 3

usually given to votes of confidence in licensee 4 performance, but Comed performance has improved. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So if it's routine, there's no 6 more C POP? 7 MR. DYER: No, ma'am. Separately, one of the next 8 topics I was going to talk about was Comed oversight, 9 overall oversight, and as part of the -- after the March 2 10 Commission meeting we owe you a termination criteria for C 11 POP. 12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Do you think you have the 13 information necessary to reach that decision? 14 MR. DYER: We are -- as a e.atter of fact, at the 15 senior management meeting we discussed the proposed 1 16 termination criteria. After this senior management meeting 17 there was one item left open. That item was to review with 18 Comed their evaluation of their effectiveness reviews, of ) 19 implementation of the 13 strategic reform initiatives, and 20 we still have to schedule that. 21 As a result of the senior management meeting, we 22 had a few critiques of my proposed -- or our C POP's 23 proposed termination criteria, one of which was to come up 24 with a transition plan once C POP is gone to still review 25 Comed performance on some sort of a periodic basis across ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 E ) ) i S-61 l' all system-wide performance for the region. And the second I 2 one is escaping me right now. Oh, and we had to define some 3 of our' terminology better in our termination criteria. 4 MR. COLLINS: We were not insensitive to the \\ 5 overall Commonwealth performance issue as well as our 6-outstanding. obligation to the Commission on the status and 1 7 potential closecut of that program. That was discussed at I i 8 the senior management meeting. 9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: As Commissioner Merrifield 10 already kindly pointed out, I'm a firm believer that once { 11 the patient has recovered that we should let him recover by 12 himself instead of keeping giving him medicines when he 13 doesn't need them anymore. 14 MR. COLLINS: Jim referred to the periodic 15 updating of oversight of performance. When I had the 16 opportunity to be -- I was going to say advantaged but 17 opportunity to be in the region that type of meeting with a-18 very large utility in case -- in that case in Region IV it 19 was the Entergy organization to provide for a focused review 20 of the sites was very beneficial, given the size of the 21 organization and the influence over a number of different i 22 types of technology, size of units, to review the 23 bench-marking initiatives, how the licensee, the generator 24 defined success and what are their initiatives in the 25 aggregate was very useful. It's that type of effort that I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

p l S-62 l 1 believe Jim is working with Commonwealth Edison. 2 MR. DYER: When I made the call to Mr. Kingsley to l 3 advise'him of the results of the senior management meeting 4 and invite him to the Commission meeting, that was one of 5 the things we talked about was the follow-on, whether or not 6 where we were going with C POP and the opportunities for I 7 follow-on meetings, and in fact I did mention the Entergy 8 model that we'd used in Region IV. 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Merrifield. 10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: This raises to me a 11 somewhat bigger question. I know as part of the new 12 assessment process the intention is to go to next year where 13 we would have the EDO provide us a review and briefing of 14 the assessment of all the plants that we oversee, and I'm 15 wondering if you all have given any thought yet to what such 16 a meeting might look like. We have obviously 103 operating 17 plants. I think personally'there is a lot of usefulness in 18 the opportunity to go through all of them and discuss where 19 they are, results good and bad. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Just schedule a 9 to 5 meeting. 21-COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I don't know. I mean -- 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You may have to devote a day to 23 it,_ have a morning session and an afternoon session. 24 MR. COLLINS: The direct answer is we've thought 25 about' it, but I'm not sure we have coalesced on the i.!. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

I S-63 1 -approach. '2 [ Laughter. ] 3-The potential-that you articulated is certainly a 4 possibility. I think there's some opportunity to talk in 5 broad groupings of facilities and then focus on those that 6 hit certain thresholds or have trends. There are~some-7 subtleties. involved. An example would be that I believe'a 8 plant that is on an improving trend for the sake of 9 discussion coming from the white into the green, although { a 10 it's still in the white, would warrant. discussion, but 11 perhaps less discussion that a plant that is on a declining 12 trend, although still in the green but above the white. 13 So we have to be careful with going straight 14 colors, if you will, which we don't want to do anyway, but 15 .just by going straight bands, and look more at trends and 16 the ability for those trends to be assessed and reversed by 17' appropriate licensee action or by NRC actions. I think that 18 should be the focus of the discussion. And then it's just a 19 matter of'how the plants are grouped and to what extent we 20 need-to talk about overall performance. That's yet to be 21 worked through, but certainly I would welcome any Commission 22 insights into that. 23 DR. TRAVERS: But I think in that context it's 24 .probably important to emphasize our view of the senior 25 management meeting in context with the overall assessment IJRI RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

[~ ) S-64 1 processes that are used daily, monthly, quarterly, f l 2 semiannually'and so forth. 1

i..

3 A senior management meeting in this context, for L 4 example, did not result in any significant changes in our 5 proposals and initiatives for regulatory oversight. In a .6 sense it's become an-affirmation of where we already are in 7 the context of our oversight rollup from PPR and other 8 processes. 9 So in a real sense while we see it as a 10-value-added part of our overall process, it is just a part, 11 and we are making an effort to communicate the results of 12 PPRs and so forth on an ongoing basis so that what we have 13 is a scrutable, fairly transparent continuum of NRC 14 assessment for these plants. 15 We could certainly -- and I know there's some 16 interest in talking at some point in time in the year about 17 'the overall, but I don't want to diminish what I see in the 18 . context of this senior management meeting as a successful 1 19 really_ affirmation of where'we've been over the course of 20 the year. 21 -COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I raise this issue 22~ only -- and maybe we need to split it down differently in 23 . order to avoid that, do it on a regional basis. But since 241 I've been here as a Commissioner, we really don't have any 25 process where the Commissioners can sit down and talk 6 l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-65 1 through all the different plants. On a yearly basis each of -2 us make efforts to try to get'out to the extent we can to 3' various facilities. 4 .There are some facilities the Commissioners 5 haven't visited for.an awfully long. time, and unless that ~6 plant is in trouble and rises to the level we need to be 7 concerned, we' don't really discuss that as a group. And I 8 think, you know, there's some usefulness even if it's 9 relatively briefly for us to go through those and gain some 10 understanding of how the plants are operating, what our 11 inspectors think, and get some better feeling for not just 12 the bad performers but the not-so-good performers but 13 also the good ones as well. 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think the pilot process 15 offers an opportunity to do some testing and for 16 normalization and for the Commission to understand how much 17 discussion is warranted, because in the end, those folks are 18-delegated the responsibility to oversee the plants. The 19 Commission has to decide again what level of performance 20 reporting it desires, but, you know, and only the Commission 21 can decide how much of an onerous burden it is to go through 22 103 reactors. But I think the pilot program offers an 23-opportunity to get some normalization points. relative to the 24 fact that in the end they're the ones that have to carry out '25 the_ program. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court-Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i ~ i

l' S-68 1 .the insights on the definitions of the plants, or it could i be a combination of_ plants that have been through a pilot 2 9 3 and the pilot was completed in the January timeframe and we 'had the rest of the fleet of reactors which have four to 4 i i l' 5 five months within the pilot program -- that's if the pilot 6 terminates in January. If the pilot proceeds beyond that into the April timeframe for the Senior Management Meeting 7 8 is adhered -to, then we would have a meeting similar'to here 9 today. 10 We will continue to incorporate the changes as 11 necessary to make a smooth transition to the revised 12 oversight process, and as indicated by the Commissioners, 13 the ongoing interaction with our stakeholders and -14 communication of our processes in a clear manner is important to the success of our process as far as it being 15 16 understood and achieving its purpose. 17 If there's no more' comments at this. time, I_would 18 like to summarize by indicating that when we define success 19 for this process, I believe~one of the reasons we are going 20 forward.with the oversight process was the lack of 21 scrutability and consistency and continuity between the SALP 22- 'and the Senior. Management Meeting processes,-just to take 23 two more recent examples. 24-The result that Bill articulated, that from the 25 April Senior Management Meeting there are no new inspection i.. ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-69 1 or oversight initiatives shows that as our processes mature 2 and if they are revised, there is more scrutability. We 3 make_those' adjustments at the time that they are needed and 4 we make those decisions at the time.that they are warranted. 9 5 This meeting, again in Bill's words, are an 6 affirmation of those past actions, and I think that is at 7 least to a large majority success in the process as it is 3 8 currently defined. 9 I would like to conclude the discussion on power 10 reactor performance and at this time turn the forum over to 11 Dr. Carl Paperiello, who will address the material facility 12 performance _on Slide 7. 13 MR. McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask just one question 14 just to tie ~one thing down that could be ambiguous? 15 There are no regional focus _ plants that have not 16 been discussed today? We have discussed the universe of I 17 regional focus plants? 18 MR. TRAVERS: That's correct. 19 MR. McGAFFIGAN:

Okay, 20 DR. PAPERIELLO:

Could I have Slide 7? 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I have Slide 7. 22 (Laughter.) 23 MR. COLLINS: We tried to be clear on this, so 24 there's no questions on this slide. 25 DR. PAPERIELLO: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l S-70 1 NMSS together,with the regions screened fuel cycle and major 2 material licensees. We used objective criteria such as 3, worker and public doses, effluents, lost material and events 4 both reportable and those resulting in violation. We 5 considered inspection results and performance since the 6 screening meetings conducted last year. 7 Based on these reviews, no facilities were B identified for discussion. Furthermore, facility 9 performance appeared either stable or improving in the past 10 year. 11 Finally, we are currently completely revising the 12 fuel cycle inspection program to emphasize risk insights and 13 outcomes, identify performance indicators, and create a more 14 objective basis for bringing public problem facilities to 15 Commission attention and making adjustments in the 16 inspection program. Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am going to just go down the 18 line here and so we can try to do a close-out. Commissioner 19 Dicus? 20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: No further questions. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz? .22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I think just a comment, 23 reflecting on two and a half years back, I would like the 24 Staff to know that when I came here I had a lot of problems 25 . with the "itys" in the Senior Management Meeting -- that was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

r S-69 1 or oversight initiatives shows that as our processes mature 2 and if they are revised, there is more scrutability. We 3 make those adjustments at the time that they are needed and 4 we make those decisions at the time that they are warranted. 5 This meeting, again in Bill's words, are an 6 affirmation of those past actions, and I think that is at 7 least to a large majority success in the process as it is 8 currently defined. 9 I would like to conclude the discussion on power 10 reactor performance and at this time turn the forum over to 11 Dr. Carl Paperiello, who will address the material facility 12 performance on Slide 7. 13 MR. McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask just one question 14 just to tie one thing down that could be ambiguous? 15 There are no regional focus plants that have not 16 been discussed today? We have discussed the universe of 17 regional focus plants? 18 MR. TRAVERS: That's correct. 19 MR. McGAFFIGAN: Okay. l 20 DR. PAPERIELLO: Could I have Slide 7? 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I have Slide 7. 22 [ Laughter.] 23 MR. COLLINS: We tried to be clear on this, so 24 there's no questions on this slide. 25 DR. PAPERIELLO: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i t[ S-70 l' 'NMSS together with the. regions screened' fuel cycle and major l l 2-material licensees. We used objective criteria such as 3 worker and public doses, effluents, lost material and events 4 both reportable and those resulting in violation. We 5 considered inspection results and performance since the t 6 . screening meetings conducted last year. l 7 Based on these reviews, no facilities were 8 identified for discussion. Furthermore, facility 9 performance appeared'either stable or improving in the past 10 year. 11 Finally, we are currently completely revising the 12 fuel cycle inspection program to emphasize risk insights and i 13 outcomes, identify performance indicators, and create a more j 14 objective basis for bringing public problem facilities to 15 Commission attention and making adjustments in the 16 inspection program. Thank you. 3 l 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am going to just go down the l 18 line here and so we can try to do a close-out. Commissioner .19 Dicus? 20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: No further questions, i 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz? i i 22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I think just a comment, 23 reflecting on two and a half years back, I would like the 24 Staff to know that when I came here I had a lot of problems a 25 with the "itys" in the Senior Management Meeting -- that was l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 L-

b l i L S-71 1 scrutability, objectivity, accountability -- you can keep l 2 going-down the line and the. fact there was one time when 3 Commissioner McGaffigan and I thought the only way we were 4 going to understand what it was was to go to one and see 5 what you guys did on~it. i 6 I-believe seriously that the discipline and focus 7 efforts that have been put into getting rid of the "itys" 8 and make them scrutable and objective and accountable is a 9 serious effort that this Agency must take credit for and 10 thanks go to you for implementing what the Commission saw as 11 a major issue to be resolved. 12 I believe we are a long ways from where we were. 13 I am comfortable with the process and have a much more level 14 of confidence that these decisions are being made in a 15 proper sequence and disciplined manner, and I thank you for 16 it. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan. 18 MR. McGAFFIGAN: I agree with Commissioner Diaz 19 and no further questions. I 20' ' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Merrifield? 21 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: No further questions. 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me thank the Staff for a 23 clear and very organized presentation. Based upon the 24' information presented, the Staff has identified that the 25 performance at some plants warrants increased focus at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L-

S-72 1- .various levels while sustained performance at other plants 2 . warrants moving to a routine level of Agency oversight. The 3' . improvements noted by the Staff have resulted from ' 4 appropriate action taken by the licensees for those 5-facilities. 6 Let me just address one significant aspect, as I 7 close on my meeting of this type. I mean I think we have 8 come a long way down the line. Commissioners McGaffigan and 9 Diaz have focused on what has happened in the last two years 10 of the time since they have been here. I think that you 11 know and I know that a lot of these issues came up early-on, 12 including bringing in Arthur Andersen to look at issues 13 having to do with developing objective performance J 1 14 indicators for making judgments in the Senior Management 15 Meeting context. 16 I know I have pushed you very hard to make a 17 number of changes. I won't go into great detail in that 18 regard, but I am encouraged by what I see. 19 As I mentioned in the opening, the Agency is in a 20 transition period, and further changes are planned and more 21 changes will occur as the Agency continues to review the -22 ways in which we can improve how we inspect, assess, and 23-Lenforce, and while we are in a time of flux, you know, a 24 ' principle of change management that is essential is not to 25 lose sight of the fundamental purpose for any of the actions l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

S-73 1 that.we take, so I urge you to continue to ensure adequate 2. oversight of the facilities to the end of. protecting public 3 health and safety, and to remember to keep the public in 4 .public health and safety, and therefore there is a 5 responsibility to keep the public fully informed. 6 I am sure that these changes will continue and I 7L believe that their continuation after my departure is the 8 ultimate legacy, but it'all depends upon you and I think you 9 have done.a great job under a lot of pressure, and so I 10 thank you for that. 11 If there are no further comments, we are 12 adjourned. 13 (Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m., the meeting was 14 concluded.] 15 16-17 18 l 19 20! 21 22' 23-24 l 25 I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

CERTIFICATE 4 ' This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting - ofL the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES PLACE 0F MEETING: Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, May 6, 1999 was. held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by.me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court-reporting company . Transcriber: Martha Brazil Reporter: John Hundley 4 'O

SS RE I OT GTI L s NCI ro FAC I ta EEA 9 r ot RF 9 s I s l r sl R 9 i enie n BG L 1 vl r i i al em A opd CINI 6 r 1 TCaA R Y .P ID T E A WS la A T M Cn O R A o I ~ i RE g EPM e R PO D NN OA llllll I

4 99 9 e s 1 sh s G et n y N co o ra ot i t O P n9 a I r u r b o9 d n G e Mit 9 e i F s1 N S Mn m S a3 m OT s r D N w mT2 o c i eh e E 8 e reh c R 9 i N 9 v t r M 9 e n a f 9 t A 1 R hM f 9 I E di 1 t a e t 2 SV 5 c ew-S 1 n d s 1 SO a nt s g 2 4 e n e n E R m mt c e i 1 v 0 CP r s o y o mir o 2 OM r f sP l l r o p u i n r e c t p p RI J P e oh A A P t R Cg e9 i M n s s a 6 M M P t r c9 8 ne n9 M l M S 0 ev a M 1 d mO d -9 S i s e S u c 9 ed u6 v e G1 t o n n Yo s i v a r i e h Cpv Ml e ir c r n E me R p e sir SA R P E =

N R O O / E l IT D e C C v r. NN R N ee Ld EA NA yO r T Z c T OEI nn ea ADTN g f EAG Ao S T ENO f e U C o c C I C E H D na t n R T RN E eu O DYOIANC ms I s t i F BO ca e E TA nh Y H T C N M t E 3 r C T N I OAR eo h/ E T t d N GM MO n ya E N E N F b DR I G RVO NE eo d n I L I SA P zi A U O S E t t ir c ee Q VI S E c p E NME s a n S r RI MC N h r ai R E C o SR O t TO U C yh N./ C OI l g l L ai A DES c s r i L NHEF pe yv PATRO TO ll

N n O o L E a t l i ITACC yu c ro n e NNRN t a" p aMl,s EONA m an TI Z r n vI TGEI f o ol i e nirpv AETN ocpe t S RAG CeA L m U T NO ast a r p a l E C f nr ng I C E HD C oia oo t E esi r O R TR N eh e gP F D YOI C ct R R n e I n BO AN f r o a o u oai L E C TA t s nf f c A H T N M s os oe 4 i iet p T NOIAR h t t e ann s N ET e n i l t ne O GM MO yed m i e S F b mituci N E RDR n I dleGat I G RV ONE epf nu E o L P z mf R I E U O TA a e i r i e t R Q V A E eS h s t ch".t S E C E R r at N E S oR RI T C N h e5d r S i,0/N a r SRI R E Ct 3 ne te0 ah TONU C yL ,t I l re sd DM OI ant s N/ l L n S cope o A c i L NDEF pt a oy i ych r e PAARO TACPB

N O e r r RI T C oo t D C R cC E Na g E e T NP n f Ri o d H US r u nel G T N ot c a i H a W (n I t I i S S t G' nt " R eh ,e C I g mis E S R eL a R V E N p ", h ). l P s m5 n O VE s 5 o i 1 ni OH e5 ot h2i c E T a t t e N G ye r p res N F b tppn I O d aO i T V eh e I z v U S iC I i r E E el mt a O C C cur t t a ai i R EI angn RPM r aoI a r l hMP a S A C n S U nn o T R yooi A G g l i i N t t lacc e c eeR AEO i L HR p ppd ys s n PTP TInn a I l Illll

1 l! l EM t t hh O gg s s ii s uus s s C u c c ur r T c oo c ee oFF o vv U F - FOO l l N O yaayee O c nn cnn n oo nii I i i t t M T eggeuu C gee goo M A ARRARR S 999 1 L 2 2 IR 1 1 2 s P 23 k&e A i ee o1 t i nn o oo nCleC i N t t o lad s st A nCS a l l l l u i i i L a l P MMCDL Q

s SE IT IL ICA F LA E IR N 7 E O T N AM YT IR O IRP !l ll lll l llI l =}}