Text

Transcript of 870212 Meeting W/Regional Administrators in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-76.Scheduling Notes Encl
	ML20211E148
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/12/1987
From:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	;
References
	REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8702240246
	Download: ML20211E148 (81)
	v • d • e

-

?

~

OCINAL f

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Meeting with Regional Administrators (Public Meeting) l OCatIOn: Washington, D. C.

l Date:

Thursday, February 12, 1987 Pages:

1 - 76

/

8702240246 870212 PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7 Ann Riiey & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921

(

Wathington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

_.__..,_,___________.____.__m.__.

n 1

D I SCLA I MER 2

3 4

5 6

This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 3

2/12/87..

In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9

'N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain I

p' n

12 inaccuracies.

13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authori=e.

23 l

24 25

.I 1

r 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 MEETING WITH REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS 5

6 PUBLIC MEETING 7

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9

Room 1130 10 1717 "H" Street, N.W.

11 Washington, D.C.

o 12 13 Thursday, February 12, 1987 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10:00 o' clock a.m.,

LANDO W.

ZECH, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.

17 i

18 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

20 LANDO W.

ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission 23 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 24 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission 25

e 2

s 1

STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:

2 S.

Chilk 7

W.

Parler 4

V.

Stello 5

T. Murley 6

J. N. Grace 7

A. B. Davis 8

R. Martin 9

J. Martin 10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:

11 J. Taylor 12 J.

Partlow 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i

20 21 22 23 24 25

r 3

1 PROCEEDINGS

~,.- s 2

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

3 Commissioner Asselstine will be joining us shortly.

This is a 4

periodic briefing for the Commission by the regional 5

administrators.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide an 6

opportunity for the regional administrators to discuss 7

initiatives that each regional administrator is independently 8

pursuing or has of interest and also to discuss the activities 9

that you are involved in on behalf of the Commission to give i

10 you a chance to bringabefore us the important things in your 11 region.

12 The Executive Director for Operations has prepared a 13 very fully agenda for the meeting and it would appear to me 14 that we, the Commission, would have to discipline ourselves 15 to get through all the items and I would ask my fellow 16 Commissioners to please support that effort because we do have 17 a very full agenda.

18 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have opening 19 comments?

20 (No response.]

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

If not, Mr. Stello, would you i

22 proceed?

l 23 MR. STELLO:

Yes.

We provided the Commission and I 24 presume in the back of the room there are copies of the issues 25 that we wanted to discuss and we will get right to the first i

4 e

1 one and I will call if I can on one of the regional 2

administrators to lead the discussion and others will chime 3

in.

4 The first one, I think, is very important which 5

deals with the federal field exercise scheduled for June of 6

this year at the Zion facility.

It is the second such exercise 7

we have had.

8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Is this like the one in 9

Florida?

10 MR. STELLO:

That is correct and we want to describe 11 to you the kinds of things that we have in place and these are 12 very, very substantial activities and involve an awful lot of i

13 resources both for us, the states and other federal agencies 14 so I will ask Bert to begin.

15 MR. DAVIS:

Thank you.

This is the second exercise 16 of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan and as 17 you asked, the first one was done in Region II in March of 18 1984 with the Saint Lucie plant.

19 The purpose of the FFE-2 as I will call it, it is 20 not as much of a mouthful as saying the entire title, its 21 purpose is to exercise the plant to determine its effectiveness 22 in handling major nuclear accidents during three phases.

23 The first is the reactor emergency phase which is 24 the one that we have practiced quite often in the past.

The i

25 second phase is what is called the evacuation and planning

5 4

1 phase.

That is whsnever you go in and make your radiological 2

surveys, relocate people as necessary and then establish a 3

restricted area and a buffer area around the restricted area.

4 The third phase is the recovery phase.

5 FFE-1 had limited activity in the second and third 6

phases so FFE-2 will be more extensive than the FFE-1 was.

7 The exercise involves 12 federal agencies, two 8

states and two counties.

FEMA has the lead for the FFE 9

planning.

NRC is the cognizant federal agency.

That means 10 that we have the primary responsibility for the federal 11 technical role as opposed to the non-technical role which FEMA 12 has.

13 Our primary responsibilities then will be to monitor 14 and assure proper actions of the licensee to both limit the 15 accident at the reactor facility and to assure that the j

16 licensee is recom'ending proper protective actions to the m

17 states.

18 We also have the responsibility to coordinate the 19 technical response of the 12 federal agencies involved and to 20 make sure that proper assistance is provided to off-site 21 authorities.

22 Generally speaking, the licensee has a responsibility 23 for actions to limit the consequences of the accident and to a

24 make sure that proper protective actions are recommended to the 25 licensee.

t 6

1 State and local. authorities have the' primary and 2

ultimate responsibility toward protecting the public from the 3

accident consequences.

4 The other federal agencies of which there are 12 5

have a variety of responsibilities and I might just give you a 6

couple of examples.

The Department of Energy has 7

responsibilities for doing the primary radiation surveys and.

8 compiling all that information so that there will be one set 9

of data, good data, that everybody uses.

10 They also have the responsibility to bring in a lot 11 of support equipment, vans to do radiological surveys, 12 airplanes to do radiological surveys, trailer-mounted diesel 13 generators for providing electrical power if that is needed 14 and that sort of thing.

l 15 Another example would be the Department ofeHousing 16 and Urban Development.

Their responsibility is to provide 17 housing accommodations if necessary for people who have been 18 relocated out of a contaminated zone.

j 19 So each of the 12 federal agencies have a primary 20 responsibility and it is our job to coordinate the technical 21

-assistance given by each of the agencies and it is FEMA's job 22 to coordinate the non-technical assistance.

l 23 The FFE-2 is being planned by four working groups 24 and the four working groups' activities are being monitored 25 and managed by what is called a management group.

The four 1

,,-...c-

=--..-----,--..-,---.-,.,...--,--.,,,--.n

-,-.---,.---,-,.-.-.--,n.-

-n

a e

7

~

l working groups are a scenario development group, a public

~

2 affairs group to coordinate all public affairs aspects, an 3

administration, communications and logistics group to make 4

sure that the necessary systems are in place so that we can 5

all communicate together and the whole thing is administered 6

properly and a visitors and observers group to make sure that 4

7 we properly handle visitors.

8 We anticipate international visitors, probably 9

Congressional visitors, perhaps some of you might come out to 10 observe.

There will be a large number of state and local 11 officials as well as the press, public and that sort of thing.

12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

What is the precise date?

13 MR. DAVIS:

The date for the exercise is June 23, 24 14 and 25.

Now leading up to that is a table-top exercise which 15 we have already conducted.

That was on January 22 and I will l

l 16 talk in a minute about what we learned from that.

17 Then there is also a dry run that is going to be 18 conducted on May 5 and 6.

Hopefully with the table-top and 19 the dry run, we will be prepared to do a good job at the real 20 exercise in June.

!l 21 The highlights so far that I might mention to you i

22 are that Commonwealth Edison, FEMA and NRC had a meeting about 23 a month and a half ago to discuss some concerns that 24 Commonwealth had with respect to the exercise.

25 They are concerned about the vulnerability.

They

8 1

see it as a sort of " lose" situation instead of a " win" 1

2 situation in that an exercise which obviously is based on 3

protective actions involving the releases of radioactive 4

material to the environs is going to again raise the attention l

5 of the public to what happened at Chernobyl and Commonwealth 6

is worried about that.

7 They were also concerned that some of the working 8

groups were behind schedule.

We met with them and we think 9

that we have effectively worked with them and with FEMA to get l

10 the planning back on track.

11 The table-top exercise, I feel, went rather well.

1 12 It was a learning experience for me, I know, and I think it 13 was a learning experience for a lot of people.

There were 14 some concerns.

15 There has been a " lessons learned" list come out 16 that had about 17 items on it.

I thought I might mention five 17 of the ones that I consider to be significant that came out of 18 it.

One is that they are very concerned with the 19 20 possibility of discussion between you, Mr. Chairman, or f

21 another member of-the executive team talking directly to the 22 governor and perhaps making a protective action recommendation I

23 that would by-pass the channels through which those decisions 24 are normally made.

They are very concerned about that.

25 I noticed during the exercise that there was a

9 1

reluctance on the part of the states to request assistance 2

from these 12 federal agencies.

When I raised the issue at 3

the exercise, they acknowledged, "Yes, we should have been 4

asking for this.

We will in the real exercise.

We just 5

didn't think about it."

So I think we learned something from 6

that.

7 I had a concern with the federal coordination.

The 8

12 agencies, I have heard the phrase used, "We should act like j

9 a federal family in this" and we should.

We should coordinate 10 our activities in any recommendations to the states.

We i

l 11 learned during the exercise we have to do some talking before i

12 we get to the real drill to make sure that that happens.

13 There was concern on the timeliness of protective l

14 action recommendations to the states.

Some of the states 15 would prefer that the protective action recommendations evolve 16 from a four-way conversation, the licensee, the NRC and the 17 two states involved.

I 18 The licensee is worried that if you try to make a 19 decision with four parties involved, you will be untimely in i

20 making that decision so we have to work that out.

l 21 There was also a concern expressed by the licensee

{

22 that too many people called the control room and try to keep I

23 people on the telephone line while they are gathering l

24 information.

The NRC calls.

The states call.

That needs to 25 be managed and coordinated.

So we have to work on that.

l l

l

-,. __ \\

10 f

I COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

We would hava a lot less of

, - ~

2 that if we get ahead with this remote instrumentation and 3

remote data, I should say, that should be transmitted to our 4

emergency room here.

5 As I understand it, the staff is doing that and I 6

fully agree with the licensee.

We should not be calling the 7

control room in the middle of an accident but we also ought to 8

have the parameters displayed here that we need.

We don't 9

have those yet and I would hope that we will soon.

10 MR. DAVIS:

The next milestone as I mentioned, on 11 May 5 and 6 will be the dry run and the dry run will be the 12 test to determine whether or not we have solved these lessons 13 learned, the five examples I gave plus about a dozen more.

<i 14 That concludes what I intended to talk about on this 15 subject.

If you have any questions, I will be happy.to try 16 and answer them.

l 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Unless there are burning questions, 18 I suggest we go to the next issue.

2 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I would make just one small i

20 comment.

I wasn't sure who you said was concerned about the 21 governor talking to the Chairman or whoever would be in charge 22 of the emergency facility during an accident, but that is just l

23 life.

That is realism and they are going to have to i

24 accommodate that.

25 The reason the governor is elected governor is i

~ - - - - -

'a e

g

,9 r

'"~

w.11 becausehepresumablyiswiseenoughtoconsultwithhia)<

1 2

experts and I think the same can be said for the man that is 3

appointed Chairman of the NRC.

TS 4

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I. agree with Commissioner Bornthal.

z%

5 You have to realize we are talking about an emergency 6

situation.

7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

That's right.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

While we don't always function, we 9

don't have the time to function in a ponderous way to get 10 every little detail, if we are making essentially crisis 11 decisions, we are in a crisis management organization and 12 form.

13 So staff people, support people, have to recognize 14 that they have to work quickly and they have to support the 15 governor.

They have to support their responsible official and 16 hopefully they would do that.

But I understand their 17 apprehension.

18 MR. DAVIS:

They are afraid that the governor will 19 get a recommendation from them and then get one from you that I

20 is different.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

That is very possible but that is l

22 just the way it goes and those are the kinds of things that we 23 would have to face and make those decisions and make them 24 hopefully in the best interest of the public.

25 But I recognize their apprehensions.

I just think N

1 a'

I

+

A

i

/

12

~

1 that it is a fact of life that we have to deal with.

~

2 MR. DAVIS:

Your message was stated to them at the 3

table-top.

In fact, Jim Taylor was there and he said just 4

about what you both have said.

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Good.

6 MR. DAVIS:

They didn't accept it very well.

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Well, that is a fact of life, too.

8

[ Laughter.]

9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

They might go back and look 10 again at the TMI experience because the governor of 11 Pennsylvania various and sundry comments and theories and 12 recommendations and that is just the way it is.

13

[At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 14 Asselstine entered the meeting.]

15 MR. DAVIS:

What they would like if you have a 16 recommendation is to go through them as a channel to the i

17 governor.

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

That is just not going to work that 19 way and you tell them to keep working with the system and we 20 will make it work the best we can.

21 MR. DAVIS:

All right.

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

23 MR. STELLO:

The next topic we wanted to talk about 24 is certainly timely and it deals with state and government 25 relations and I think you need to hear where that stands in P

~

13 4

1 the various regions and I think you are going to hear a fairly s

2 large spectrum of relationships between us and the states 3

across the country.

4 I have asked Tom Murley to take the lead and starting 5

the discussion and then I would ask the other regions to 6

summarize where they are on this issue.

It is interesting 7

ot see the variation across.the country.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

9 MR. MURLEY:

While we are talking about the facts of 10 life, this is one that we in Region I have to face.

The 11 states in the region are very active as you probably know and 12 I think we probably face a little more of interactions than 13 other regions do and it personally takes a lot of my time, a

14 fair fraction of my time.

15 I understand there was a policy paper sent to the 16 Commission, is that right, Vic, just yes'terday.

17 MR. STELLO:

Yes.

18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Thrt'd right.

19 MR. MURLEY:

What that 1ejer says is pretty close 20 to what we have been doing in the region.

Historically, there 21 was not much involvement by the states in nuclear plants or 22 NRC activities.

There were some exceptions, of course, but 23 that was really sporadic up until the timo of the TMI accident.

24 At that time, for example, Pennsylvania greatly 25 increased its staff on the Bureau of Radiological Protection i

I

14 1

and they now have several nuclear engineers on that staff, 2

have had for several years and there is an agreement with the 3

NRC that my predecessor actually signed where they can 4

accompany NRC on inspections in the plants.

5 I would say, all in all, our relations with 6

Pennsylvania is quite good and I think if you ask them, the 7

staff would say the same thing.

8 The other outfall from the TMI accident, of course, 9

affected all plants and all states and that is our emergency 10 preparedness regulations which caused greatly enhanced 11 interaction between the NRC staff in the regions and the 12 emergency planning experts on the state staffs.

13 It also, I should say in my experience, has greatly 14 enhanced the states' capabilities to deal with all kinds of 15 emergencies not just nuclear events.

16 Then Chernobyl last spring, I think, really had a 17 major impact on the way state officials view nuclear plants 18 and their interactions with the NRC in particular.

There is 19 no doubt because of the scene of evacuating large populations 20 from Chernobyl, the land contamination, the agricultural 21 products affected, in other words, the massive impact that it 22 had, they just had not realized before.

23 So we saw a great upswing in activity and wanting 24 to be involved.

I think it is fair to say that the state 25 officials almost uniformly want immediate information on what I

15 1

is going on at the plants in their state and in their 2

localities.

3 Many of them want their own state sources of 4

information as well.

So that is why we have seen a great 5

increase in demands for information and also in some cases 6

accompaniment of our inspectors at the site.

7 We have agreements,. as I mentioned, with Pennsylvania 8

that goes back several years.

Just last year, I made an 9

agreement with Vermont.

We are working on one with New Jersey 10 and I should say, they are all along the same lines of the 11 policy paper that has been sent down to the commission.

12 But in the absence of a policy, you understand, I 13 felt I had to move ahead with these kinds of agreements in any 14 case.

15 We have good informal working relations with 16 Connecticut and New Hampshire so we don't have a formal 17 written policy and I don't think we need one there.

In both 18 cases, I should say, particularly in the case of Connecticut 19 the utility has for years worked with the state officials and 20 that has been the key to good relations there.

21 We are having evolving discussions with New York and 22 Massachusetts and Maine and it is quite clear that in those 23 states that they will be taking a more active role or 24 involvement, I should say.

It is not really a licensing role i

25 and I don't view it as taking over our responsibilities at

9 16 1

all.

i 2

In cases where we have worked it out, it is working 3

well, I think, in Pennsylvania and Vermont and New Jersey but 4

the key to it is making sure that they have access to all of 5

the information about it that we have that is going on at the 6

plant and that they have it timely.

7 I don't see that as a fundamental problem for us.

8 So we are working on that.

9 One area in.particular we are talking with the New 10 York State Public Service Commission on their proposal for 11 using financial incentives to enhance safety and I know one of 12 the commissioners, Commissioner Schwartz, has talked with the 13 Chairman and we had a meeting about two weeks ago up in Valley 14 Forge where the utilities and public utility commissioners 15 from all of the northeast were there at a meeting sponsored by 16 INPO.

17 We are having informal discussions with the staff of 18 the New York Public Service Commission on that and I would say 19 right at the moment, we are in the mode of exchanging views on 20 various aspects of that financial incentive scheme.

21 MR. STELLO:

If I might stop, we talked a great deal 22 about this yesterday to try to determine how to respond to the 23 commitment that I made to the commissioner, Commissioner 24 Schwartz, to try to give her some comments on her proposal.

I 25 think what became pretty clear is this certainly is a very

, - - -., _ _. -. ~

-g

17 1

complicated issue.

2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

It is an absolute mine field.

3 MR. STELLO:

It is not one that it is easy to even 4

describe programs for incentives where you feel comfortable, j

5 you know you are not interfering with safety or if ycu are, 6

the interference is at least in the right direction.

7 It is not something that the Commission has spent a 8

great deal of time on at all and the PUCs are moving in that 9

direction with incentives that clearly raise questions with 10 respect to whether they will or will not interfere with safety 11 and have an adverse impact on safety.

12 We are going to try to respond as best we can but it 13 seems reasonably clear that this really needs a collection of 14 real experts to try to look at what is the right kind of a 15 program to put together and I didn't see, none of us could see 16 any easy answers except if it goes forward, it ought to be a 17 result of having some very deliberate study and it isn't clear 18 that the NRC should sponsor such a study but I think we ought 19 to be a part of it.

20 I think that probably will as I distilled what we 21 talked about yesterday, probably will be thr essence of the 22 best we feel we can do in offering any comments.

It really 23 needs very, very careful study before you can decide what the 24 right steps are.

I don't think we are going to be able to do 25 much more than that.

1

18 1

Tom, I am sorry.

2 MR. MURLEY:

A final point, I don't know if the 3

Commission has been briefed recently on the status of low 4

level waste repositories but in Region.I, it is highly 5

fragmented.

There are probably going to be five different 6

sites whereas, I think, the original legislation contemplated 7

probably one for the whole northeast.

8 Those five are really not moving very well.

The one 9

that is moving along fastest is the Appalachian Compact which 10 will probably be Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and West 11 Virginia and they are in the stage of developing technical 12 criteria for a site.

13 But the others, New York is probably going to go 14 alone.

Massachusetts will probably go along.

Maine will 1

15 probably go alone.

Possibly New Jersey and Connecticut would 16 form a compact between the two.

I can't even tell you what 17 Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island are going to do.

18 So in summary, it looks like the low level waste 19 issue is kind of fragmented there.

I guess that concludes my 20 basic comments for Region I.

21 MR. STELLO:

I think it would be useful just to 22 quickly give you a feeling now of the activities in the other 23 states across the country and you can see the contrast with 24 the northeast versus the rest of the country.

Maybe, Bob, you j

25 ought to start.

19 l

o 1

MR. R. MARTIN:

Let me start, in Region IV, there 2

are 14 states in that area.

There, the direct involvement of 3

higher level elected officials in reactor type issues is very 4

small, almost non-existent.

We have extremely good working 5

relationships with their respective safety and emergency 6

staffs and I believe that has probably contributed, I don't 7

think it controls, but I think it certainly has contributed to 8

higher level elected officials not making statements or 9

showing a direct involvement in reactor or materials cases.

10 I think the area where we have seen elected officials 11 in my part of the country being more concerned has been on the 12 issue such as high level wasta.

Clearly, the amount of 13 involvement of the consideration of Deaf Smith county in Texas 14 as one of the high level waste repositories has triggered a 15 great deal but none of it has been directed towards NRC.

16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Is that how the locals 17 pronounce that county?

18 MR. R. MARTIN:

I believe the locals pronounce it, 19

" Deep" Smith county.

20 (Laughter.]

21 MR. R. MARTIN:

On the issue of transportation of 22 high level waste through the western states, that is an issue 23 that concerns but again that is not, if you will, directed or 24 focused toward us.

So our working relationships have really 25 been quite good.

So we are not having at all comparable 4

n

.,,,.n,.n,-s n-

~

1 s

20 o

1 problems or issues to deal with, I should say, that Tom is 2

having to deal with, i

3 MR. DAVIS:

We have what I would call two active 4

states in Region III, Illinois and Ohio.

Illinois has~an 5

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety staffed with about 180 6

people.

They have a REAC Center similar to what Commissioner 7

Bernthal was talking about that we would like to have for the

.4 8

NRC.

9 That REAC Center is very well equipped.

They have 10 tie-ins to the process computers at the reactors.

They are in 1

l 11 the process of tying in and have already done so on I think 12 LaSalle and Zion on radiation monitors and the stack and they 13 have sensitive radioactive monitors spaced around the reactor 14 facilities.

15 They also hope to become an agreement state shortly.

16 So they are very active.

17 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 18 Roberts exited the meeting.]

19 MR. DAVIS:

We have been working with them.

We will 20 certainly be involved with them in this federal field exercise j

21 and they participated with us on one inspection at the Byron l

22 facility concerning some allegations that we had on the 23 adequacy of the piping design and the drawings which was l

24 discussed with you at the Byron full term license last week.

4 25 That did not go without its problems but I think we s

.--,..-,-.-,-,------,--.--,_.-,---,.---,-.-,n-,---,,,..

._.---,--.-4

--.--.,m..

4 s

21 j

1 I

1 resolved the problems and it went successfully at the end.

2 Ohio, I think you are aware of.

Governor Celeste 3

has written you letters concerning the operation of the 4

nuclear power plants in the state of Ohio and since that is 5

under consideration, I don't know that it is proper for me to 6

say a lot about that now.

7 The other states, Wisconsin has certainly had 8

concern about the shipment of spent fuel from the Monticello 9

plant down to GE Morris and they have made a couple of 2.206 10 requests to the commission which have been answered.

11 Other than that, Iowa has become an agreement 12 state.

They are doing very well.

I talked to an Iowa person 13 at a meeting that we had with all of the people on emergency 1

14 response last week and they seemed to be very happy with their 15 relationships between them and us.

16 MR. PARLER:

There are no pending adjudicatory l

17 matters in plants in Ohio that I am aware of.

I think that I 18 am right.

If he wants to elaborate further, it is certainly 19 proper for him to do so at least from a legal standpoint.

We 20 have cases pending in the courts on the merits.

21 MR. DAVIS:

I can talk further about it if you wish.

22 MR. STELLO:

We are just trying to talk about the 23 relations of the states at the moment in the broad term.

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Bert, I guess when I look

{

25 at the situation in Ohio, the on-going and I think somewhat

}

22

~

1 unhappy discussions with Illinois about their interest in 2

increasing the inspection role under the codes, the relations 3

with Wisconsin on transportation, it icoks to me like we see 4

some of the same kinds of difficulties in Region III that we 5

are experiencing in Region I.

Would you agree with that?

6 MR. DAVIS:

I guess I wouldn't call the, at least I 7

am not aware there is an unhappy situation with respect to 8

Illinois on the ASME code inspection.

9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

That is resolved?

10 MR. DAVIS:

Well, no, but the ball is in their 11 court.

They came in with a proposed regulation in the state 12 to go out and do independent ASME inspections which we found 13 not to be acceptable.

14 We took the initiative after a meeting that they had 15 that Mr. Stello attended and with their agreement to develop a 16 proposed regulation that would result in cooperative team 17 inspections led by us but participated in by them.

We sent 18 that down to them, it must be three months ago now.

They 19 have not responded to it.

20 We have inquired several times.

The information we 21 have is that they have been so busy on other things like waste 22 disposal and becoming an agreement state that they just 23 haven't had time to work on it.

But informally, we have had 24 positive feedback on it.

25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

All right.

That is good

9 23 1

to hear.

2 MR. STELLO:

I would say, my meeting with them was 3

very, very' positive.

4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Up until that point, I 5

think that there was a great deal of unhappiness on their 6

part.

7 MR. STELLO:

That is why I had the meeting.

8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

With the way that we had 9

responded to them.

10 MR. STELLO:

That is why I called the meeting, but 11 the result of that meeting, at least in Mr. Lasher's comments 12 back to me were very, very positive and he was delighted that 13 we took the initiative, worked up the memorandum of 14 understanding and agreement on how to proceed.

The concepts 15 we talked about, he was in agreement with and I am not aware j

16 of any displeasure at all now.

17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

All right.

Good.

18 MR. DAVIS:

With respect to Ohio, I would agree that 19 it sounds a lot like what Tom Murley said he is facing.

I

)

20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

All right.

l 21 MR. J. MARTIN:

In my region, things seem to be 22 fairly smooth.

All of our states, the big states except for 23 Alaska and Hawaii, are agreement states.

They have a long l

24 history of working closely with NRC.

We do have a couple of 25 situations that are somewhat unique.

4

24 1

Oregon, I think, is the only state that has a 2

resident inspector and that seems to be working fine.

We all 3

seem to get along well together and here of late the resident 4

inspector has been off looking at other things and doesn't J

j 5

spend as much time at the plant as he used to.

6

[At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 7

Roberts re-entered the meeting.]

8 MR. J. MARTIN:

Most of our interface is in the j

9 emergency planning area and in many of our states like 10 California, that is a county responsibility, so the state 11 doesn't get too terribly involved in that.

12 At least at the present time, things seem to be 13 fairly smooth and everyone seems to understand everyone else.

14 So I hope it continues that way and that is where we are.

15 MR. STELLO:

Nelson.

16 MR. GRACE:

We in Region II have also had very good 17 relations with the states.

We have agreem.its with eight of 18 the ten states, all but Virginia and West Virginia, and there 19 is really little need for one in West Virginia and in Virginia, 20 there has been a move afoot in the state that seems to move in 21 tits and starts to develop an agreement with the NRC.

22 Right now, it seems to be on the back burner.

Maybe 23 it is partly good luck.

Maybe it is partly Southern 24 hospitality, I am not sure, but we have very good working 25 relationships with all of these states.

25 1

I heard there was a problem some four years ago i

2 before my time with Florida but that was turned around and now 3

they have one of the best programs.

We have very good j

4 relations with Florida.

5 In the low level waste area, again, eight of the ten 1

6 states are in the Southeast Compact.

West Virginia is tied in.

7 with Pennsylvania as Tom has mentioned and Kentucky is tied in 1

8 with Illinois.

The Southeast compact has been moving rapidly I

9 and as you may have heard, they selected North Carolina as the I

10 lucky recipient of the next waste facility to replace Barnwell I

11 when Barnwell closes at the end of 1991.

12 Now the Governor of North Carolina is supportive.

13 The legislature is a little " iffy" and unfortunately the 14 Governor, well, I shouldn't say it that way, I guess, the 15 Governor has no veto power if the legislature decides that 16 they don't want to go along with it in which case they would 17 withdraw.

1 18 Alabama is next in line and, of course, it remains l

19 to be seen, we can't speculate on what might happen there.

1 j

20 But it is moving along and so far, so good.

We have been 21 lucky in the southeast.

I am a little bit apprehensive about 22 making waves so-to-speak and inviting more state participation.

I 23 Tom tells us that already it is taking a lot of his 24 time, just dealing with the proposal from New York and I think i

l 25 it would be very heavy on resources if we get more involved.

i 26 1

Thank you.

2 MR. STELIO:

We are through with that topic unless 3

you wanted a bigger picture of the overall situation.

4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I would suggest we move along.

We 5

have a lot of topics to cover and we could stay on this topic 6

all morning, of course, but I would prefer to move along 7

unless there is any real problem with that.

8 MR. STELLO:

We are ready to move to the next topic 9

and Bob Martin will talk about some meetings of a different I

10 type that we have been having with reactor' licensees and the 11 successes.

Bob.

]

12 MR. R. MARTIN:

Yes.

The last time we were before i

13 you, I mentioned to you that we had started a series of 14 non-license specific meetings with licensees to have general 15 discussions and interchange between utility senior executives i

16 and our staff on subjects of mutual interest not focused on j

17 any particular license or plant problem.

18 It was clear yesterday in discussing this with the i

j 19 other administrators that we have all been doing things of i

20 this general sort perhaps under different labels but focused i

4 i

21 towards the same sort of activity.

22 In the course of the last year, we again met with I

23 the licensee training managers on the subject of training and I

24 requalification to get a better understanding of agency 1

25 positions, their concerns about requalification programs and i

1

-,-.-.,-,-.n

-..-,,7.,

27 i

1 those issues and we found that to be productive.

2 We have been continuing where our security people 3

have met with the security safeguards managers of each of the i

4 power plants semi-annually just to exchange views and i

5 subjects.

In fact, we had originally started that program 6

three or four years ago before my tenure started there and the 7

licensees have maintained it.

8 We started it as an idea to do it once.

They picked 9

it up and they have continued and now they are inviting us to 10 those meetings to discuss the same subjects, so some of them 11 develop a life of their own.

12 In a similar vain, because of the usefulness of the 13 meeting that we started on some general subjects with senior 14 level managers last year, Louisiana Power and Light is now 15 scheduling a meeting in April of 1987 to which they are 16 inviting us and the subject there is basically going to be I

17 design configuration control.

18 How do the plants, and the plants in our region 19 consist of very new plants just recently licensed and some 20 quite old, how do they get together and figure out what is the 21 design basis for that plant, what kinds of things do they have i

22 to worry about with design changes over life, an issue that l

l 23 has been discussed in all the regions and certainly at the I

24 highest levels of the agency and to which, for example, the l

l 25 SSFI initiative of I&E is looking into that specific area.

I 1

28 1

So here is a group of licensees who are going to be 2

getting together primarily for he subject of just discussing 3

their perspective on the nature of their problem and that is a

4 scheduled for April of 1987.

5 So we think the process is working and is not i

6 becoming sort of self-sustaining in a number of areas and has 7

been very productive.

8 That is really all I had planned to say on that 9

subject.

10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Fine.

i 11 MR. STELLO:

We will try to move in recognition of j

12 time, try to get through this agenda.

Jack, why don't you 13 start next.

l 14 MR. J. MARTIN:

There are a couple of things I 15 wanted to discuss that I am not sure we had mentioned.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

What subject are we on now?

17 MR. STELLO:

The management attention to high i

18 quality operations.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, fine.

s 20 MR. J. MARTIN:

There are a couple of things that we 21 have done that I think are of importance.

In my region in the j

22 last two or three years, they have been primarily ones of 23 transition from construction projects to operating plants and l

24 it has been my thought that this is a very critical time when i

l 25 utilities are forming their basic personalities and attitudes l

29 1

that will last for a long time and it would be a good 2

opportunity for us to work with them and make sure that they 3

are getting off to a good foot.

4 We seem to be spending a lot of time on utilities 5

that did not get off on a good foot so maybe some preventive 6

work would be useful.

So with both Diablo Canyon and Palo 7

Verde, we have done a couple of things.

8 First of all, during the initial start-up of the 9

plant, we had inspection teams there for the better part of 10 the start-up program.

This was a month to six weeks frequently j

11 around the clock to scrutinize in some detail the basic way 12 they operated, the way the operators performed, the way they 13 interface with the plant support staff, the involvement on the 14 part of the plant management.

l j

15 I think this was very useful.

There were a number 16 of good observations that came out and it also had the 17 secondary effect if we are interested, of course, the company 18 management is interested and they paid probably a lot more 19 attention to these start-up phases than they would have 20 otherwise.

21 We have continued that by having a follow-up meeting 22 with the company officials about every six weeks or so is what 23 it is averaging out.

This has turned out to be something that i

24 they welcome a great deal and so about every month or six 25 weeks, we are having a half-day session, sometimes a whole-day

30 1

1 session, to review in detail what has happened in terms of 2

events, things that didn't quite go right.

3 We are focusing on items that result in licensee 4

event reports or other interesting or complicated events or 5

trips with the idea being to get into the root significance of 6

these things and what they may be trying to tell everyone.

7 So those are a couple things we have done that, I 8

think, have been well received and an opportunity for j

9 discussion outside the normal enforcement conference or SALP i

10 review that, I think, have been useful.

j 11 The second thing that I have had a personal interest 12 in over the years is how design and technical work is done.

l 13 It is not a strong component of our inspection program but it i

14 is something that over the years I have been interested in and 15 the two older plants we have in the region, there have been 16 events happened in the last couple of years that I think have 4

17 underscored that more attention is needed to this area.

l 18 At both of these plants, we have had occasions to I

l 19 trace back in strong measure the root cause of their problems 20 being sither technical calculations, engineering work, that 21 wasn't done as well as it should be and in some measure, that 22 proceeds from the fact that some of these plants when they 23 were turned over to the company to operate never did completely l

24 either purchase or assume responsibility for the design of the 1

25

plant, i

1 31 1

In both of these cases we have a ten-year old plant

{

2 where the people that run it have pretty well'eut their ties 3

to the original reactor vendor and the original architect t

4 engineer for day-to-day support but never did fully take on

]

5 board the original calculations, for example, the original i

6 design work.

i 7

So we have had a number of incidents that when you i

I

{

8 get to the bottom of it, it turns out that the people at the j

9 plant today don't fully understand how the place was designed 10 or what it was intended to do.

That is kind of an 11 overstatement but it gives the picture.

i 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

As a matter of fact, I l

13 recall a couple of years ago when I was at San Onofre Unit 1, 14 I was told about the total loss of the ultimate heat sink 15 because of the construction of additional seismic support in j

16 the pit and it cut an air line that they didn't even know 17 where the air line was, i

l 18 When all the pumps went down, they said, " Gee, what 1

]

19 caused that?"

Then they went out and found that they had just i

t 20 cut an air line and they had no idea where it was.

i 21 MR. J. MARTIN:

We found a number of cases like that 4

22 that have been sort of self-revealing issues.

They weren't 23 things that anybody went back and deliberately uncovered.

In j

24 both cases, on both of the plants involved, they have 1

25 undertaken on their own and these weren't things that we

32 1

required them to do, have undertaken what has turned out.to be 2

pretty extensive programs to try to recreate what was the 4

1 i

3 design basis for the critical systems in the plant.

4 In other words, what were they originally required 5

to do in terms of pressures and flows and functions and then 6

to try.to retrieve the original calculations and other i

7 supporting information that showed that, in fact, they met all i

8 that.

9 Doth of our older plants are making good progress in 10 doing that and should have that pretty well wrapped up by the 11 and of the summer but without that, the people in training, 12 for example, have a hard time training new operators or new 13 maintenance people or anyone else on a plant that isn't 14 completely understood.

]

15 The surveillance test procedures, we found a number i

16 of cases where surveillance tests really aren't verifying the l

17 operability of the system because the system isn't understood l

18 as well as it should be and this is compoundeG Dy design 1

19 changes that occur over the years where engineers are changing i

20 things that they don't have complete traceability all the way 21 back to the beginning and this particularly became clear to me 22 when Commissioner Carr and I were at EPRI and they gave us a 23 discussion about what they are doing to prepara some of these 24 plants for life extension.

25 I just couldn't imagine in entertaining an i

i i

a

... - -. ~, -. _. -.. -. _ -.. - ~ _

,._ ~~,___,.,__,,-,.,,,,..-..-,.,,-- - - _ ---_- - -

33 1

application to extend the life of a plant for which it was a 2

bit murky or what the original design was or how it has 3

evolved since.

4 I think in both of these cases, they are coming back 5

into focus and should be in fairly good shape by the end of 6

the year and this is also turning out to be a common topic of 7

discussion with the meetings I am having that I previously described with the new plants.

8 1

9 In other words, are these Palo Verde and others, are 10 they, in fact, taking from their vendors and fully 11 understanding and incorporating into their engineering staff 12 an understanding of what the plant is required to do in all of 13 its design features.

14 So that is one that I am not sure we as a staff 15 fully understand where to go with it in general but there are 16 a couple of cases in my region that I found interesting.

17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I would hope that if it 18 hasn't already happened that in this day and age because of 19 the complexity of these plants and the fact that they are 20 custom plants in many respects that the drawings and design 21 specifications and engineering details are beginning to be put 22 on computer systems and getting away from worrying about this 23 or that piece of paper that might be duplicated five times

)

24 floating around.

1 25 Is that happening or is there being a conscious

34 1

attempt made to see to it that that happens?

2 MR. J. MARTIN:

Yes.

My impression is that that is 3

the case with the drawings, in particular.

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Right.

5 MR. J. MARTIN:

But what I was talking about is 6

cases where we find two or three conflicting pieces of 7

information in the safety analysis report, for example, and 8

then you ask, "What is the right number for this flow?" and 9

nobody seems to have a very good feeling on it and the original 10 design basis documents are either still at the vendor or they 11 never bought them, it wasn't part of the purchase of the plant.

12 I think control, once you understand what you have, 13 is basically all right.

The last few years, we have put a lot 14 more e,mphasis on configuration control.

But that sort of 15 started somewhere in mid-stream.

16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes.

17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

You have to know what you 18 are configuring to start with.

19 MR. J. MARTIN:

Yes.

You are sort of building on 20 top of a kind of murky base in these two cases and that is 21 what we are going back to retrieve.

22 MR. MURLEY:

Could I add just another facet to 23 that.

I agree with what Jack has said.

There is another 24 facet that we are finding at some of the older plants as well 25 and that is equipment that is just wearing out.

The company

35 i

1 has gone out of business or they no longer make vacuum tube 2

type components, for example, and they have to replace it with 3

something else and they need to know what was the basis for i

j 4

that piece of equipment in the first place.

l 5

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Right.

I j

6 MR. MURLEY:

Sometimes, that is not readily available l

l 7

so they have to go back, search for it, go back to the vendor 8

or the architect / engineer and try to find out.

That aspect of f

9 plant aging and engineering, I think, we have to probably think 10 a little more about and take a little further look at.

t 3

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

May I suggest that we -- is that the i

j 12 conclusion of it?

i i

13 MR. J. MARTIN:

YEs.

l 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

May I suggest that we go to the last i

f 15 topic or we are not going to get to it and then talk about 16 plants requiring increased regulatory attention, take up that i

i 17 next, and then if we are finished with that if we can, we will i.

j 18 pick up the list and go on down because we would like to talk 19 to that last subject.

1 20 MR. STELLO:

Sure.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, proceed.

1 l

22 MR. STELLO:

I think the easiest way to do it is to l

l 23 probably do it region-by-region and we can start with Region I 24 first.

25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Fine.

Let's do it and then we will i

_. _. _. _ - _... - ~ ~.. _. _ _ _. _.. _ _ -. _. - _ _ _ _. _.. _.., _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _

36 1

pick up the others if we have time but we don't want to miss t

2 not talking about that subject.

So, proceed.

Thank you.

3 Region I.

4 MR. MURLEY:

There were two plants in Region I that 5

we said needed closer continued regulatory attention.

The i

6 first one was Pilgrim.

It has been shut down since last 7

April.

I have a confirmatory action letter that is keeping it 8

shut down.

9 They plan to be ready to re-start sometime this l

10 summer.

They are doing a lot of plant mods in addition to 1

]

11 re-fueling and they have made a number of management changes 12 at the plant.

I 13 I would say that the pacing item for re-start though 14 is some package of changes that they are making to their i

15 MARK-I containment to improve its integrity and as they get 16 into it, they find that there are other safety improvements 17 that they would prefer to make.

18 As a matter of fact, I think the focus is shifting I

19 from mitigation more toward prevention from the accidents.

i l

20 They find it easier and more sensible, I guess, to try to 21 prevent serious accidents.

22 So there are a number of changes like added diesel 23 generators, things like that, that are going to pace re-start.

24 My guess is it will probably be later in the summer rather than I

25 earlier before they are ready.

i J

37 e

1 In addition, they have just recently named a senior 2

vice president for nuclear named Ralph Bird.

I understand he 3

is a former Admiral in the Nuclear Navy and a special assistant 4

to him named Ron Ledgett who is from Naval Reactors.

5 I have talked with those gentlemen and I think we 6

are going to see some signs of management improvement as well.

7 We continue to see signs of improvement throughout I

8 their organization.

A lot of resources are being devoted to 9

the plant so we see the material condition and the size of the 10 staff is increasing.

11 Nonetheless, we are kind of holding our views in 12 abeyance as to whether they are finally ready yet.

I couldn't 13 say that they are, ready for re-start now and the major area 14 of concern is the management team at the plant itself.

They 15 are still struggling to get their arms around all of the open 16 items that they have at the plant.

17 They are finding new stuff every day still that they 18 have to work on and complete.

They didn't have a good 19 computerized system, for example, of keeping track of what 20 they have to do.

21 In addition, the team at the plant has not really 22 jelled yet.

They have just recently changed plant managers 23 again.

This is the second time in nine months now.

So we are l

l 24 watching their progress pretty closely.

We have three residents at the site and in addition, I have bi-monthly 25

38 s

1 meetings with the management.

2 I am looking for Mr. Bird to really take a close 3

look at that himself and make the changes he thinks need to be 4

made.

5 That is the summary on Pilgrim. I think in a 6

nutshell, they are making some slow progress but we are from 7

Missouri when it comes to that plant.

8 Peach Bottom 1 and 2, the situation is basically the 9

same, I think, as the last time I talked with the Commission.

10 They are committed to improvements.

They are a very strong 11 company when it comes to engineering and construction 12 management.

13 In fact, the Limerick station that they run, 14 Philadelphia Electric, is among the better plants in the 15 region.

So they clearly have the capability to run a 16 first-class operation and I think over the years, Peach Bottom 17 just didn't keep up with the rest of the industry with the 18 changes and in addition, I think, attitudes at the site 19 deteriorated.

20 So they kind of had a negative attitude about 21 NRC and improvements that were needed.

But there, they do 22 have a new senior vice president and a new vice president for 23 nuclear and they are committed to making the improvements and l

24 we, my staff and I, are seeing positive changes in attitudes 25 at the plant.

1

7 Y

M a

p j

z t 39 i

~

h f, Q.

i 1

So here again, we are in a " wait and see" sii:uation'./ ' 5,I J

]

2 All the signs are good.

We have three resident' inspectors at%

3 the site and I have bi-monthly meetings also at tile site with

[

~

4 the management.

.~

r.

5 So that completes Region I.

U 4

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Fine.

Region II.

{

7 MR. GRACE:

TVA, of course, is shut down and that

,,7 <,,,

> e 8

has been the subject of many meetings.

I don't think I nedd 9

to add anything on TVA at this point.

i.'Yll I

j

,- y j

10 Turkey Point is not on the headquarters. list ";

i n

1 11 requiring agency-wide attention.

It continues,to be a regiondl 1

12 problem.

Of course, we are continuing to give it extra '

13 attention in the region.

So I have no others.

i l

14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Region III.

i 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, let's see.

Wait a gj',

t 16 minute.

i v

17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Yes, I have a couple, 4

j 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I don't care what the list l

r; l

19 is.

I don't believe in these lists as yod know.

I still dant j

l 20 to know about Turkey Point, whether or not they are on f

j 21 anybody's list.

How are we doing there?

3 !

22 MR. GRACE:

Well, at Turkey Point there is no l

)

23 question that corporate management is fully dedicated to 24 achieving excellence.

They are putting a lot of time and

}

1 25 effort and money into it.

Improved performanca is slow in i

i

_-m_.-.--,,,v-..--,---_..-_.-.,,y

. - ~... -

r.--c

i

~

40 4

1-coming but it is steady.

2 There has been a decrease in reportable items since 3

last summer.

This is a good sign.

They have been proceeding 4

very quickly on improved tech specs and integrated schedule 5

amendment requests and NRC action is pending on that.

6 There PEP Program, Performance Enhancement Program, 7

is progressing satisfactorily on procedure upgrades and so 1

8 forth.

The capital improvements are on schedule.

The 9

simulator is expected to be operational by the end of the 10 year.

11 There are significant efforts being expended by the 12 regional and resident inspectors to close out outstanding 13 inspection items.

The licensee has a dedicated group to work 14 with us in closing out a lot of these items.

15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Could you just give me a i

16 sort of capsule subjective summary, Nelson, of your view?

In 17 other words, it sounds a little bit like the case of Limerick 18 versus Peach Bottom.

You have an apparently capable utility 19 that perhaps because of a construction program neglected one 20 of its older plants for a period of time.

21 Do you get the sense now that Turkey Point is 22 approaching some sort of parity with the Saint Lucie plants, 23 for example?

24 MR. GRACE:

Well, I wouldn't say they were on a f

25 parity with Saint Lucie yet not by a long shot really.

But as l

l

f 41 Y

l I mentioned at our management meeting in October, we feel they 2

have definitely turned the corner and I was going to report s

3 later that they are continuing on the upgrade.

4 Despite the commitment by top management, it takes a 5

while to infiltrate down thro' ugh the ranks.

They have had a 6

culture problem there that is taking elong time to correct but i

7 it is gradually being corrected.

8 We have an important milestone coming up.

You know, 9

we have reduced the SALP intbrval to 12 months and they have hadthreeconsecutivethree'sibtheoperationsarea.

This is 10 11 of concern.

We are sending a team down there shortly to get 12 an appreciation to help us determine what their SALP rating is i

13 going to be for the current 12-month period which ends April 14 31.

15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Is INPO's judgment concurrent 16 with your own by in large broadly speaking?

I know we don't 17 have access.

18 MR. GRACE:

Broadly speaking, yes.

INPO like other 1

19 groups that have reviewed the FP&L programs give them high 20 credits, high marks for their programs.

We look beyond the 21 programs at what is going on.

We look at the bottom line.

22 What is the performance and that is definitely coming up.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

What is the matter?

Is it 24 management or is, it -- I guess, everything is management 25 ultimately but what is the problem?

42 i

1 MR. GRACE:

Of course.

Ultimately it was management 2

but they have had a change out in management there and the top 3

level people are really alerted to the problem.

I was told by 4

the VP-Nuclear that following my first meeting with their CEO 5

last year that it really shook the place from top to bottom 6

and they had a number of meetings to expand their PEP program.

7 Of course, as a result of the SSFI which is a very 8

effective eye-opener to them, they have expanded their 9

"look-see," they are reconstituting a design base on 11 J

10 different safety systems.

They are really going the extra 11 mile.

12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

All right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Commissioner Asselstine, do you have 14 a question?

15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Yes, I have a few.

16 MR. GRACE:

But we are spending probably 50-percent 17 more effort there than we are on the average plant.

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, go ahead.

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

If they have turned the 20 corner, why are they still so bad in terms of our rankings on 21 maintenance performance and performance on things like wrong 22 unit, wrong train, wrong component, maintenance practices?

23 MR. GRACE:

Again, it is a matter of slope versus 24 absolute level.

The slope is definitely positive.

The j

25 absolute level still has a ways to go and it is a matter of

43 1

getting the message down to the lowest levels end have 2

everybody involved in the improvement effort and it is 3

happening but it is a slow process and we are going to have a 4

Title:

be4kdm w dh dd uk rderrt t

3 J

2

=

3 Meeting Date:

2.} t E V7 Open )(

Closed 3!

3 m 3

=

2 3

Item Description *:

Copies 3

9 3

Advanced DCS

$l' to POR g

k

'8

,,g

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 w/ %kwQ Mde-s 2.

Ci::

3.,

R' Q

~4 4-hI 5.

2 es A 1 6.

1

PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY g

papers.

3 ie alm l

l Y

bYlkl b l bY 0Ybkl kblkl6 bYbYb

ML20211E148

Text

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search