ML20211G752

Summary of 970911 Meeting W/Inpo in Atlantic,Ga to Provide Opportunity for Senior Managers of Both Organizations to Discuss Items of Current Interest.Agenda for Meeting,Slides & List of Attendees Encl

ML20211G752
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/29/1997
From:	Bill Dean NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
NUDOCS 9710030227
Download: ML20211G752 (96)

Text

_

t

• • atoy h, C ' f o M i

Nb//I-C t

UNITED STATES f

}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON. D.C. 3000H001

%,,,,,,/

September 29, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs FROM:

William M. Dean. Chief Regional Operations and Program Management Staff. OEDO

SUMMARY

OF SEPTEMBER 11. 1997. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE INSTITUl3 0F NUCl. EAR POWER OPERATIONS ON MUTUAL ITEM 5 0F INTEREST On September 11. 1997, senior mangers of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) met with senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Atlanta. Georgia. The meeting was then moved to the INP0 offices due to a power failure at the hotel.

The purpose of the aublic meeting was to provide an opportunity for the senior managers of bot 1 organizations to discuss items of current interest. The meeting consisted of a session that was open to the public and a short session that was closed to the public.

However, there were no members of the public in attendance. The meeting provided an excellent forum for the open exchange of information between INP0 and NRC. Attachment 1 provides an agenda for the meeting and the slides that were used in the open session of the meeting to form the basis of the discussions. is a list of meeting attendees.

Attachments:

As stated cc w/o attachments:

/

See next page

'(

h '.

p i t>D

-s +' 'l

( A L10

>c u

D 'j j) C i r i nu 19

$ "/ ~ ~

9710030227 970929 PDR ORG EPSINPO

,/

6-s'.

a V

PDR 97 - N

%[il]$]$h5)$fik,Ii yo

.g cc:

Mr. Kenneth Strahm, President Institute of Nuclear oower Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Mr. Fred Tollison. Executive Vice President Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Mr. Don Gil11spie Senior Vice President and Director, Assistance Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Mr.. Mark Peifer. Vice President Accreditation Division Institute of Nuclear Power 0perations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA' 30339-5957 Mr. Sandy Hastie Director Government Relations Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

-700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Mr..Jeff Reinhardt Government Relations Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957

~

o ATTACHMENT 1 AGENDA AND SLIDES l

l 9

i

1997 NRC-INPO SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL ATLANTA, GEORGIA OPEN SESSION Iigg Discussion Tonic Lggd 10:00 a.m.

Opening Remarks INP0-NRC TRAINING ACTIVITIES 10:05 a.m.

National Academy for Nuclear Training activities INP0 10:15 a.m.

Reactor Technology Course at MIT INP0 10:20 a.m.

Probabilistic Safety Assessment Course at MIT INPO 10:25 a.m.

Operator license exami' nations:

NRC-NRR Initial operator license examination rulemaking and " voluntary" exams Feedback on utility exam qdality and exam audits 10:35 a.m.

NRC expectations on severe accident management NRC-NRR

~

• training l

INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY C0 ORDINATION 10:40 a.m.

Involvement of NRC Chairman in international NRC-0IP regulatory body: goals: vision REVISED INP0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA 10:50 a.m.

Evaluations of organizational effectiveness and INPO human performance PLANT MATERIAL CONDITION 11:00 a.m.

INP0 focus and actions to improve equipment INP0 performance and material condition 11:10 a.m.

Lesson learned from maintenance rule inspections NRC-NRR 11:20 a.m.

Research associated with component aging and NDE NRC-RES inspection techniques 11:30 a.m.- Steam generator view visits INP0 i

NUCLEAR FUEL TOPICS 11:40 a.m.

Spent fuel dry cask storage NRC NHSS 11:50 a.m.

Update on SOER-96-02 activities INP0 12:00 noon Lunch l

OPERATING EXPERIENCE 1:00 p.m.

Expectations on threshold and timeliness of response NRC-AE00 to industry operating experience information 1:15 p.m.'

Equipment Performance and Information Exchange INP0 l

. System (EPIX) i I

1:25 p.m.

NRC viewpoints on utility actions that can maintain NRC-NRR\\AE00 a positive relationship and successful interface with the NRC following a plant event DESIGN BASES ACTIVITIES 1:35 p.m.

Insights.. safety significance, and impact of NRC HRC-NRR activities 1:45 p.m.

Scope and rationale of INP0 design basis review INP0

. activities 1:50 p.m.

Break-SAFETY BASES ACTIVITIES 2:05 p.m.

Evaluating safety attitudes in the work environment NRC-0E 2:20 p.m.

Impact of current NRC budget and resource trends NRC-E00/HT 2:35 p.m.

NRC Special Evaluation Taam (SET) inspections NRC-NRR 2:45 p.m.

Closing rema.ks for open session NRC/INPO 2:50 p.m.

Adjourn open session CLOSED SESSION 3:00 p.m.

Lessons learned from operational events INPO 3:10 p.m.

SALP Trends NRC INP0 3:20'p.m.

Elements of safety culture 3:30 p.m.

Closing remarks INP0/NRC

.3:40 p.m.

Adjourn

.in-i in..iii ini.

.m.

,,.n

..--unii

.is,a smiin-

, i-.

n-

-m.i..

s g

Reactor Technology Course j

for Utility Executives j

~

Hl 7

Senior executives Five weeks 3

'8 Nuclear Physics Key topics-Reactor Physics coresp

~

- BUCiear safety hl Hydra' 3

~

- critical safety functions p,,i Radiatim

_ defense in depth Deca Heat

~

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

1

~

i a

M Risk-Inforrned Operational 0

Decision Management Course -

t; t!

Managers, Supervisors, f

and Engineers One Week 5'

O.

- PSA Overview & Theory Key Topics:

~

- PSA Applications jj

. MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

~s

=

5

~

OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS Proposed rule published on 8/7/97 (62 FR 42426); comment period ends 10/21/97 l

Voluntary participation using Interim Revision 8

=

of NUREG-1021 will continue until rule is final Lessons learned and concerns Examination integrity (security) and potential for compromise Low level of knowledge and difficulty of some test items on most exams and many items on some exams

o t

l OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS (CONT) i u

l

~

1 h

Facility learning curve steeper than expected l

Understanding of NUREG-1021 guidelines j

(e.g., due dates for exam materials and QA j

l J

l checklists) l Conflict of interest and independence of exam authors i

0

NRC EXPECTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING SEVERE ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT (SAM) TRAINING I

NRC maintaining dialogue and coordination with NEl e

on matters pertaining to-industry implementation of l

SAM NRC. expects SAM training process consistent with a e

Systems Approach to Training (SAT)

Industry has committed to a " Systematic" Approach e

to Training for SAM

i 1

NRC EXPECTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS l

CONCERNING SAM TRAINING e

NRC observed SAM Demonstrations at two sites and identified concerns regarding licensee j

implementation of selected SAT elements within SAM training programs

- selection of training methods

)

- trainee evaluation I

- program evaluation and revision i

Staff is reviewing NEl's " Clarifications To SAM j

e Industry Guidelines," including guidance applicable to SAM training and operator evaluation, and expects to provide response to NEl guidance in near future

~

l i

1 30 May,1997, 1

E f

FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR REGULATORS ASSOCIATION At a May 29-30,1997 meeting in Paris, France, senior regulators from eight countries i

formally created the intomational Nuclear Regulators Assoolution (INRA). The Association shall influence and enhance nuclear safety, from the regulatory perspective, among its members as well as worldwide. Participanta at the meeting included the most senior nuclear regulators from Canada, France, Japan, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The senior regulator from Germanywas unable to attend.

l The terms of reference document constituting the Association was signed on May 29,1997.

This document derked from a working group meeting held January 15-17,1997 in Washington.

D.C., U.S.A. The terms of reference document describes how the Association will be organized,.

initial membership, and how it will develop relationships with other national and intomational nuclear safety and regulatory bodies. Copies of the terms of reference and the meeting agenda are available upon request.

During the meeting, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson was elected first Chairman of the INRA, to serve for two years.

4 The group met on May 30 to have a first discussion on two topics: national trends in electric generation and their effect on nuclear safety; and an assessment of effectiveness of nuclear regulatory and safety assistance. The group felt that these subjects required further regulatory attention and will be discussed in future meetings of the Association.

)

The Association expects to have the next meetir D in early January 1998 and to meet initially on a twice yearjy basis thereafter.

Members of the Association are:

t

- Dr. Agnes Bishop, President, Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.

- Mr. Andre-Claude Lacoste, Director, Nuclear Insta!!ations Safety Directorate, France l

- Mr. Yasumasa Togo, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Commission; and Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi, 4-Deputy Director General, Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, MITl, Japan.

l

- Dr. Juan M. Kindelan, President, Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Spain.

- Mr. Lars H5gberg, Director General, Swedish Nuclear Power inspectorate i

l

- Dr. S. A. Harbison, HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear installations, Nuclear Safety Installations (Nil), United Kingdom.

1

- Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US e

' NRC), United States of America.

[- Mr. G. Hennenhofer, Director. General for Nuclear Safety Federal Ministry-for i

Environment. Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany): prospective member, to be confirmed.

e

}

k-

i Goals Organization and and The safety of nuclear power is an issue that ions Obj.ect.ives transcends national boundaries. Event, Operat.

such a Chemobyl have made it clear that Firmly committed to the Convention on N

To enhance intemational communication e natio are rf kel t Nuclear Safety, the INRA acts by consen-m e cnd cooperation, the Intemational Nuclear interest in others. Questions relating to sus to fulfill it objectives. On a continu-Regulators Association (INRA) provides a nuclear regulation, effect of exposure to ing basis, h evaluata is own forum in which the most senior regulators low-level radiation, and new approaches

• ffectiveness and makes recommenda-can identify nuclear regulatory challenges to reactor safety command attention t.i nst internati nal and hl ap and exchange views on broad regulatory throughout the world.

cies on nuclear regulatory issues.

. policy issues. Through its work, the INRA seeks to accomplish the following objectives:

The INRA was established in May 1997 to By nMng tW as an.%t enhance and influence international com-bodyof senior regulators to discuss O Build a global nuclear safety culture; munication and cooperation from a regula_

""CI'"' $5"

C8 tory perspective. At a meeting in Paris, n to k.inging h inwna-cn

- O seek intemational consensus on ap-France, representatives of eight nations na nd,ng.

M ina-proaches to nuclear safety issues and adopted initial terms of reference for the 9,

facilitate intemational cooperation to INRA s organization and operations.

g; g yg g

implement sound solutions; to avoid any duplication and overlap e

RA e fM so thioMar regulators from most developed nuclear The INRA meets at least once annually..

O Cooperate with otherintemational nations could discuss issues of mutual I M is M i Chaim and national organizations invohred c ncem and make recommendationst

& is and e in nuclear safety; and strengthen nuclear regulation worldwide.

• I ne yea n

tenn d Membership includes Canada, France,

'""*"* Y"*"

O Encourage the most effic.ient use Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, the United of resources.

Kingdom, and the United States. The found-Contacts ing members elected Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory us, j,ne, g, co,,

Commission, as the first Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissilon MS:Qf4-8-2 INRA for a two-year term.

Washington, D. C. 205S5 Telephone: 1-301-415-XXXX Fax:

1-301-415-2395 Electronic Mail Intemet:inra@nrc. gov WES:http www.ntc. gov /IPfera.html E

R

=R Institute of Nuclear Power Operations g

INPO/NRC Senior Management Meeting September 11,1997

~

Implementation of Cross-Functional i

Performance Objectives and Criteria

=

2 William E. Webster,Jr.

l Director, Plant Support Division 5

m i

=l "ii

=!

- <,w=i Ob}'ectives 2;

~<

a Provide insights as to indications of decline in plant performance for well performing stations.

~

I e.

a Provide better insights as to the underlying causes of long-standing performance problems.

1 9

+M

. ?,

k I

S l t !

M m"

i

[

Et

'i!

T!

o; !

K8 Cross-Functional Performance Objectives Ej

~2l 7;

=

a SafetyCulture j;

=,

a HumanPerformance

-t

=;

3' s Self-Evaluation f!

m' Training i

a Plant Status and Configuration Control ei a WorkManagement'

'l m Equipment Performance and Materiel Condition

=

0, E!

6

=

1 5

wy 8

FunctionalPerformance Objectives i

2 I

m OrganizationalEffectiveness

[il u Operations

~i a Maintenance

.i

~

m Engineering

)

a RadiologicalProtection

.E*

E Chemistry 4

~

3

-=

l

=

5' E81 KeyImplementation Milestones

?.

+

?

Aug %-Dec %

Conducted pilot evaluations E

Jan 97 Conductedin-depth evaluator 3

trainingforlead evaluators f

Jan 97-Mar 97 Continued pilotuse of cross-functional perforraance objectives on selected evaluations j

Mar 24 Cross-functionalperformance objectives implemented onall

g subsequent evaluations

1 KeyImplementation Milestones Ongoing Refiningevaluation and assessment i

i processes, continuing evaluator I

training, and capturinglessons learned i

i Oct 97 Reissue cross-functional

=

performance objectives and criteria

~@

~

incorporatingfield experience H

s, d

5 i,

al d

g i

Challenges l

l a Viewed as substantial additional work by evaluators j

5 Need for continued and broader evaluator training d

?_

m Teamleader skillsforevaluators m Communicating with plant counterparts

_~I E Informatiort management-prevent" double hitting" s

u Evaluatortirmemanagement

~

2

=

k 2

=5

~

3l

.5 l Benefits I

1 5

m Much greater teamwork among evaluators j

i a Uncovering more facts due to more innovative j

evaluation methods m Expand skills / knowledge of evaluators (safety culture, human performance, etc ) therefore betterinsightsin functionalarea j,

2:

~

G 5

4 l

4 x5 I

E l n

Benefits

!l, 1

l

i A

=_

i a Better insights for station concerning issues that i

go across departmentboundaries l

~=

a Better use of team resources to focus on areas of 4

l most benefitto the station I

%?

6 ese j

W 5

5 e

• .~

[

i

]

I M5 BPO /XRC

~

4

=

~

l Senior ManagementMeeting j

i 5

I September 11,1997 it

=!,

a M e" Equipment Performance and

~

m Materiel Condition

~

I

~

?

l~

William E. Webster,Jr.

Director

-=

l

.. _.. -. asian f

ji;;;;;gLF-5 Plant Support Division l

=

= -

=

f

g E

CURRENT ISDUSTRY s

SITCATION s

Safety System Performance

i 9

Unit Reliability.

3 i

~

Plateau - 7% UCLF Balance-of-Plant Systems I

Common Factor in Plants with Declining Performance

~

Xeeds ContinuedIndustry Emphasis l

-3 =;se

-l

~

1 i

a IXPO ACTIONS il

~

1 6

l

. Reviews as Cross-Functional Performance Objective During Every Plant Evaluation l

=

l Assessed in a Systematic Manner j

Safety System Performance

~

- Unit Reliability and Availability

- Fission Product Barrier Performance

-j Operator Workarounds/ Control Room wn-Deficiencies

?

Epissialf4am

-f Sg Visible Materiel Condition j

-l 3:"i i

'E INPO ACTIONS (cont'd) i i

System Performance Reviews i

j

~

Equipment Performance Assist Visits

.i.

Spawned from results of evaluation process j

- Multi-discipline teams custornized for l

specific plant needs i

System / Component Working Meetings

[

- About 19 per year, results distributed Heads-Up Letters, e.g. AOVs l

innser, Discussions With Suppliers wm w = =_

I "i

IXPO ACTIONS (cont'd) l g

Strength Database / Telephone Assistance i

~

EPIX j

Xuclear Exchange Items, e.g. Temporary i.

2

. ] 4.7::lji Leak Repairs at Vermont Yankee ps

. : i.::~.:g n

=e TM,Y Discussed During 3...ational Academy n4Ji Seminars 1

_. Fj, T

=f. :

ALWR Equipment Reliability Process

=.

1. yc. -

..=

k-

~.

M 502AM i

9

5i a) i-

~i l

CURRENTFOCUS AREAS

? !

Station Tolerance i1 l

l Proactive Technical Support i

=

Long-range Planning ii

=

l Preventive and Predictive Maintenance

~

i l

Effective and Efficient Work Control l

• Root Cause l

~

l Use ofIndustry Experience l g Maintenance /EngineerKnowledge/ Skill j

se m e u

>li.itp,

.P.i.

ii) l!

lr S

N O

I MT OC RE F P S

D N EI NE RL AU

. ER L

E SC N N OA SN SE ET LN A

I M

l' ii,:.,

lllllllIll1,,

s I,i

!il I1

.f d

f

.'II.:

i,4:

1142; a

,l'

1i11!1 i1 t'

1!4

l l

~

BASELINE INSPECTION RESULTS i

I e 34 Inspections completed as of 8/29/97 1

e Each inspection Unique j

i

• Overall, Licensees Adequately implementing the l

i Rule

• Some Licensees Implemented Late l

l l

l i

I 1

~

i i

LESSONS LEARNED t

l

• Irnportance of Comniunication L

e Value of the Pilot Program t

• Guidance Developed Through iterative. Process 1

e Importance of Training I,

e Rule Can Be Consistently inspected and l

Enforced 4

)

[

i

'(

(*

)

i LESSONS LEARNED (CONT) i 1

l e Resource Requirements High I

l e IN 97-18 " Problems identified During Maintenance Rule Bas ~eline Inspections" (April 1997}

[,

e Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 2 (March l

1997)

LESSONS LEARNED (CONT) e Commission Requested t7e Staff to Consider Whether the Language in 50.65(aX3) Should be Changed

o,

)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission RESEA.RCH ASSOCIATED WITH COMPONENT AGING AND

~

NDE INSPECTION TECHNIQUES Malcolm Knapp, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

t_

l i

[

j United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

NRC'S AGING RESEARCH

)

m Key Contributors to Aging Include e Service Temperature l

• Irradiation Environments j

c e Exposure to the Water Coolant e Cyclic Operation (Fatigue) i e GeneralWear a Research providing tools to be used by NRR to identify, quantify, assess, and regulate aging effects i

}

I i

[

}

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

%,...../

t NRC'S AGING RESEARCH m Aging Research Addresses Seven Broad Program Areas L

e Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Integrity e Environmentally Assisted Cracking (EAC)in LWRs e Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Techniques and l

Procedures i

e Steam GeneratorIntegrity e Mechanical / Electrical Components and Piping j

e Containment Integrity and Aging I

e Structural Aging E Programs draw on related domestic and foreign research to effectively leverage diminishing budget l

3 j

f

~ s.,,

[

)

United States Nudear Regulatory Commission l

Reactor. Pressure Vessel Integrity l

5 RPV is Most important Passive Component in Primary System a RPV Susceptible to Several Forms of Degradation e Irradiation Embrittlement e Fatigue e Environmentally Assisted Cracking j

u irradiation Embrittlement is the Most Significant Form of Degradation for RPVs s Research Program Addresses e RPV Fracture Behavior and Analysis Methods l

e Material Properties I

e Embrittlement Estimation Procedures i

I f* **%,

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• %../ '

l Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity E Key Products During FY1998 e Publish New Regulatory Guide on Dosimetry and Neutron Transport Calculations (9/98) -

O Comprehensive approach industry can follow in performing fluence estimates for RPV and internals e Publish Technical Basis for 3rd Revision of Regulatory Guide 1.99, " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials" O Used by NRR and industry in establishing embrittlement levels and operating P-T limits for RPVs 5

4 s

E!

INPO - TRC

.!i Senior Management Meeting i

=

i i

Steam Ge~nerator Review l

1

=

l Visit Program a

~

l William E. Webster, Jr.

Director, Plant Support Division

~

INPO s

-i r.; t l

1

=,

5 l

.bl 5

ll Program Purpose

~5 j Ensure that utilities have steam generator il management programs in place that promote safe

?l and rdiable steam generator operation. Program jj 3i scopeincludes:

e in-service inspection and repair j

u conditions affecting reliability and availability zl vt l

u. leakage detection, monitoring, and action levels i

-5 aI

~ al 3l E l i

1

E Program Logistics y

5-a one week detailed review conducted at the station approximately two months prior to a j

refueling outage 5

3 m

review team includes two industry peers i

experienced in steam generator program

~

management and data analysis

~

u identified strengths and recommendations for y

i improvement are sent in a report to utility senior manegement 5

m significant issues require a utility response and 3

~

are followed up during next INPO evaluation s

---

'I

Program Scope 3

5>

a 15 station programs reviewed j

6

- a priority on stations with significant steam j

generator degradation 5

m INPO goal is to conduct a review visit at each PWR site { budgeted for 10 visits per year)

~

~

i a program includes assistance visits as needed (two conducted at Kewaunee?

O E%

l l

5[

%l i

a l

Ef E!

Program Results i

1l

=;

~

l a depth of reviews has ~resulted in identification and communication of some

-i significantindustryissues

+ F* program discrepancy at Farley

~

+ over-reliance on bobbin coil examinations

+ deficiencies associated with primary-to-8*

secondaryleakage procedures and instrumentation 5!

4

+ data analysts not meeting station

-li j

overtime guidelines

=!!

?

=5 5i Ei 8

Program Results E. :j u results of reviews are incorporated into

,i, industry guidelines jj e1 a

review results communicated to the

!l industry a some beneficialindustry programs have i

been initiated to address repetitive review gl visit issues (data analyst feedback and

• l examination oversight)

_j

= I 3l

~!

5!

E l

f i

SPENT FUEL PROJECT OFF.I.CE RECENT ACTIVITIES AXD STATUS gkR Reg 4>.

4 Y

• 4s#*

WILLIAM F. KANE, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECIOR OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS i

e

a OperatingISFSI Sites PointBeach Vort St.Vrain Prairie Island GE Morris M C-3# (2)

DavisBesse MWS (247)

TN-40 (7) p,ff,,g,,

NUBOMS-24P(3)

VSC-24 (13) m..

v.=.~.,,:,...:e w N.

1%M.L'iw.as ~e. r:.:.4'y,

,g

• • E~

=....- n wg:.c:yrz:<..::,..

- pa

<y NUHOMS-24P (14)

Calvert C11ffs

: ;;:.r

.,o

,. n,

e.,ww.

..s

'.4 e-,

w.

,q ~;. _. <

-(

9.I tal.j ",.c m,..v yh i

t.. c Surry

~

n 12 w2.

.g a; : w3 e,,'g 1

_:n.ma, c"':

.g,,g,

/

Castor V/21 (25)

,w '*

m..-

m._

O CastorX/33 (1) c.=....

amu

@!P:t ".'.D;g. e.:ty.b "

...g m" 6'?

M C-10 (1) d2 i

,; n.;;

e.,sm.e 7 m ma g.A

.m.....

NAC-128 (2)

.. /

TN-32 '

(3)

,. a.u.m:.. aqg g.

.s m.....

.. ~.....

<;e s,

....,.,..ds.

vy l p

a...w.. wx&mwA i

gm

[.* '

_l.,......ii~..

. M)

ur at. x J' O

', %[, m J

L

.x_..,

3j.,,;

.n.

ei.e'.

H.B. Robinson

.. x ~....,:,

~

_- = Site-Specific LicensM_ =;,..i..V.}p b, ""

~

NuspMS-7P (8) w g;7;;..;,, ;;.

(A y

's ownee

• = GeneralLicense T(

? " " " * " **' ('")

Arkansas fif) = Number 6f Loaded Casksy ySc.u

(<>

• ' os worris u t ans, a> Data as of August 12,1997 l

e y

v

Potential Near-Term, New ISFSI Sites Rancho Seco WlyP1 TMI-2 fuel @INEL NinleAfflePoint FYtzPatrick Vectra NUBOMS Undecided Vectra NUHOMS undwMed unguged r

Troian Dresden Susauchanna SNCTranster ReitecBTSTAR Vedre NUROMS DuareArnold Yankee Rowe i

v-Mu a

- pac.mpc a:: '. -

1 1-

-s

-4

. !j,;.

?::,;;;,

?. ;

<. ';t;-Qg. y

.....'...,...m..e....

. ':w,.

w

,,.., J Oyster Creek i

..=-m. -e.a.:

.. w e. g w,

.1 e.,.,

- ~ um, c::: -.-..

• 9....pv.

.m.

y-~ :x,..

3..

u

~ an..u.n.., 33gg;;

y,,,,, yygogg

_a ed.uwndte/,va.

f*'Q,.Qiy "p,$h i *fC. N,

s... lm v-:

A.s J

un cg$" $$..

p..

' w.yw,M.n,..

t";:

' b d wassa

~

e::.& n.r.

L -a m

• • • N"l'l9;f):y;..,qigy;~'~rc -, ------ a, ehy' '. {;m.,."

-,2::.

.+

• -,-*Ayw.g

.m.~".1.m,.

.'c...

Peach Bottom wa......7.u.~"" -,

ua-

r 4,-'"m...,,..

m.

..bw4747Ak....

[5. '

s.

..E,.

. g.4ffgQ@

~.

', 'j.5 7,

• Sku11Va ey.

a.m:A s,'vs.v.yo WE,.,

A1Mb

"_m -

,a u-ww n

y,a

g. _.(.m.. e..,.n.....

g

p.,

a 3 g

...,.._. ;r:_

North Anna

.'4 i. Wit J.iS'GL.,wM8

%. 7 b.,

..s 8

• ..e..N.

eh 'r (y 1,,,..,,

"***"*"ce.,.

'EE.}: ame-p PaloVerde

,,.w

'"^~ d.. :

~~

TNa2

. =

.g~.

uc vanmun

=r:r= = ::r

n~Y Hatch

- 3~ 3 w

r

)

'jllll,f..'ll T%G_45 IvEEE[51M'"~

s" t

'R A = Site-Specific License v,g,u,4 n...W 1

z a-c e - Genera 1 License t(

as Information..' of August 12,1997 s

(Based on SFPO & licensee assessaments)

O e

9.

Projected Loss ofFull Core Reserve I

l Where We Are Today 100 80

-/r

?";

n...;. c,:,.

))

i..J,.

I'h(.k' b.

., 1.

4

't'4h:y

.;;.jj ' " ' :Q d'[.

3 60

m u

,o na an

.5

,., y g f i g....

,EONii': /ddi:!A!

N ~,f;;; '; :,j j,g:(

"qii 8 40

_GD w..

..~.. Qi![ '

p.

A m:n

.;s i w;i.m w:: re p"N'

. ::br, "' 4:p...'..,d'?!II' ~ [i!$![E.h.u:bh"! ).

!C 5

q+

m :m 1

. Sp.., '

.w.

meam+

20

1. T ;!!v

• & *.5. nw ',.

s

.

• sit c'er'-

.ce:: -w;qw::s.i-?

?!N:mtei. g; qjg,.

pg><

'a

+

,g.,._

} '['

shfil!f..'. }l, <. l:$.j;:gp II;lfi$p

. '.(;p chii [i !g i

..yg 0-.

I I

I i

i i

4 4

I I

I i

1 4

i I

i i

i i

i i

i 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 war C Pools at capacity t

Approved Cask Designs i

l Castor V/21 (General Nuclear)

MC-10 (Westinghouse) 4 NAC S/T (S~uclear Assurance Corp)

NAC-C28 (S~uclear Assurance Corp)

'SUHOMS 24P & 52B (Vectra)

TS~-24 (Transnuclear)

VSC-24 (Sierra Nuclear) i G

u

i i

1 l

l 1

h i

Cask Vendors & Status

(

i l

• XAC

• Transnuclear

• Holtec 4

4 Westinghouse 1

i

• Vectra

• Sierra Nuclear e

6 1

.=

INPO /NRC

~j g

Senior Management Meeting.

~;;

=-

September 11,1997 i.

l Ed sa SOER 96-2

?

William E. Webster, Jr.

Director l

Plant Support Division i

=Ez=@B

~

~

REI*=8

-H WHY SOER 96-2 WAS ISSUED

~

~~~

~

s*

Fuel cycle economics driving the industry to longer fuel cycles / higher energy cores j

9 w; -

$h Events and abnormal conditions over last

.j a

la i several years involving the reactor cores, manyinvolving high energy cores r-I Weaknesses in the core design processes noted at se.veralutilities w;; g y

_=

mrw Yi k f

=+ w 5

$.b.hh-[lb g

,p. r -c_7

SOER 96-2 l

LESSONS LEARNED l.;

Change management process for core design is inconsistent with the process i

g.,

Kis used for other major plant change iI

%W g

Increased rigor is needed in core modeling andpredictive capability i

Interface between reactor engineering and operations needs strengthening a

L,_

- 2

~

5

~

~

5 SOER 96-2

.[

g1 IMPLEMENTATION i:-

The SOER is e~ valuated by dedicated teams i

- Edgineering team leader

i

- Operations evaluator

[

= =-->

=

- Core design peer and utility host peer

~!

~~

sh Visits last 3-4 days; corporate offices and stations visited l

_i Seven visits complete to date; project

~l M

scheduled fortwo years 5

i

" Gle Y.$ -

o E

._,. -L.. :. _..

[

"i i;me SOER 96-2 STATUS i!

'p

[

~^

y Q.l

~

~g,l Many strengths have been identified

~

i1l n

5

- Good reactor engineering / operations interfaces

'~

. W 7?$

- Strong operations involvement in the core ~

3

$lNA design process

- Strong oversight and communication with

-- =

vendors t

l

-Improved fuel system design basis jl l

documentation j

- Long-term core strategies

-- - - m_

-m-E

e N

,O-, [, ', ' [ ;

fi; -; ' ;

5 h

SOER 96-2 STATUS

~

y

.g y

?

j

. Operator training programs have generally E

i been revised based on the SOER

l wm,

gy-

-l 71.

Utilities and fuel suppliers are all on board-ii

~l M 13 r s e =.

=== sam with the SOER -- communications are

l

-l improving Some vendors have done SOER 96-2 self-

~

?

assessments and held customer workshops (e.g.. GE, Westinghouse)

=l wmc ai 1

P i

• j

_m

-;\\

.l

, {,

/

,.:.:; u ;.:

.,c.

y Cd:

SOER 96-2 STATUS yg gl e

.3 1 'I s!

Mostplants have actions underway to

.. i f(

m

'i!

s R formalize existing core design processes

. ! j,' - -

7, ?

w I

~

l

';'; ; ^_. Q mdte,.-.

T-eo,

{

Several plants needed to improve the core i

design and plant modification process interfaces 9 i

.i e;

8EEEEEhM b,

=;

e

i EXPECTATIONS FOR TIMELY REVIEW OF INDUSTRY OPERATING EXPERIENCE INFORMATION Expect ongoing established process for the systematic review of operating

[

experience INPO, NRC, vendor documents should receive initial screening and be addressed on a time scale appropriate to the safety significance l

NRC and INPO operating experience feedback programs were established to perform the function of reviewing experience and disseminating important l

lessons leamed for the industry-

~

Providing copies of applicable operating experience to a licensee by the l

1 resident ir spectors is a courtesy. Processing of this information should be in j

accordance with the established licensee program l

i l

UMil 97803@@@%# G44-6567 1,9-10-97 i 2:40PM I INPO*

301 415 21621#32 EPIX-Ten Minute Overview

. Meets current and evolving user needs

. Complements Maintenance Rule activities

. Collects data based on risk-importance e Focuses on important key components

. Provides failure information on key components to piece part level 1

EP1X-Ten Minute Overview (continued)

. User accessibility

. Logic-driven input

. Solution-focused output (Information vs. Data)

. Provides risk and reliability data Slide 3 1

..-w._

.,-a

-.w.

y

SENT SY SECONDARY 644-8567 i 9-10-97 i 2:40Pil i INPO' 301 415 21621:33

g i

l Equipment Perfonnance and l

Infonnation Exchange (EPDO l

3 Tom McHenry Institute of Nuclear Power Operations September 11,1997 l

ii. i i

EPIX Background NPRDS nQt aligned with industry needs e

- difficult to use l

- resource intensive f

- limited flexibili,y i

l

[

stes e

i l

1

yyyy,- ggy-ggy7______

t EPIX Development Fresh Look at Industry Needs

- user needs

- manag'ement perspective

- industry support l

Slide 3 EPIXPurpose EPIX is a solution-focused database that provides information on components important to nuclear plant safety and reliability.

Stade 4 l

2

- v-v -

y--7--------

m --

t 1

EPIX Design

. Application and Software Design

-simple - scope and reporthis

-low cost - minimum resources g _ _3

-compatible - MA Rule / SSPI

-flexible - future needs

-easy to use - minimum training i,_

_J

-PC based-sommon sofmwo kyg.l,;J l

-menu-driven ~ Input and output

-accessible - INPO Intranet Stids S EPIXApplications EPIX is a tool that supports

-automated system /cotaponent health reports

-high quality input for root cause analysis

-exchange of operating experience benchmarking prformance

-Maintenance Rule activities

-risk-inforrned decision making

-PSA/PRA Silde 6 J

.A

u s,m u m u x m m uv naapurnrwu,

.m unm mumwo I

1 J

EPIXModules

. Focused Information j

- driven by industry needs

- flexibility add or delete data collected Info-Link

- coupled to NUCLEAR NETWORK

-- direct (person-to-person) Intranet 3

communications and information sharing between individuals in component focus groups j

samt i

1 EPIXModules e NPRDS Archive j

-allows retrieval and analysis of archived NPRDS failure information and component i

data

. Maintenance Rule and Reliability -

~

Information (MRRI)

-component performance information

-supports MA Rule activities

-provides reliability data 4

-replaces NPRDS I

i 4

4

s EPIX / MRRIScope Four Scope Levels

=4:_

e hlaht11.ltys!-$$P! tcope 3 ' ?

m33 middle level risk significant MA

_. _,.1 [l}

Rulo systems

" "." lowestleval-MA Rule scope

~ ~~

'1~ M,a (aanarapan imnact) sino NPRDS Database Structure & Menesecuent

$lte Dets site Data Ofhlte Sources Collectica

" Data" DB l Mech. History '*,

[*$i:*o*giel"':

DB 2 i Reporting i

!. 9.dN...!

ordne N.-

Data Shared NPRDS os.3 Data Decabase M "U

..j RW

[y,,,,,,,g,

Data s

DS.N Data Uem Othersites (Analysis)

Individual (mher) sta to e6 e s e.

9

-6

'g

danX4M%NAFUIFtUh i 9-10-97 8 2:41Pi i INPO*

30

. 1 415 2162i#38 e

EPIX Database Structure & Management Site Data Site Data Offsite i

Sources Collection &

"Infonnation Use Exchange" DB-1 nPxx oua 4

neporieri a Og.2

user, 1

.......4...........................l.{..I..}......,

i infbematana EPIX Shared EP!X Sles y,g n...w gg

, Shared i

Database

,l l LAN I';

y

~

l Intranet I i

!........".........Me.ww.p.e.......j.........

I DB 3 EPIX coord.

(Admin)

DB N-x i

si

• is f

EPDC/MRRIComponentData 1

i New C -- ; -.;.; Dets g,wy%g M laree.

Beg: marts Data Grm alueeer en NPRce ~

1 f Refereness Suai2 6

1 k

EPIX /MRRI Failure Reporting '

8' Pace What

+

~ ~?

m um,

+

ca w

- a4

,.i.,

I' MI Cawe(s)

Cenerhear(s)

Menu-detven inpute sueis I

EPIXImplementation EPIX Development Schedule

-interim EPIX-June 1997

-Release 2 - November 1997

-reliability data-January 1998

-interactive EPIX-April 1998 Shde14

?

SENT SY3SECONDI Y 644-8561 i 9-10-97 i 2:42PM i INPk

$0i 4 5 2 62i#40 3

i Interim EPIXSoftware e stand-alone software e LAN/WAN compatible i

e collects component failure information for interactive EPIX stop NPRDS reporting e

8% ti 1

e 4

9 4

9 4

+e a

~

NRC INTERFACES DURING/FOLLOWING PLANT EVENT I

0 Initial Response to an Event

. e NRC Dependent on Information Provided by Licensees and inspectors at Plant o information allows inkial Assessments and Response Decision-making Staff performed extensive review of NRC actions following Oconee S/G Dryout Event o

f e Guidance to Staff Disseminated o Change to inspection Manual 2515, " Light Water Reactor inspection Program -

Operations Phase" o Change to Project Manager Handbook j

o Discussions and. training conducted with Staff on procedure changes to Inspection j

Manual 2515 i

ij o

Response may include AIT or llT e Licensee and NRC must first exit any emergency response condition, i.e., facility in safe and stable condition prior to NRC initiating AIT/ilT 1

i

-INSPECTOR ROLE DURING AN EVENT o

Perform monitoring and assessment functions with as little impact on licensee as possible,'

but need timely and accurate information to take appropriate regulatory actionc o

Establish balance between obtaining necessary iiiformation and not being intrusive in licensee response activities

• NRC relies on resident inspector staff and licensee for real-time information Minimize number of inspectors in control room o

inspectors adhere to licensee established administrative policies regarding entry into o

-restricted or "at the controls" area of control room o inspector will not demand entry to "at the controls" area

• if needed, inspector escalate request to NRC and licensee management Operators should not be interrupted, questioned or otherwise distracted from duties o

o Communications must be open, clear and direct between inspectors and licensee 2

_1

CONFERENCE CALLS DURING AND AFTER EVENTS o

Conference calls promote mutual understanding of facts and concerns and help NRC respond appropriately to events and conditions e NRC response decisions not normally made without hearing licensee's views first hand o

Conference call will not interfere or detract from licensee's ability to safely operate plant NRC Management decides whether conference call ' ith licensee appropriate o

w

• Stability of Plant primary factor in decision e Other factors include o Current level of NRC staff understanding and information available o Safety significance of event o Current level of licensee activity in mitigating event o

SRl/RI informs licensee of conference call request. Licensee included in deciding most appropriate time O

Licensee clearly informed that call is not to interfere with plant response activities; may delay call o

Appropriate NRC technical staff / management participate in conference call to ensure proper questioning and understanding of event 3

COMMUNICATIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AN EVENT

+

i Keep utility lines of communication informed so appropriate staff have same, accurate o

information

• Information should be prompt and consistent

• Maintain open lines of communication with NRC staff, including notification of further corrective actions or additional information o

Keep resident inspectors informed

• NRC relies on resident inspector staff for information

• Depending on. event / problem, communicate at appropriate levels to the region

.b j

i i

1 L

s 4

1

2 i

SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS FOLLOWING AN EVENT o

RA will notify Licensee if IIT or AIT initiated

• CAL may be issued: may impose equipment / record quarantine

\\

o INPO will be notified and may be requested to provide technical personnel for AIT/IIT llT is single NRC investigation of significant operational events l

o

• Requires full cooperathn of licensee and licensee personnel Utility licensing staff can maintain communications with project manager o

• Project Managers have ready access to dissemir. ate information to NRC staff and management

• Be sure information communicated to project manager is not new or different than that communicated to resident inspector U

l DESIGN BASES ACTIVITIES i

• IN 1980s, NRC IDENTIFIED THAT DESIGN BASES INFORMATION NOT PROPERLY j

MAINTAINED a

e IN 1995, ABOVE CbNCERNS RE-EMERGED AT MILLSTONE AND OTHER FACILITIES

• IN OCTOBER 1996, NRC ISSUED 10 CFR 50.54(F? LETTER ON DESIGN BASES

• PRIORITIZING SITES FOR DESIGN TEAM INSPECTIONS THROUGH FY 1998 1

DES!GN BASES ACTIVITIES l

(CONT'D.)

l

• NRC DESIGN TEAM INSPECTIONS:

~

- ARCHITECT ENGINEER DESIGN INSPECTIONS

- SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL INSPECTIONS

- SAFETY SYSTEM El\\GINEERfNG INSPECTIONS

i I

ARCHITECT ENGINEER DESIGN INSPECTIONS RESOURCE INTENSIVE AND IMPACTS LICENSEES 3 TEAMS OF 5 CONTRACTOR INSPECTORS TEAMS PERFORM SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL INSPECTIONS OF TWO RISK SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS INVOLVE 4 SITE WEEKS e

12 INSPECTIONS COMPLETED IN FY 97 e

10 INSPECTIONS PLANNED IN FY 98

INSIGHTS FROM DESIGN INSPECTIONS INDUSTRY DESIGN ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE MIXED e

POTENTIAL GENERIC WEAKNESSES BEING EVALUATED DESIGN BASES NOT WELL MAINTAINED AND/OR NOT CORRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO PLANT OPERATIONS APPROPRIATENESS OF 10 CFR 50.59 REVIEWS APPROPRIATENESS OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

~

FSAR DISCREPANCIES E

SOME SAFETY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

• INADEQUATE NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD TO ECCS PUMPS

• EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ABOVE ANALYZED REGION

._______..m__.____

/

i IMPACT OF ARCHITECT ENGINEER DESIGN INSPECTIONS

• SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON LICENSEES

• OPERABILITY ISSU$S REQUIRING APPROPRIATE LICENSEE ACTIONS

• IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS

~

.g

=,

F-8 Institute of Xuclear Power Operations E'

=

IhPO /NRC SEbI0RMANAGEMEST MEETING

_I September 11,1997 DESIGNBASIS E?

William E. Webster, Jr.

3 Director a

Plant Support Division g

i

~

Design Basis / Configuration gi Control Activities l

v' g

a Described in Feb 19,1997 letter to industry y

h a

Emphasis on operational configuration 3

- control of changes to risk significant systems

~!

~

- maintenance of design bases when changes made l

m Assist as requested to review station processes, I

using industry developed process descapn.ons m

Willnotparticipateincompliance-type reviews j

5

~

i g

=

IXPO Activities

~

=

1 5

m Added evaluation perfonnance objective - Plant Status and Configuration Control-March 1997 i

s a

Evaluate configuration control by observations of 5

operational and maintenance activities and walkdowns of selected plant systems E

m Facilitate information exchange through BPO training courses and manager / technical meetings 3

=

.~.,

5 E

=

s!

Sl E!

. r EvaluationIssue.s

!!w

=

5 m

Operati~on of some systems inconsistent with design assumptiens - caused by informal operating i

~

restrictions / configuration changes i

.s.

m Weaknesses in safety / technical evaluation of configuration changes n-E u

Insufficient control over some configuration change h

j l:

processes such as temporary mods and leak repair

., l a

5 5

~

i

e s

{

Causes l

l a

Engineering not sufficiently involved with some configuration change processes - e.g. long term clearance tags, leak repair, information tags a

Plant design and status information not readily accessible or easy to use

~

m Operations / maintenance / system engineering /

~

g chemistry / RP not knowledgeable of configuration controls / design basis

}

4.R

.~2 5

b

i 1

CaUSes (continued) l m

Process weaknesses - e.g., controlling concurrent

+

changes; specifying ownership of drawings, f

calculations, etc.

y 3

m Modification closeout untimely or incomplete e

$T

. 3 2

-=

5

i 4,

l i

SAFETY CONSClOUS WORK 4

l ENVIRONMENT 4

1 i

i i

September 11,1997

(

4 1

1 I

]

l i

t I.

k i

i I

l t

I l

i i

j i

j e

i

BACKGROUND i

NUREG 1499 - January 1994 Policy Statement - May 1996 i

j

" Safety Conscious Work Environment" -

February 26,1997 j

31 Comments Received i

NEl and UCS agreed that the NRC has l

sufficient authority to have its expectations met in this area and that a regulation or policy statement is i

unnecessary l

i I

)

J l

SAFETY-CONSClOUS WORK l

ENVIRONMENT l

A Safety-Conscious Work Environment exists i

when employees are encouraged to raise concerns and where such concerns are promptly l

reviewed, given the proper priority based on their potential safety significance, and appropriately rasolved with timely feedback to employees.

i l

This defines the NRC's standard for a healthy employees concerns program maintainincj a l

safety conscious work environment at a l

licensee's facility and is what is expected at our licensed facilities.

4 4

j 4

i 1

ATTRIBUTES OF A GOOD PROGRAM _

S_UPPORTING A SAFETY CONSClOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT Management attitude promoting the raising of concerns; A clearly communicated policy that safety j

is of utmost importance; l

l A strong and independent QA program; i

l A training program that encourages l

reporting safety-issues; and l

l A safety ethic at all levels of the facility including a questioning attitude, attention to detail, commitment to excellence and personal accountability in safety matters.

e

,.-e-v m,r-,e,-,,-

---w

POTENTIAL INDICATLON OF A DETERIORATED SAFETY CONSClOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT Adverse findings that discrimination has occurred; DOL or 01 finding that a hostile work environment exists; i

Significant increase in the rate of complaints to the NRC; Significant increase in technical allegations to the NRC coupled with low usage or decrease of usage in the licensee's ECP; Ineffective licensee corrective action for previous H&I issues; Ineffective licensee identification of H&l issues; and Other indications that the licensee's ECP is ineffective.

REGULATORY OPTIONS

Requiring the licensee to establish a formal ECP if one does not already exist; Order the licensee to conduct an independent survey of the environment for raising safety concerns; Order the licensee to establish an independent group for oversight of maintaining a safety conscious work environment; Chilling effect letters; ahd Meeting with licensees e

l DIAGNOSTIC / SPECIAL EVALUATION J

l e BASIS FOR CONDUCTING A s

DIAGNOST!C Need for information on licensee's safety performance to supplement other assessment data available to NRC Senior L

Management u

o

j Directed by the EDO as a result of the p

SMM process l'

i

e OVERALL GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

~

4 Formal, independent, in-depth assessment of current licensee safety performance Determine root causes of safety performance problen)s and effectiveness of licensee's improvement programs.

1 i

i 4

5 t

O r

y

i DET VS. SET l

SET is a special class of DET J

SE evaluates the licensee's own diagnostic self assessment and utilizes findings to complete the root cause determination Licensee's willingness and capability of performing an in-depth, independent assessment is key to the cecision on SE vs. DE SET is substantially less resource intensive for NRC than a DET Convert an SET to a full DET if DSA is not satisfactory E'

~

e

~

e EVALUATION METHODOLOGY EDC) decision e

SET. evaluation of DSA Independent assessment and validation of DSA findings Integration of results e

l e

~

SET EXPERIENCE

• FIRST SET AT COOPER WAS EFFECTIVE

- Improved assessment of licensee's ability to perform self-assessment

- Less resource intensive for NRC than a DET

- Potential for rapid " Buy-In" by plant.

e SECOND SET IS ONGOING AT CLINTON

R f

NRC/INP0 SENIOR MANAGER MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES SEPTEMBER ll, 1997 ILME ORGANIZATIOS Joe Callan NRC Hugh Thompson NRC Malcolm Knapp NRC Frank Miraglia NRC 4

Larry Chandler NRC Bill Kane NRC Ashok Thadani NRC Mark Satorious NRC Bill Dean NRC Ken Strahm INP0 Fred Tollison INP0 Don Gillispie INPO Mark Peifer INP0 Bill Kindley INPO Sandy Hastie INP0 Bob Heublein INP0 Bill Webster INP0 Jim Morris INP0 Ed Hux INP0 Ron Owens INP0 Rick Jacobs INPO Bruce Leonard INP0 Tom McHenry INP0 Bob Bauman INP0 Jeff Reinhardt INP0

September 29, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs FROM:

William F. Dean. Chief

/s/

Regional Operations and Program Management Staff. OEDO

SUMMARY

OF SEPTEMBER 11. 1997. PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS ON MUTUAL ITEMS OF INTEREST On September 11. 1997, senior mangers of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) met with senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Atlanta. Georgia.

The meeting was then moved to the INP0 offices due to a power failure at the hotel.

The purpose of the public meeting was to provide an opportunity for the senior managers of both organizations to discuss items of current interest. The meeting consisted of a session that was open to the public and a short session that was closed to the public. However, there were no members of the public in attendance. The meeting provided an excellent forum for the open exchange of information between INPO and NRC. Attachment 1 provides an agenda for the meeting and the slides that were used in the open session of the meeting to form the basis of the discussions. Attachment 2 is a list of meeting attendees.

Attachments:

As stated cc w/o ettachments:

See next page-DISTRIBUTION Central Files PDR ED0 R/F DEDR R/F w/o

Attachment:

WMDean HLThompson JCallan SCollins CPaperiello Tim Martin-JLieberman Attendees Document Name: g:\\0EDR\\lNP0.WMD ROS:C DE WMDean HLT son 9/J4/97 9/K/9 d

-