ML20215J272
| ML20215J272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8706240384 | |
| Download: ML20215J272 (78) | |
Text
l.
, x. , , , .
ORIGINAL l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l j
Title:
Discussion /Possible vote on Fort st. Vrain !
Auth.;rization to Exceed 35 Percent Power Level
-l
=t:w i Location: Washingtci., D, c. !
l Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1987 !
Pages: 1 - 62
-=
{
4 Ann Riley & Associates !
Court Reporters l' 1625 l Street, N.W., Suite 92t Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l 8706240384 070617 PDR ADOCK 05000267 T PDR j
1 A) 1 D 1 SCLA I MER 2 .
'S 4
5 i
)
6- This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the
~
7- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 3 6/17/87 .. In the Commission's office at 1717 H. Street, 9 'N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observat3on. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain ;
(
/' -
L 12 inaccuracles.
]
13 The transcript is intenGed solely for general 1 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 ..e l
17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No l I
4 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in l
)
19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement i
20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may ,
21 autherl=e.
22 28 24 25 i
e.
V , T.
+ r ,
1-9
.1 UNITED.-STATES OF AMERICA i
2: NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY-COMMISSION 1 3- ***
{
4 . DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON FORT ST. VRAIN :
' I,
. 5 AUTHORIZATION TO EXCEED 35 PERCENT POWER LEVEL - i
'6- ***
.7 [PUBLIC MEETING) U
- l 8 *** ' "
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission - *
'vansa f 10 Room 1130 !
11 1717 H Street, Northwest 12 Washington,.'D.C.
13 14 WEDNESDAY, JUNE-17, 1987 15
~16 The' Commission met in open session, pursuant to
' 17 ' notice, at 2:03 o' clock p.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, -
18 Chairman of'the Commission, presiding. l; I
19- COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the commission i
21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the. Commission 23 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission i
24 25' I
i
- e. 2 2
h
'l STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
.I 2-3 S. Chilk' 4 W. Parler 51 R. O. Williams 6 D. Warembourg 7 'H.L. Bray i 1
- 8. J. Taylor 9 R.. Martin - -
~4:w
'10 F. Miraglia ! -
11 K. Heitner 1'
12
.13 ~ STAFF'PRESENT VIA',SPEAKERPHONE IN REGION IV:
14 15 J. Kelly 16 P. Check 17 --
-4 18 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
19-20 J. Jaudon 21 22 -
23 24 25 i
F l'
,; :p-3 1 P.R O C E E D I N G S E
2 CHAIRMAN'ZECH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. t 1
3 This afternoon is a briefing on the current status of the Fort 4 St. Vrain Nuclear Plant by the Public Service Company of 5 Colorado with a briefing also by the-staff.
6 The Commission was briefed by the licensee and the- !
7 staff on October 17, 1986 and again on February 26, 1987 on the B
status of the programs to prepare the licensee and the plant 'l i
~
i 9 for operation.
- 1:se, 10 The Commission requested that the staff provide an 11 assessment of the licensee's operational readiness for i 12 continuing power ascension prior to authorizing the licensee to 13' i exceed a 35 percent power level limitation. J
{
14- Today's briefing is that status report. The plant-15' has been operating up to 35 percent power and we will listen to (
1 16 0 the. licensee and the staff today and if at the end of today's i 17 briefing, the commissioners are prepared, I will call for a -
-a ,
18 vote to decide whether the Commission will permit the staff to 19 authorize the licensee to operate up to 82 percent power.
20 The licensee as I understand it has been completing 21 work that was needed to satisfy the NRC readiness concerns and 22 to implement the Fort St. Vrain performance improvement l 23 program.
24 The NRC staff has been performing an augment 25 inspection coverage of the licensee's operation since the
._____________._-_--------U
.r. -,.
4 1- restart was authorized and will discuss the results of their 2 observations of those operations here this afternoon.
3 We will hear from Region IV and the NRR managers.
4 responsible for the plant. They will this afternoon discuss 5 the current status of the facility and the readiness of the 6 licensee to continue their' power ascension.
7 I understand that Region IV is listening on the 8 phone. Are you on the phone, Region IV?
9 MR. CHECK: Mr. Chairman, this is Paul Check. I have - -
~y3 10 with me Mr. James Kelly.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Fine, thank you. Do my 12 fellow Commissioners have any opening remarks?
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Lando, just a couple. I 14 hope and from the viewgraphs it we.s a little unclear what you 15 intend to cover and what you don't, but the three areas that I 16 would be particularly interested in hearing some comments both 17 from the licensee and also from the staff on are first, the -
a 18 status of the nuclear performance enhancement program and I 19 would be interested in hearing what you have been able to 20 accomplish since we last heard from you and what still remains 21 to be done to complete the program. f l
22 Second, a summary of your perceptions of your I 23 operating experience since the plant was restarted, where you 24 think the problem areas area and where you think you have done 25 better than you expected to do and finally, your own assessment 1
l t ** .
(
5 1 1
l' of the performance of the management team at the plant since 2 the plant has gone back into operation and Lando, I take it 1 1
that one of your intentions is to hear form Mr. Kelly or be 3
4 able to discuss with him some of the concerns that he expressed 5 last week on fitness-for-duty.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, that is exactly right. I would 7 ask Mr. Taylor when~he comes forward to discuss with Mr. Kelly 8- some of the concerns-that he has expressed. -
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. -
't.se 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:- I understand that he is prepared.to 11 do that today.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Great. That is all I have.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other comments?.
14 (No response.]
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Williams, you may proceed.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and -
18 Commissioners, we are pleased to be here today to provide you 19 an update of our progress. As you pointed out in February When 20 we were here last, we were proposing a plan of power ascension 21 that would take us through a ten percent power ascension plan 22 up through 35 percent and then later following staff review, 23 ascension to 82 percent. So we are pleased to be here today to '
24 do that.
25 I have with me at the table today two of the members
[y '
I 1:
~
of the staff that were with us.at the last' meeting,cLarry,Brey, 2 who:is~our manager _of nuclear licensing and fuels and has been
'3 veryLactivalincthe effortssto support'our work with'the staff 4- in,the 82 percent-planning'and Don'Warembourg who?is'our 5 manager of nuclear engineering and who is, as you will recall, 6 followingLthe February' meeting:that Don Warembourg and I set up-7- a sharing of those.dutiesLthat had been' carried out by the-8 manager:.of nuclear production and we will be prepared to ' answer 9 'anyTquestions'if you have with respect to that and I might -
' ene :
10' comment on those with respect to some of tho' points that you-11 made, Commissioner Asselstina.
12' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
13 1CR. WILLIAMS:
We have in the audience'with us also-14 Mike Holmes who is our manager of licensing who works for Larry-15' Bray and Jim Eggebroten who is our. Plant engineering manager 16' who is directly-concerned with.the evaluation of plant 17- performance;and works within the production organization.
18 The resolution of the technical issues supporting the 19 82 percent power level and these were the key issues that we L2 0 were working with the staff involved actually three factors for 21 'us;-one, continuing the support to the staff with respect to
'22 their evaluation work which had started actually last summer as 23 the Chairman pointed out, and we have continued to support l 24 those activities for the staff through this period since i
25 February,
1 u
- 7 l 1 In particular, before startup,'we, for example, ran a 2 test, a hydraulic test,.where we actually measured certain flow I f
3 parameters to provide them further' validation of material like 4 that.- We provided additional information relative to some of 5 our stress analysis and code case-activities and other I 6 activities like that.
l 7 But principally the staff has had the primary data i
~
8 for that evaluation and we have just in this intervening time 9 supported them in whatever they have needed to arrive at the - -
We 10 conclusions which we believe they reached at this point.
11 .There were modifications to the plan as you recall.
12 We discussed the six inch vent line which was a key 13 modification'to support the flow characteristics we wanted 14 during safe. shutdown cooling. Those modifications have all 15 been completed and are in place at this time and ready to 16 support that safe shutdown cooling model.
17 Along with that, we have developed and what we have -
.a 18 been actually operating on are during the interim period of 19 operation at 35 percent power, we have operated with a set of 20 shutdown procedures that are directed co the 35 percent power 21 and the liner cooling model. So tho.=2 procedures are in place.
22 The operators are trained on all of those procedures. !
23 What we will and have been doing is developing a set 24 of procedures that will take us through the 82 percent as we go 25 beyond 35 percent and begin then to rely on the 82 percent l
8
'g-4 8
1 model for shutdown. cooling, we will have those, procedures 2 available and in place and'the operators. trained on them'so i
3 clearly there is a transition for.the operators from'the 35 i 4' percent case to the 82. percent case.
5 They are currently.in that training and I know that 6 the slide says that the training is completed. We are still'-
7 working'them.on those procedures. We.believe that to-be an i important transition and-one that we want to be fully 8
9 --
comfortable with in terms of their readiness to essentially set - -
tw 10 aside one set of procedures. I 11 Now the bulk of the procedures stay in place but 12 there are some' key procedures that will need to be changed and i
13 awe are going to concentrate on assuring ourselves that the 14 operators are fully capable of operating at that 82 percent-15 procedure process.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Could you give us a sense 17 for how much of a change there is, how extensive'the procedural --
.a 18 changes are?
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Essentially, the liner cooling process 20 is what they are relying on now. They are not relying on the 21 vent system and so on. So it is shifting over to that reliance 22 on the vent and the various valves and so en and how they i 23 respond to the scenarios and which sequence they operate '
24 through.
f
)
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
5
1 i
.,_ o-9 1 ~ MR. WILLIAMS: So there are some changes in there as {
2 we switch from'one system to another. I think we are l
3' essentially complete on that. In terms of our activities, we 4 are completing that training and will have it in place prior'to (
5 our initiating any operation at 82 percent and, of course, that 6 operation cannot proceed until we receive from the staff the 7 tech spec change and the authority to make that change.
8- But following that, we will make our own choice in 9 terms of our crews being able to do that. - -
l ese 10 (Slide.] !
11 MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to talk briefly about 12 some of our operational results.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is the 82 percent level now 14 for all practical purposes the maximum power level for the 15 plant?
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, 82 percent will be the maximum 17 that we will be able to operate to. More likely, we would -
.a 18 operate at levels just below 82 percent, probably in the 19 neighborhood of 70 percent.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But for all practical l l
, 21 purposes, the plant is de-rated to 82 percent? i 22' MR. WILLIAMS: Not actually. I think as we talked at 23 the last meeting, there are some modifications that we have
- 24. looked at that would move us from the 82 to the 100 percent.
25 There is also our fuel analysis and all of the analysis that we
~
i c o L,2 es s ,
q 10 :
v ,
d
- 1 -arefcurrently operating'to are based on the fuel data'that was O
y 2- .available at.the initial" licensing of the plant and there is a j 1
3' substantia 1' amount of data available today.which indi~ cates that. !
k .
'4 what we are calling limiting conditions could,7in. fact,' i 4
- 5. indicate some'300'to-400 degrees' higher limiting' temperatures.
6 -Were we to go throughcthat analysis,' that may be a 7 source of saying that this does change the plant ratingfback to. ,
It is'one of the two or a combination'of those
, 8 100 percent.'
9 .two is.what we believe will take us beyondE82 percent-to the +!
10 100 percenticase.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But so far at least,;you ;
12 haven't either4 decided.to do that or haven't done the analysis?-
.13 MR. WILLIAMS: . No, we have not pressed that at all L
114 .because the operation right now to 82' percent is comfortable
'15 for us in' terms of.the kind of performance we want so we are 16 willing to operate at.that level.
'17 I know the one that we have talked about in the past -
18 has.been what is our key concern and what historically has:been j 19 the key concern at Fort St. Vrain and I think that has been the 20 moisture ingress into the core and the consequent loss of
'21 availability capacity factor,. essentially putting the plant in 22~ a shutdown mode until we clean up the moisture.
23 A lot of work has gone into and I think we 24 characterized that earlier in our discussions in February, have 1
25 gone into the prevention of our getting moisture into the core
h i
V- , a 11 1 , 1 during'the outage when there were a lot of opportunities 2 because of the outages and the various configurations we'had-
- 3 the' plant in, there were opportunities for moisture ingress at 4 that time..
~
5 A great deal of effort had gone into making a number 6 of physica1Lchanges to the system together with a combination 7 of procedural changes, clearance changes, where we are holding 8 clearances.for anything that involves those systems right up to '
9 the superintendent' level and those paid off for us in terms of -
W 10' going into plant startup with very low moisture levels and our
'll ability since then to maintain that. I 12 So we have been: very pleased with the moisture levels 13 that we had. I know our initial projections for dry out, I~
14 think when we were talking with the commissioners in october, 15 we were projecting something like 60 days for dry out and we 16 have managed to do that in something like ten days so it was 17 very, very pleasing to us to have that kind of performance of -
18 the system in terms of that being the key thing and one that 19 has been such an Achilles heel for us in the past.
20 So we are very pleased with that performance and that 21 . continues to be a good performance and I think what we are 22 seeing is that operators with the kind of training that we have 23 had and of all the things that we don't simulate, that is one 24 that we do. We do have a specific simulator to work on that i
25 and the operators have had special training on that activity, i
12 1 We. feel that all of'that has paid off in providing us L 2 the. kind of environment where we are. net seeing that moisture 3 ingress even.though we have taken some loop ups since and so on-4 and we have been able-to manage that.- .That has been important i
5 for us.'
~
1 6 That leads me to the fact that we are seeing the 7 proficiency and the professionalism in the operators attention 8 to the details, the very, very careful attention to procedure.
9 .and knowing what they are doing and a lot of attention on the -
- w 10 part of the. operating staff and the engineering staff 11- supporting them in getting a well defined set of procedures. I 12 think that has paid off for'us and we are seeing that both in.
13 terms of how the people are operating with those procedures and 14 .the quality of the procedures themselves.
15 One of the things that we, of course, had done a 16 couple of years ago is a refurbishment of the control rods. We i 17 indicated to you, I think at our meeting in February, that we --
.a i 18 were interested in and concerned in the performance of those 19' control rods.
20 They have checked out very well for us and we 21 continue to check those out on an ongoing basis. We did a 22 number of detailed tests. We started up and at the time we 23 went critical on April 17th, it was immediate, the first step 24 was to provide some operator proficiency on reactor startups 25 and then moved immediately into full check out of those control
- . c :
- 13 1 . rods.. A111of those things were done prior to any. rise to-2 power.
3 So we feel very good'about the performance both in 4- /the' control rod performance and the. operators handling the 5 reactor at those low critical levels.
6 As I indicated,'with our moisture levels being as low 7 as.they were and drying up as fast as.they.were,.we were in.a-8 ' position that we received authority from the Region to operate 9 .to.35 percent in ten days after we started critical and.they- -
- we 10' are tracking our performance.and did' confirm and allowed us to 11 ago above~ ten percent.
12 On April 30th, three days after that release, we were 13- cn1 line with a generator and had been operating about three
'14: days'and we were performing a radiographic check of a line. We f
15 wanted to examine a line. Wo already had checked the line by l
16 other means but we wanted to do a double-check, an over check
]
)
on that line and of course, our radiography over the last 17 n j
..a i 18 number of months has been a radiography in the environment of 19 the plant being shut down, so we went in and I think~the people I
20 doing the radiography and our procedures in place were really )
- 21. an outage type procedure because when they started to do the
~
22' radiographic work, it turned out that we had a detector sitting )
i 23 there looking for high radiation from a line and it saw the 24 detector and shut down one of the loops.
25 I think that we have changed those procedures so we I
E
.of 14 q
l' now have' operating procedures relative to any radiographic w6rk' ;
2 going on-in the plant during operation and it takes a very high-i n 3 clearance, it is not quite up to me yet, but it.is up to.the 4 ~ station manager or-the superintendent for any activity involved 5- with radiographics. '
6 'Again,'we saw the operators, their response-and the l 7 way they handled it.to get us back up on line. We did lose a 8 couple of days of. operation. They brought us right back on.
9 line. It was again an indication that the operators are well ~'!
'faw {
10 trained on that. We had no moisture ingress as a consequence ]
11 or result of that. It made us feel pretty good there. ]
12' We did a couple of days after that, directly reduce 13 the plant power so we could do repair work on'the valve. We
'1 q
.i 14 did that against a very short period of time,'about 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />, i 15 'and we1were back up on line again. Throughout the period of 4 16 May, we had an availability of about 87 percent,. counting those ,
17 two outages we experienced, one which we directly went down to -
.a i 18 repair a valve and the other that was a result of that upset.
19 We had operated through June, through last Friday, 20 into June. From April 17th into June, last Friday, on the lith 21 of June, the reactor had remained critical throughout that 22 entire period. We had never shut the reactor down itself, 1 23 although we had dropped the loops and so on. )
i 24 At that point, we were transferring a switch from the 1 l
25 non-power / low power to a power position. We received a loop l
i
15 1 . shutdown in that condition. We should not have received that 2 loop. shutdown. We shut down over the weekend and did a very 3 careful investigation of the source of that, looked over the 4 records.of how we worked our way through the transients and so 5 on and following that review, restarted the plant'the first of 6 this week. We are back on turbine now and approaching back up 7 .to 30 percent power.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Did you find out what the cause of i
9 the problem was?-
'-l 1'9e :
10 MR. WILLIAMS: The cause was, as you recall, we had l
11 the spurious trip problems with the PPS. A lot of those we 12 were finding were a result of groundings or lack of grounding 13 in many of our circuits. The cabling that was no longer used 14 in the plant. out of some 2,000 lines we had worked on and 15 grounded, one of these turned out to be a line that was also 16 connected to a circuit that went to the PPS. At the time we switched the switch, we wound up with a ground on that.
t 17 We had j 18 gone back in and reviewed the procedures that we applied to 19 that entire process, those looked good except we did not do a 20 complete over check of the whole PPS system following that l 21 work. We have gone in and followed up with that and instituted j 22 that as a change we will put in place, for any work like that 23 again, we will do a complete system check, which we have done ;
24 since we found the trouble last Friday.
25 It was one we had not expected to see but at this ,
t b
' l f.'A , 1
- y. 'y
- 4 y ,.
'16 l
El- point we'have donera: complete check on the system and weifound p
2 .no'other' difficulties.with that and'no' indication that any. ,
i 3 L :t other-part'of the system has suffered the same difficulty.
1 4 -(Slide.)
5 MR. WILLIAMS: We believe wo have given the length of
?6 the' outage and the number of. activities we had throughout that 7.. outage, changes and so on, we believe'the-staff responded-very 8- well to moving.into the operational phase that we have seen, 9 and I think very reliable operation of.the plant. It has been -
wo 10 very quiet.- People have been very pleased'with the operation.
i 11 We'believe it'is demonstrating the kind'of operation we would j 12: like to see it have and'it is the' kind of operation we wanted 13 .to.see before we were. ready to go up in higher power;1evels.' l a
14- I think what we have done in many ways is really 15 focus on -- we are~often asked, is it the operators that are
~16- doing that. I.have to'say most certainly the operators and the -
17 . operator training and the focus we have had ct4 that and the --
,a j
18 focus we have had on very prudent and careful operations is i
19 paying off for us.
l 20 The other focus that we have and the one I am
..21 drilling on as hard as I can is the importance of the
/
22 maintenance staff, the engineering staff, the analytical staff 23 that looks at the performance on a day by day basis. We are 24 right there on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis supporting that operating staff.
25 That is the key emphasis that I am placing on our performance 1
1 1
L tQ n..
p4 17 r 'l right.now'asLwe make that transition. I think that'is critical
- 2- for us, that we keep on-top of it, keep a clean PPS.
.3- I think-historically everyone has acknowledged that
{
41 .there was,a' tendency to operate with a PPS board. You would y 5 have.something already in a trip condition and that was not a 6 good condition to be. operating in.- It always' puts the operator 7- at'a little'less. confidence'in the system. He should have all' 8- the. safety protections he needs and the confidence that ha'has 9 the ability to maintain the availability of-the plant. You -
g.
, 10 can't do that if'you are in that compromised position. ,
.j 11 We have really focused on that as our forefront !
'12 issue. 'That ties somewhat to your comment with respect.to --
[ 13~ Commissioner Asselstine's comment with respect to the status of i
f 14- the performance enhancement program. When will it be finished, 15 I-think our answer in the past.-- certainly my answer has been 16- I'see that as a living program. It is an ongoing program. We 17' believe-that a number of the things we have done, for example,. -
~
18 in maintenance, which relate directly to this subject, I am' 19 watching them, I want to see what I get on the performance side 20 of that in terms of activities we have completed or are in 21 place in terms of the maintenance, the planning, the 22 engineering support, the team work and so on.
23 That-is not a completely finished task but we have 24 . defined it and we have put it in place. I'm going to be 25 tracking that. To me, it is going to be critical in terms of 1
3
i 18 1 our ability to achieve-the kind of performance we want from the i
2 plant. That's an example of some of the performance !
3 enhancement areas we have.
4 They are all ongoing. We do close things out. I 5- won't give you the impression they just dangle out there. We-6 do close things out. There are enough things as we define 7 things, for example, the quality enhancement. program was added 8 to the-PEP last year. There are a number of tasks in that I
-l 9 which are brand new within PEP. There are a number.of tasks - -
wei 10 that have certainly been closed out. We review those on a 11 regular basis with both the Region and the staff. ,
12 In fact, I believe our schedule is --
13 ' MR . BREY: July 22nd.
l 14 MR. WILLIAMS: July 22nd, Larry Brey and I will 15 review our entire performance program with the headquarters and 16 regional staff. That's an ongoing process._ We feel we are j i
17 using that program effectively, we are capturing the issues, -
'l
.s i 18 defining them, getting solutions, getting them in place and 19 then tracking our performance against those.
I 20 The plant performance, I think I probably covered l r
21 many of the plant performance issues. You asked about the I l
22 management team. If I can go to the supporting factors chart, i l
23 I think we have that up there now. ;
24 We do have a good staff. I think I have mentioned 25 that before on several occasions. I am very pleased with the I
-,: x d
19
~
1 staff I have to work with in our organization. I-recognize-i' l
f
'2- that in February, there was certainly some concern about how we
(
,c 3 'were going to handle some of the events of the day, when we j y
-4, lost our Manager of Production. Don Warembourg and I did work- l 5 with the three managers who were key within that organization.
6 Chuck Fuller being the Station Manager. I know several of you
'7 ; have had an opportunity to tour the plant with Chuck. Don and i
8 I have worked very actively with the staff.
9l I guess my.own personal view is the process has been- -
- .se 10 very beneficial for us. It has allowed me a lot more direct 11' contact. It has allowed me to deal with issues'in addition to 12 the operation'of the plant and station and supporting Chuck 13 Fuller to 100 percent. I have also been able to get into some 14- of the other issues, looking at some of the training activities 15 and the needs that were there.
16 I am very attentive to the fact that I still have a l 17 three in emergency preparedness and so on. That organization -
-a 18 also supports that. It has allowed me to work directly with 19 that staff. I 20 There have been a number of things I have taken on as 21 opportunities in that process to better enhance our performance i i
22 in those areas and meanwhile both Don and I have a regular 23 staff meeting with that group, together with daily reviews of 24 the activities that go on.
25 I feel we have had excellent management performance.
1
. l 9 x 20:
s
_jll (The team' work;is'still there. We are'still paying attention to-
.2 ? it.: Every' time we see it fall back a little,.we work _-itiright. .I
- 3. .back'up'there.- I.think we are seeing the kind of team work we-i 4 need. -We do have a commitment. Everyone is' committed to the 5- . excellence that we.want to see.
N e 6 .We .do' believe" outage management and ~ operational.
7 ' management;are different. TheyLdo require different-kinds of' o J8 : attention. Wo have managed to get people toffocus now'on.that
.9. day'to day operation and the needsLof that operational staff,- '
V*r i so we can't'just put our feet-up and say,.they have the ball,
'10 i
1 11 .as soon as the operators have it, it's critical for'us-at this r
12 point to be tracking them,.looking at'what. kind of. support:they 13 need, making sure the plant is up there and they have-the best 14' plant.to operate they'can have.
15 I think we are working very effectively in that 16 direction. As I indicated,w Larry Brey and Don Warembourg and
- w. j 17 Phil Thompson, all of us su senior managers are spending a lot .. 4 18 of time paying attention to how we are performing, looking at 19 the issues and getting them right;up on the table.
20 In conclusion, I believo.the operation that we have.
21'
~
seen, the activitics we have carried out, the staff 22- capabilities and so on, to me, together with the fact that we f '
23 .believe the staff, the NRC staff, have resolved the issues with 24- respect to the_82 percent and indicates to me that we are l
25_ prepared to move beyond tha 35 percent power limit.
I
,;C b
21 1 I appreciate talking to you.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We appreciate that. Questions from 3 my fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Asselstine?
l 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think you pretty much
- 5 covered mine. I guess the one additional one I would have, you i
6 seem to have had an improvement, maybe even a significant or l 7 substantial improvement in human performance. I would be 8 interested in knowing why you think that has taken place, what '
9 it is that you did, that you did right to bring about that. -(
13e 10 You mentioned training. Is that basically what you would 11 attribute the much better performance in terms of operating the 12 plant than what we have seen in the past? Are there other 13 factors as well?
14 It sounds also like you have a better. maintained, 15 refurbished plant to operate and one where the plant protection 16 system was in much better shape than it has been in the past.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: I guess I would say first I encourage -
18 and secondly I insist upon communication. We work on 19 communication all the time. To me, the ability to talk, to 20 talk openly, to talk squerely -- I can recall when Chairman 21 Zech was with us. You complimented us on our frankness with 22 respect to the problems we were dealing with. We appreciated 23 that. We believe that has to be a reflection of our 24 organization. If we can't sit there and frankly deal with the 1
25 problems we have and get them up on the table and deal with !
l i
e v
.;,, s 22 1 .them, then we are:not going to'be successful.
2 I think we as an organization know that. I-preach' 3- it. I'm also concentrating on our' sense of what is urgent, 4 what is important. What is urgent.and important to me is that 5 we do fully' support'that plant and support those operators.
-6 I,would have to say the esprit de corps of-the
)
'7 . organization remains high. I am very pleased with that. I 'i
,. 8 know we'have had concerns in the past or' expressed concerns '1 l
9 about attrition, possiblel effects of that. No attrition over -
%w
- 10. and above the kind I would hava seen before, and I continue to 11' have. excellent resumes presented to me.- In fact, we have made-12 two or three recent staff changes and we feel we have made 13 i
substantial enhancements in our staffing capability.
14 l
'I don't think there is any magic formula. There is 15 -just a' lot of hard work for all of us. I think we are all 1
16 finding-ourselves very heavily committed to that operational 17- excellence:, ,.
18 l COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Have you had enough j i
19 operating experience with the plant now at above the 10 percent 20 power to assure yourselves that modifications to the work that 21 was done was done properly? The plant is now in good working j 22 order?
23 You mentioned some of these problems with the i
24 spurious actuations of the plant protection system. You think 25' you found all of those. ,
1
23 L,
1 Do'you have enough experience now to satisfy 2 yourselves that everything has been fixed and properly?
L 3. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm very pleased with it. I think 4 both Don and Larry can comment in terms of their perception of 5 the plant versus historical. perceptions of the plant at this 6 stage.
7 MR. WAREMBOURG: With the condition of the plant-8 right now, we have made a valiant and extensive effort in terms I i
9 of redoing all of our surveillance tests, even doing - i nw 10 surveillance tests that weren't required of us, that would 11 normally be refueling type surveillance tests. We have gone !
12 through those to assure ourselves that during this extensive 13 outage, we haven't overlooked anything.
14 I think there is a very high level of cognizance at 15 the plant in terms of what our success has been. I think a 16 good part of it is attributable to that high level of 17 cognizance we have had. -
.a 18 A lot of our trips in the past have not necessarily 19 been operational errors. Most of them in fact have been 20 surveillance testing errors, a result of engineers turning the 21' wrong switch at the wrong time or inserting a jumper where it 22 shouldn't be inserted. We have developed now a system where we 23 met every morning at 7:00 and we go over the events of the 24 night before and we try to project the events of the upcoming j
25 day. We have a second meeting at 10:30 at our lower level. We 1
a
- ,- na 24 1- continue that on a daily basis.
2L The level of cognizance out there, whether it be on 3 the' day shift or the back shift is extremely high at this point 4- in. time. I feel very comfortable with Chare we are right now.
5 MR. BREY: Let me .interj ect. If you look at the past 6 and look at what is~ happening now,'I believe that there is a 7 different mindset of the people, and Mr. Williams alluded to.it 8 when he indicated that from a maintenance' standpoint, we now '
9- want to have everything in the plant available and operable. -
- se 10 And there was a mindset,.I think, in the past that if we could 11 get by -- for instance, if the plant protective system had a 12 logic of two out of three, and we had one problem in one of 13 those three channels, we would just go to a one out of two 14 logic. Of ceurse, we'd be very vulnerable then.
15 Now we get.it' fixed. We don't go down to that one 16 out of two logic, or if we do, we only go down for a minimal 17 amount time into that logic configuration, and we get back -
.a 18 there where we have everything operable.
19 So I think it's a change of mindset. I think people 20 feel good about it.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: My last question. Could i
22 you give us a little summary of your fitness for duty program, )
23 what the key elements are? j 24 I'd be particularly interested in knowing what 25 provision for drug testing you have, either random testing,
q
, i
,_.- t4 -
25 l' preemployment testing, periodic testing as part of physicals or' j
'2: otherwise,.what provisions you have for investigating J
.3 allegations of drug or alcohol' abuse by people who have access j l
4 to the protected areas of the plant, and-also a brief summary' l 5 'of our history in terms of what kinds of incidents you've seen 6 over the~ operating life of the plant in terms ~ of . drug ' or 7 alcohol abuse.
8 MR WILLIAMS:" Well, we have the fitness for duty '
9 . program. That program encompasses bo'th or-own employees, - -
ep 10 .obviously, and those employees of any contractors who will have i
11- access to.the site, and that program is constantly changing.
12 For example, we are currently instituting the schedule of- '
13 fingerprinting and that kind of background check. We do have 14 the background checks and.so on.
15 As a recent employee, I had the opportunity to 16 ' describe coming into'the operation, a rather comprehensive 17 collection of all of the background operation, together with -
.a 18 the employment physical, the particular sample that was'well 19 labeled and signed by me and everybody else, and that sample 20 went off and had to be verified to'be free of -- that I was 21 free of any indication of any of the drugs that that sample 22 checked for, and that is a process that is in place and has 23 been.
24' We do not have random drug sampling, but we do have 25 the ability to on cause, on suspicion, to insist on a specific
e, 4
- o-1 26 1' test,-land'so that-is'available to us on an "as. required" basis.
2 and has been implemented on that basis. In fact, very recently 3, we instituted such a test as a result of an allegation.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Do you test all new employees coming 5 into the company?
6 MR. WILLIAMS: This would be new employees coming 7 into the --
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The protected area?
9 MR.' WILLIAMS: The nuclear' organization.' -
-::w 10 ~ CHAIRMAN ZECH: You do test them?
11 MR.' WILLIAMS:~ Yes.
t 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: When did that requirement 13' go into effect?
'14 'MR. WILLIAMS: That has been in -- that requirement 15 has been in place for quite a few years.
16 MR. WAREMBOURG: New employment has been in effect 17 only about a year and a half. -
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Were the existing people 19 grandfathered before that?
20 MR. WAREMBOURG: Yes.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: The existing people, I think, were
'22 grandfathered.
23 Quite frankly, one of the activities that I have been 24 -- as I indicated, there are a number of things that I've been 25 getting more involved with with respect to those activities.
l 1
- . = a-27
.1. :The security activities were under-the production operations 2 . organization. -The current' relationship I'have.with that group,
- 3 I've.taken.a-lot more direct and activeLinterest in all of 4 -thes's activities.
.5 We-have had, to my awareness, I think three
'6 allegations, three major' allegations, one of which.came to my 7 ' attention in,-I think, November of 1986, last year'in November o '
8 when we were responding to -- attempting to'close out'an 9, allegation, a' series of allegations that had been made back in. -
vac 10 July of -- or June of-1985 and earlier had beenzresponded to, 11 but this was a follow-up to that kind of response.
12 I then, following that, had discussions with the' 13' Regional' Office with respect to Public Service's' approach to
-14 this. As you recall, my other.world was the experience of
.15 ' ' working at a factory that used a' lot of plutonium, so we had 16 similar kinds of procedures in place for activities there. And 17 so I was -- had the opportunity to do some comparisons in terms -
18 of how I saw us implementing programs'in my other activities 19 and how I saw those being implemented at Public Service, and I 20 had-some concern in that I saw that the nuclear organization. q 21" had-a set of standards and so on imposed on it which were not 22 necessarily fully consistent with the treatment of all !
l 23 employees throughout-the corporation -- that is, Public Service 24 of Colorado.
25- So we have spent quite a bit of time arking with the l
1 i
4 .
28 p
L1 total Public Service staff, using the Personnel people, the 2 medical organization, the personal assistance program, to more 3- . sharply define how we handle these. things and how we handle-14- particularly the investigations and so on. That was'an 5 . indication,'for example of an investigation that had gone one
'6 for - .well,-what'it.woul'd amount to at.this point in time i .would be:about two years.
L 8 There were indications that we had not -- even while~
I 9 we had.used the personal assistance program, we then managed to - -
- w 10 be in a position where we wound upLwith a doctor / patient 11 . confidentiality, and so information that might have flowed back'
- 12 .to-us, had we had different rules. operating in terms of, "Go 13 see someone~for evaluation" and so on, those things were not in 14L place as effectively as they should have been, and we have, I 15 believe, uncovered those things as a result of going back 16 through and looking over this investigation, and I think we've 17 defined some procedures and activities that we believe will -
.a -
18 strengthen the program.
19 I think the key point is that I'm aware of only three 20 instances of investigations, that the organization has not had
- 21- a high incidence of these to test itself in. So that's one 22 area, I think, in terms of where we have the direct allegations 23: or.where the Commission receives those allegations and provides 24- them to us, and our effectiveness in being able to carry that 25 out -- carry out that investigation.
n
- g - -.
y -29
- 1~ So we have gone through and we've defined.some 2 ' things. We've' reviewed these with.the Region, recently
- 3 . exercised them very well, I think, in a very recent allegation,. ;
4 _ wentfthrough and essentially removed the access authorization' 5 .for the individual -- interrogation, required the various 6 testing and so on, satisfied ourselves fully-that the 7 allegations ware.neither true in terms of currency, and to the
- 1
>8- extent.that there had been any possible. factual truth to the ~
9 allegation, at least one dimension of it, that.it was old - -
w:e -
10; history. .It had related to another period of time with another-11' set of individuals, and so we satisfied ourselves that we had 12 Rno current issue'with respect to that employee and then
- 13. _ returned him to service.
~14 But it was, I think, very well handled. I felt we 15 handled.that very well. We have gone back and completely 16 revisited the major allegation that we essentially had on the ;
17- table for two years. So I think what we've done is. dealt -
.a 18 directly now with the specific allegations that.we've seen, and 19 we've also dealt with how are we, as an organization, !
l 20 performing. Do we have all of our piece parts put together, so !
.21 that we can perform effectively as an organization ~in dealing
~22 with that.
i 23 Along with that, one finds all of the programs 24 requiring -- our program requires, other programs that I've l 25 been involved with require, and I'm sure you're familiar with
30 11 all of-these requiring ---if one -- if you or I see'someone who 2 we suspect, then we're supposed to take certain actions, and I 3 think that's characteristic of all the programs.
4 Probably one of the most difficult pieces of language 5 in any of these programs -- one, it presumes that you and I and 6 'everyone else around us are all equally skilled.at being able
'7 to' identify someone in that kind of condition. So we are 8 looking in particular for the managerial component of our- ^
I 9; organization, that we build a special training program for - -
10 them. We've had some training in the past. We're not sure 11 we're satisfied with that, and we believe we want to go in -- ;
12 we've reviewed that now with our corporate training people, 13 people in the personal assistance program, and some outside i 14 people to support the corporation in that, and we believe that 15 it's important that we institute a specific program for our
.16 managers, so that they can be better equipped to carry out that 17 mandate that they are monitoring on an ongoing basis their -
.a 18 organizations and being able to pick out those areas where they 19 suspect that they may have a problem.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I share your reservations 21 about the ability of behavioral observation to be able to 22 detect these problems in all cases and the variability in terms 1
23 of individuals' skills in doing that kind of thing. That's why 24 I tend to favor a random testing program. I'd be interested in 25 knowing why you don't have a random testing program.
, bg. ?eJ ;.31-111 )UL. WILLIAMS: We have not had, we don't have.it H 2S currently, and, as I say, as: a ~ part of all of this program -
L 3 cre' view, I am having discussions with the corporation with 4 respect to what our near-term and-long-term position is. going
-5 to belon that subject. I don't have closure'on it. I am 6 discussing it with-the. corporation,'and we will just -- I'm 7 ' inclined to,believe that we do need something other than -- we-8 certainly.have in place'today the ability to, on the basis of 9 observation or on the basis of the allegation, in either case, .-
10 . whichever brings us to the position _to insist on that kind of
^11 testing.
L12 "We don't have the random testing. Random testing g 13 with: organizations, one doesn't just rush-in and do it. I 14 mean, we've.got unions. We've got all sortstof ramifications 15 .to the; institution of such a program, and I've been involved, 16- as I say,,in other jcbs where we have moved through~that same 17- kind-of an issue, and it's not just a simple issue, and it's -
.s not just something you can just go do. _It's one that we have
~
18 19 to do very carefully. We've got to consider the= legal and 20 personal. ramifications of the implementation of that kind of 21J -program.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What does your program call '
23 .for.in thel event of a positive test when you test for cause? ;
1 24 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, certainly denial of access, the I 25 use of -- well, the positive side of the program says that we
y +:
32 l' will utilize the personal' assistance program --
- 2-COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
- Rehabilitation.
3 MR.-WILLIAMS:- We'll place them into'a
- 4. frahabilitation, and at that point when we.believe that they are 5 fully: rehabilitated, then return them to access to the1 plant.
6 That's, as:I say, the positive side. . That's'the f-7' direction we would like toisee things' proceed.- We'are not 8 limited, however, and it's clear that we can go all the way to '
- 9. dismissal, should we' find that that's the case. - -
.we -
10 -COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Are there opportunities _for i
11' rehabilitation moreLthan once?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure it's that' clearly 13 defined.
14 MR. WAREMBOURG: It's not really defined. .We'have
-15 done that on one occasion. We've had three people who are
.i 16 self-identified, regardless of the allegations to the NRC, and i 17 in our dealings with those, one of those individuals went .
.a i 18 through the program a second time, and as R.O. indicated, one 19- of those individuals also started in the program, did not 20 perform very well, and we terminated him. So there's been a 21 situation going all the way to termination.
.22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Finally, what does your
- 23. program provide for on allegations of offsite drug use?
24 MR. WILLIAMS: Do you mean in terms of our i 25 investigative ability?
F 33 l 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Or'in terms of any action
.2 against the individual. If you get an allegation that'one of 3 your plant' personnel has been involved in use of drugs offsite, 4 do you do anything about it? What does.the program provide 5 for?
6 MR. WILLIAMS: The use of drugs offsite. implies the 7 ability for the user of those drugs offsite to be onsite under 8 the influence.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You bet. ~
!9e 1 10 MR. WILLIAMS: And it's an under the influence that's 11 not as obvious. It's a lot more subtle than the under the 12 influence that we typically talk about with respect to alcohol.
13 But I think our position on that would be, were we to find 14 that, that would -- well, it certainly would not constitute the 15 same thing as using them onsite, which is, you know -- ought to j 1
16 be right now out of the place, but if they were using them j
'l 17 offsite, I think I would be in the position of their having to -
.a 18 stop using them and rehabilitate.
19 Using them offsite implies that were we to find them 20 using them offsite, that would be testing positive on our drug 21 test, and that's cause for us to take action. I think it's l 22 built into there that offsite use implies they're going to test 23 positive when we do test them, and then that's a no-no.
24 MR. WAREMBOURG: The policy definitely addresses 25 offsite use. In fact, one of the self-identified people that
n i
.A
,, -34 j
( we've got'in the program was on-the basis =of offsite'use.
~
~ .
-1 1
~
We' brought him, ran him through'the testing. program, he came out 2
)
3 positive, and as a result of that, wanted rehabilitation. . 'Sha .
L 4 .it wasn't any indication of onsite usage. L There . was aus . !
5- indicationLof offsite usage.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:' Finally, does your program 7 provide for notification of the NRC in the event that you find 8 people'who test. positive on drugs or.where you.have information *
'9' .to believe that there's an alcohol. problem? Do you notify us -
,y 10 .about those things? Is that-built'into your policy that we're 11 to be' notified?'
12' MR. WAREMBOURG: I do not'believe there's an 13 automatic, built-in process.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: I think in all of these cases - .for 15 example, were we to carry out, say, an allegation 16 -investigation, we then develop a file which is available to the l
17 NRC inspector. That file is not typically transmitted to the -
18 'NRC. It's naintained within our record system, so we have i 19 within that record system -- any of the things that we 20 investigate, those are sitting there in that record system. 3 21 I One of the things that we are looking at is how. #
22 effectively we do communicate that to the NRC at the time, the {
1 23- findings there. I would have to say today, I could not give 24: you, I'm 100 percent satisfied with that notification. It's 25 kind of an implied notification that they can walk in and check j
L.; . x "
35
- 11 -the records'at'any pointLin time.
I 2 COMMISSIONER' 'ASSELSTINE : Okay. That's all I1have, 3 'Lando..
- 4l ' CHAIRMAN'ZECH: -Thank you.
5 ' Commissioner Roberts?
-6 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:. No. questions, Mr. Chairman.-
- 7. CHAIRMAN.ZECH: Commissioner,Carr?
~'
8- ' COMMISSIONER CARR: No questions.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:- I've'been'following your performance '- ~ -
nt:w .
' 1'O at Fort St. Vrain, and it has been reassuring to me to see some lit of the significant progress that you've made regarding the
- 12 .' implementation of your efforts to' improve:your performance and DJ 13 to carry out some of the plans you've had.
\
14- .As I've mentioned to you before, when you were here
- 15 ~last time; and:when I visited your facility, that I'm interested i 16 in results, and I must say, I believe I have seen some results
~
q
- 17. .
from'your organization, and it's been certainly something, I -
18 think, that comes about through a lot of hard work.
)
19 It would appear that you perhaps have had an 20 attitudinal change, and I think that's extremely important, and j
. 21 - it's encouraging to see that change, because I know it doesn't 22- come about easy.
23 I hope that's true. l At least, I've seen results, and 1 24 so I will accept the fact that you have made a very real effort 25' to bring those results about, and hopefully you'll be l
g, y. .
(
>n c.
f 4
36 1 l continuing on that course.
2 .I~also agree that your frankness and your' openness 1
3' .and your willingness.to.put. things on1the table is important, l
4' .to' discuss them and to improve where necessary. I.think.there 5 has~beenLimprovement necessary'at Fort'St. Vrain over"the 6-
~
. years.- I1think you recognize that. I hope you do.
7 Do you?
- 8. MR.. WILLIAMS: We do. '
9' CHAIRMAN ZECH: 'And I think I've seen that -
. Av 10 improvement coming, and all I.can say is, I would hope it will 11 continue.
, 12 If you are authorized to proceed with higher levels
.13 or even if you are not, I would urge continued caution. I 14 -would urge a business like approach, discipline,' formality,
. 15 procedural adherence, an effort to do it right the first time, 16 don't do anything in haste, and I recognize that you are 17 dealing with-demanding technology that must'be respected. -
18 It is encouraging to see results. I mention that 19 because I believe it's worthy of mention.
20 I hear what you are telling us about your fitness for 21' . duty program. I think it's very important. It is a very.
22 important program. !
23' Do you have any current regulatory problems at all 24- that you are aware of or anything that hasn't been 25 satisfactorily resolved to your knowledge? Do you have any v-i
r:-
,d; kr 6:. s- ,
~
37 1
s 11 ' dealings at all with NRC? Do you have any concern about-
- 2 -regulatory -- are you meeting _our regulatory requirements? Are 31 you telling us'you are meeting them all'or are you telling us-
, 4- there are concerns? 'Is there anything else you'are' concerned'
.5' about' in' that area?- :*
6 MR. WILLIAMS:. I don't believe so. .I:think in my own.
7- experience in working'with both headquarters staff and the 81 regional staff has.been a very frank ~and open relationship.- It. '
9 has been very clear to me what our requirements were, what we - x.
-:sw '
10- needed to be doing,=the issues we had, what our principle 11: issues were, those things we needed to get in place and have in 12 place immediately,,those things which were longer term 13 ' solutions. I think we have defined those and characterized 11-4 those with the staffs and we are proceeding in those 15 directions. Those things that need to be in place today, we l 16 have agreed to put them in place and we are getting them in 17: place. . .
.a .
18 We recognize, for example, Appendix R, fire i 19 protection, there are a number of areas like this that we have 20 agreed with the staff that the bulk of that will be in place 121 and'some things are still continuing and will take place during 22 future outages. I think that has been well characterized and 23 defined. I have no difficulty with our relationship and our 24 feeling about being in compliance with requirements.
'25 CEAIRMAN ZECH: I would only encourage you to keep a 1
o '
38 1 very frank and open relationship. I wouldn't wait for NRC to 2 try to find things out. I think it is in your best interest to 3 keep us informed, whether the regulations call for it or not.
4 I sincerely think it is in your best interest to let us know 5 what you are worried about, what your concerns and I presume !
6 you will do that.
i 7 Again, let me just say that I think your results do 8 speak for themselves. We don't want any complacency. It looks 9 like you really have things moving in the right direction, at - -
ihe ;
10 least in my judgment. That doesn't mean it won't continue !
I 11 without a lot of continued effort. I presume that is what you 12 are committed to do.
1 13 MR. WILLIAMS: We are committed to substantial 14 improvement.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Our understanding of the SALP is that 17 we are at the middle. That's not satisfactory to us. We would
.a !
18 like to be higher than that.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good. I know that has improved, too, 20 as I understand, or at least it is improving. With that, let 21 me thank you very much and we will ask the staff to come to the l l
22 table.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Taylor, will you proceed, please. ;
25 MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. The staff is prepared i
e
- p 6 39.
p ,
1 to.first' lead you'through the formal briefing we have with NRR 2 hitting some'of the issues and-the technical bases and the 3 staff position with' regard to Fort'St. Vrain. The Region will
'4 lthen provide somel experience with regard to its activities. At 5 .the: conclusion of that,- I;will ask with regard to the Gajdenson 6 . hearing issues as they may affect Fort-St.,Vrain, Bob Martin, 7 to assist and perhaps be assisted by Mr. Kelly who I believe is 8 on-the box, to try to put.those issues into character for the 9- Commission. -
10 I think it is important -- I would note with regard 11 t'ofwhat has been said, in preparing to come down here, I'took a 12 recent inspection report from the staff, the augmented staff, i 13 which' viewed Fort St. Vrain during its start-up period, and I-14 was very encouraged.to note the staff, just toLgive you a 15 little character, said that they were impressed with high 16 management presence in the control room, and this was'almost 24 17 hour a day' coverage by our. staff, close attention to detail by 18 the crews, strong engineering support to ops, operators coming 19 in on their own time or hours early before the shift to 20 participate in start-up, and a conservative approach to plant 21- operation.
22 Those are strong words reflecting a change in pace 23 and attitude in the view of the staff in these operations.
24 I would like to start by just adding those comments 25 that I picked up randomly in preparing to come here.
l 1
i u
[
- a > l 40 l 1 I will ask Frank Miraglia to please pick up the !
2 technical presentation for NRR.
3 MR. MIRAGLIA: Thank you.
4 [ Slide.) ,
5 MR. MIRAGLIA: To reiterate, the Commission.did 6 approve operation of Fort St. Vrain'under a power ascension 7 program which had an interim hold at 10 percent and the 8 . understanding that the staff would'be back to brief the 9 Commission with respect to our assessment of the operational -
- 5 10 readiness of that facility to proceed-above 35 percent.
11 [ Slide.]
12 MR. MIRAGLIA: As you have heard, the principle l
- 13. technical issue that required resolution since our last meeting 14' with the Commission was the limitation that resulted from the 15 deficiency in the shutdown decay heat removal system. That was 16 identified last summer in conjunction with the utility '
17 engineering, the design changes necessary to meet the EQ rule. -
.a !
18 We did approve limited operation at 35 percent 19 because it would not require that safe shutdown system, as 20 described by the utility to you.
21 They did perform re-analysis and they have taken 22 corrective actions. The corrective actions involved limiting ,
23 the power level in terms of the conduct of that re-analysis, 24 that revised cool down strategy that required some physical I
25 modification such as the vent described to you. Changing some ]
i 9
-c l
1
,, 4:
fj 41 ,
I 1; of'the procedures.and reliance'on other. pieces.of equipment for
- 2. the conduct of the shutdown operations.
1 3 ewe reviewed the licensee's analyses,-the. technical
-4 aspects of the-flows, thermal hydraulics and the integrity of 5> 'the. steam generators. ~l 6 Mr. Williams alluded.to the fact that the' utility had 7 been supporting the staff's request for flow data,. stress data,
^
'8 on the steam generators and the like. That'a11Ereflects'the r 9 ; staff's concerns.in this area. We have confirmed the' - -
-the i 10 licensee's' analysis, agreement with the 82 percent power level !
1 11 does provide suitable margins. We are proceeding now to.
1 112 document'those approvals in the form of an SER and several 13 necessary technical specifications are in progress and arecin 14' the' form ~of being documented and hopefully will be ready-to-15 complete the formal documentation in a day or so. I think this 16 would be consistent with the utility's ongoing training,'which 17 Mr. Williams also indicated would.have to be comp 1'ted e before. -
.m !
18 going above 35 percent.
19 From a technical point of view, I think the staff is 20 satisfied with the analyses and the procedures and processes in 21- -place to permit operation above 82 percent power.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that a fairly straight 23 forward and reasonable approach, something well within the 24 capabilities of the operators?
25' MR. MIRAGLIA: In fact, the process they used and the l
i
I 9 L' w.
42 1- procedures were there previously. Part of the equipment they 2 depended upon before has been removed from that system. It's 3 not completely foreign. It is modified and changes have been !
4 made. It is'not substantively different from the processes and 5 procedures in place previously.
6 With that, I will turn to Bob to summarize the 7 inspection and coverage experience during the start-up 8 operations.
9 [ Slide.] -
10 MR. MARTIN: During the start-up activity, during j 11
~
this period of operation that has gone on, we did utilize 12 resident inspectors assigned to the site and other inspectors, 1 13 . including regional. We also brought in the resident from the 14 Cooper Nuclear Station, to use him to augment, to add resident 15 experience as tiell. I don't remember the exact details. We 16 basically had 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> control room coverage during certain 17 initial phases of start-up, initial aspects of operation and -
l
.a 18 then 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> coverage again when we went to the initial turbine 19 loading, which is clearly a transient that goes on the plant.
- 20. There was a joint Region IV and NRR operational 21 readiness review, a modified operational readiness review, 22 whose focus was primarily on the technical activities, how well 23 they'had been accomplished since the issue such as training 24 experience and performance of the crews had been an ongoing 25 evaluation by the staff.
j
E
- u. i 43-
- 1" In'the slide, it is noted we looked specifically at 2- fire ~ protection, the steam line rupture, control rod drive 3- mechanism, things of;that sort, which were not the classica11 I 4L operational-readiness but clearly these were major milestones 5 that the utility'had to pass before we. ware-totally satisfie'd i
6 for this kind ofLoperational activity. .
7 In normal conservative language, we state our typical' 18 inspection results are-acceptable. I think:some of the' text Mr.cTaylor wrote, and I would.say I think it is fair to the g
?
l'0 ' company to say that perhaps'they were better than acceptable.
11 We'think there has been in fact a substantial work' 12, ethics turnaround at that plant. That brings us t'o.one of the 13 aspects commissioner Asselstine asked that we address, which is
- 14 . sort of a combination of the operating experience and the !
15 . management team. We considered the effects to have been very 16 positive. .I know there was a concern expressed by'you and 17 perhaps by others'in our earlier meeting about the fact that -
'18 just shortly before that meeting,'they had lost the Manager of 19 Nuclear Production, a key position.
20 I would not for the moment doubt or argue the point 21 they lost an~ individual with a large amount of experience. The 22 institutional' experience that exists at that facility is fairly
.23 high because they have overall rather low turnover rates. In 24 point of fact, trying to set personalities aside as far as one i 25 is able to do when we get so focused on specific individuals, 1
yg - .e 44
'l in' addition to losing that' experience, they also lost, I think,
- 2. to an extent, a gentleman who viewed his operating domain very 3 parochially and was to some extent a stumbling block to some
'4 degree in achieving the sort of coordinated approach towards 5 . operation, engineering,' maintenance and general performance 6 activities that Mr. Williams was trying to instill.
7 I think in all honesty I have to state that the net i 8 result of that loss'in our view has been a benefit to the '
9 overall-operation of the plant. I think that has been one of -
10 'the several, not the only, but certainly one of the several' 11- factors that has contributed to the operational performance 12 that we have seen demonstrated during this interim period.
13 There is clearly a very dramatic difference in work 14 ethic performance, attention to duty, attention to detail and 15 just general performance overall. It is as if it is a 16 different plant than-we used to inspect several years ago in 17 that regard. --
18 With regard to overall performance, which I think 19 partially mirrors, if you will, the performance enhancement 20' program, we do have some SALP results.
21 (Slide.)
22' MR. MARTIN: I'm sure you recall at a meeting some
~23 time ago, we gave the SALP results, which were rather poor at 24 that time for an operating power plant. Very recently, on June 25 lith, the results have not been published yet, that is the 1
e a' '
. . +
' ' . ' 6
45 l' ' formal' report.has'not-been-written'but the SALP Board has met
, 2- and' finalized ~these findings. There is only one category.3
'. 3 - compared to~six previously.
{4- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Could you.run down the~
5 previous numbers?
-6 MR. JAUDON: John'Jaudon from Region.IV. Previously,-
- 7. 2-in' Ops with'a. caveat saying we were still-worried. That-8 caveat is no longer'there. One in Radeon. Three in 9 Maintenance. Two-in Surveillance. One in Fire Protection. .-
" 1aw
/
10 Three in Security. 'Three in Emergency Preparedness' . .Three'in 11 Quality Assurance. Three in Licensing. Two in Training.
12 Three in outages.
13 MR. MARTIN: The only area where we have any 14- reservations at all'now are in emergency preparedness. That!is i 15 ~because we.have not had'the proof test of the drill. The drill'
--16 is scheduled'for August. What we have seen of preparatory work 17 by the plant has been massive. .
.s 18 I think I mentioned the previous time that-our 19 concerns were there.was again an ethic, an approach towards
'20: emergency' preparedness which was not as responsive as we felt
/2h 'there could be to public concerns and the public perception, if
.22 .you will, the NRC perception, of management of their activities 23 during an emergency, comparable to what we find in light water 24 reactors.
25 We have already.seen massive changes going into their
- m. ,
}jgu i 46 1 emergency planning'which is' moving them!towards a structure, an 2- organization, a. capability, quite comparable ~to light water 3 ' reactors. We'will see the demonstration of that.- I believe it1 4 is August,5th, when the next' major' drill is involved.
'5. -(Slide.]
6 MR. MARTIN: Basically our conclusions from an 7 operational standpoint is operationally, we do not see any
~
8 reason to not operate at 82 percent, that they should not be 9 'quite' capable of operating satisfactorily at 82 percent.- We - -
1./ sip
- c. 10- find the. operators. attentive, working: professionally, high' 11 morale and a good management involvement for the reasons I sort-12 .of; summarized praviously.
13 That really is the limit of my input.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Unless there are questions on that.
15 specific area,'we will continue on'the Gajdenson discussion.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why don't you go ahead with that.
17 MR. MARTIN: Relative to Fort St. Vrain, at the -
a-18 Gejdenson hearing, two issues came up by Mr. Kelly, who'is on 19 the phone at this point. He has been working with us and 1
20 discussing with us his perspective. I think it is very clear !
1
-21 that Mr. Kelly has a perspective very strongly viewed towards '
22 preferring that the Agency had a rule relative to fitness for (
l 23_ -duty. It would be from his perspective a better alternative
)
I 24 than what the Commission has chosen to put forth, l 25- As a consequence of that strength of conviction, I i
l
p
~
.(
o: ;
^
- 3 47 v . Ol .. ..
i "A 1' -
believe4it'sLfair to'say that there may have been an impression a.y
, s p.
2 ' created that there was-less than progressive pursuit of certain-3; drug:related'problemsfat Fort St. Vrain, or drug or alcohol
.4 related problems at' Fort St. Vrain and'perhaps at other N -5 ' facilities.
6 Focusing on'the two issues that were identified at i 7 Fort St. Vrain, he'did make mention of'two cases. The first-8 Mr. Williams generally alluded to. -It is a case that has taken '
4 U ' ;'( , -9 Public Service of Colorado some period of time to conclude. -It *"
'10- is a case.-- it was an allegation that was received that we
'll ~ decided.following procedures that we had established in the 12 Region, which by.the way I believe have been adopted by NRR in 11 3 the draft manual chapter on handling of allegations, we had
- 14. proceeded to elect to transfer this allegation to the' company.
15 The reason:I did that was after discussion of the nature of the 16 charges, the personalities involved and-the rather heated 17 emotion subjects that.were being involved, there was based on -
.e 18 the input from my staff and the security inspectors and in this
- 19. particular case, I honestly don't remember if Jim Kelly was one 20 of those gentlemen or not,.but they provided me sufficient 21 information to believe that the clash of personalities involved 22 :were such that once anyone started looking into that 23 allegation, it would be very clear who the allegation was made
~24 by and who it was made against.
25 It was so personalized that it involved that kind of i 1
2:. .
?
L ,
, '4; -f, 9
~'
% ec ~
g e.. Yp V b 48.
^
. ): -o .
o 1L an'apprcac ,e h jhere was.a'.fedr of physical retribution,.
N '
- .n !
6 /2 . including; fear of harm beingl brought.to the;allager's child.
- y
- 3 Under those conditions,'.I checked withLmyl security C4' -people, many $fiwhom'have prior police experience,'I; checked'.
-5 withlregional counsel,LwhoLI.believe. checked and called.others, II 6' and we could.not provide. physical prot'ection7against that and~ ~
- 7. thatLpotential?seemed to have a' credibility,. that_ potential for
.,m 81 . physical' harm-had a credibility.~ '
9L 'l made the.' judgetent ithat the company was - in a better' 4 -:
ww-
.10 position td, ifjyou'will', offer threatening. advice to'the 1 11 employeenthat should he haveLanything likeithat in mind, that-12 he would-be forfeiting'his employment.
13 -It'has turned out that'as far as.the' follow up of the 14 allegation is concerned, it cans be characterized -in .two ways.
one, no harm came to either the alleger or the allager's child.
~
15 X
16 1That issue-at leastiwas successful.
17, I will admit as will'R.O. Williams when he was' -
18 sittingLhere, that the company'did something less'than an 19' exemplary job in.looking into thennature of the allegation and
- 20 dealing with it.
~21 As a consequence of that lack of crispness in dealing 22 Evith that particular allegation, the company has instituted ;
23' changes of the kind they generally. described to you, because of
! t>
T <241 frustration on my part and perhaps on his as well, that we call
> l 1 a 25 a meeting together to try to deal with this issue in a much !
.g . { 7( '- '
p ; ,
_c q
sm. .
49
. . l
'1L crisper fashion.
. '2 By comparison, the second case was an anonymous 3- allegation against-an employee. fWe had no way of determining.
4 ' the credibility of the allegation, the credibility of the 5' alleger' making the allegation. It was just a blind allegation 6~ Ecoming in on.a phone. call'with no way to trace it.. That is a
.7 ' classic one, if you will, for consideration.to turning over to 8 '
L the company if it involves a lower-level individual in the 9 organization, turning it over to corporate management. -
l24 10 In a matter of days, that individual was approached.
11- He cooperatedIfully. He voluntarily took tests. His access 12 was lifted. They screened him. They reviewed'him. They 13 determined there was no problem and they legitimately put him 14 ~ back into service and put him back on duty.
15 Admittedly, we did turn over allegations to the 16' company. }ha think in both cases it was justified. In one
- 17. case, the company did not perforn well. However, I believe the -
.s 1 18 reason was well-justified. In the other case, I think the i
19f company performed extremely well. I have every reason to
)
20 l believe they will do even better in the future now that they j 21 have instituted a mechanism for doing that.
22 MR. TAYLOR: In the first case, didn't you mention to 23- me that the subject, the person causing the problem, has been 24 in a treatment type program; is that not right? It finally 25 culminated in the individual --
7g >;
50 l' -MR. MARTIN:- I have been leaving out-a certain amount I
- 2. of detail. We obviously.have a'certain amount of-press i L3 coverage. Typicallyfwa do not broadcast this information very i
E 4- broadly.- We try to deal with these things in a sensitive way.
5.
- The more I add to the color and flavor of what led me to some 16 of my decisions, the more I'm identifying the people who.were 7 ' involved in the allegations.
f 8 I believe'this with confidence although I would like- '
9 Jim'to comment, if he sees this issue any differently than I '-
10 do. vse 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think we should hear.from Mr.; Kelly l
)
'12 at this time and see if he had anything to add. Go ahead, Mr.
13 Kelly.-
14 MR. KELLY: This is Jim Kelly. I am in Region IV. (
15- What Mr. Martin has stated is in essence a description of my 16 feelings. My concern has been ensentially alleviated by the 17 licensee's commitment to take some more aggressive efforts in -
18 this area but I would also like to point out that the lack of i
~19 clear guidance or regulations is what has gotten us into this 20 mixmaster at this time.
1 21 I don't really have much more to add to that then to 22 ask that the focus of these investigations in the future be 1
23 broader than just the simple issues of one individual who is )
24 suffering some personal problems.
5 .
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Anything else?
e 4
51 1 'Are you satisfied that the company has now taken the actions 2 that'you believe are necessary to resolve this problem and also 3 take a proper stance towards drug and alcohol abuse?
4 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
6 MR. MARTIN: That would conclude my comments on the 7 'subj ect.
8 '
CHAIRMAN ZECH: Just one other question for Mr.- I 9 Kelly. In this testimony, he talked about allegations that - -
-t:w 10 still deserved investigations. Are these the ones we are 11 talking about, Mr. Kelly? Can you enlighten us on that? As I
.12 recall, this was part of your testimony. Are we talking about 13 those investigations that you thought required investigation?
14 MR._ KELLY: Yes, Mr.. Chairman. That's what I was i i
'15 referring.to about the focus of the investigations. So far, we ;
16 -have been talking really about one individual's problem. Thcrs )
17 were a number of other behavioral e.spects. .
.s.
1B CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Kelly, there was one other i 19 comment in your testimony that I'd like to ask you about 20 briefly. On page ten of your testimony, you said more recently 21 an operator at Fort St. Vrain who was responsible for 22 maintaining safety systems was reported to have been under the 23 influence of drugs. This matter was taken out of the hands of 24 NRC security personnel and again referred for action to the i
25 utility.
J
52 1 Is this the same case we are talking about?
2 MR. KELLY: No, sir. That's another case. That's 3' one Mr. Martin was referring to. My concern here about that 4 was the timeliness of their actions. When we are dealing,with
'S drug. analysis, and'that is what the allegation related to, if 6 there is not a timely action, then the prospect of identifying
- 7. materials through toxicology passes.
8 '
CHAIRMAN ZECH: Maybe we ought to ask Mr. Martin, are 9 you satisfied this timeliness situation has been clarified? - -
- .se 10 MR. MARTIN: Again, as I said, the second case I was 11 describing was a case where on the 12th of May, we informed 12 them of this anonymous allegation we received and by May 20th, 13- they had completed the entire circuit, including the testing, 14 the counseling, the determination of suitability and the return 15 to duty. It was done within a ten day timeframe. i
{
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: This is the anonymous allegation that 17 you referred to?
i
.a i 18 MR. MARTIN: Yes.
l 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that your understanding, too, Mr.
20 Kelly? !
21 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
{
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Kelly, you also said in that same l I
23 paragraph towards the end that "nor am I aware of any action l l
24 taken by the utility on the latest set of allegations." Does
, 25 that still stand? Is that amplified by what we have heard i
l l
I
4 53 1 today?
2 NGt. KELLY: At that time, that statement was correct.
3 I was not aware of any action. The actions that were being 4 taken as described before you today were occurring 5 . simultaneously with my interview by the congressional staff.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Actions have been taken now, is that 7 your understanding?
8- MR. KELLY: That's my understanding.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are you satisfied? '
es, '
10 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. I have been assured that 11 action did occur.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Kelly, I just want to thank you 13 very much for your assistance today and for your overall 14 performance for the NRC. I think you.have done us all a 15 service and I hope you will keep up the good work.
16 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. I'll keep up the good work.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Are there any other -
1B comments from the staff? Will you give us your recommendation?
19 MR. TAYLOR: Our recommendation from the staff is in 20 support of the company's position. The staff does recommend 4
21 that the company be permitted to proceed to the limit of 82 22 percent power.
1 I
23 CHAIRMAN.ZECH: Thank you. Questions from my fellow '
l 24 Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts. I a !
25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I have a comment Isr Bob. You j l
l
- .a 3 54 1" have to make a' lot of tough. decisions and that's why we have 2 you out.there. Don't be' defensive.
3- MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
4 CMAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Asselstine?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple more on the 6 fitness for duty. Bob, in Mr. Kelly's testimony, he describes I
- 7. three instances. I.just want to make sure I understand which I 8 ones'you were talking about. The first one of those'is 9 described'on the top of page nine of Mr. Kelly's statement and - -
-:se 10 'that was the allegation that a weighing scale had been stolen 11 and was being used for drug related activities, that marijuana 12 was being smoked on-site and the. security officers were having 13 sex while on duty. He states that this was referred to the q
14 utility and the utility did little if anything to follow up, j 15 that in fact the matters were referred to theftwo individuals l
16 who were subsequently indicted for other totally unrelated i l
17 activities and removed from the company. -
.a -
18 I just wanted to check and make sure you are in 19 agreement with Mr. Kelly on that.
20 MR. MARTIN: That was the first issue I was j 21 describing. His characterization of what all was swept into 22 that, there's nothing wrong with that characterization.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do you agree with the
- 24. conclusion that they did little if anything?
25 MR. MARTIN: Their performance was not good in that
op , ,
A y - e3 .
n 55/
l1 . regard;"that's true.
2' . COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: ' The'secondEinstanceis1the
'3 one'.on}page ten.. That is the allegationfof-a-lead security 4'. officer being unfit for duty due to alcoholism. :The company's' (5 pos'ition was'the guy didn't have'a pro'blem. :His family 6' . subsequently cameLto the company'and said, yes, he really does.
~
. 7 MR. MARTIN:' That was all tied up in that.first'one.
8- _ COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's part of the first 9 one as'well? -
10 MR.. MARTIN: Yes, sir. It had a' lot of stuff in it.
11' COMMISSIONER. ASSELSTINE:' TheLhistory is at leastiin 12 the early. years or in the past, this company.wasn't'doing.much 13 .if=anything about these things?
14 MR. MARTIN: I believe:this'was the first time we ha'd
.I'.
151 Lever turned over-an allegation to.the. company.' 'They were- a 16 clearly' novices in dealing with' these: kinds of issues. .one of 17 the points Mr. Kelly made was the broadening. aspect. The few- -
11 8 cortversations!we had~with various members of the staff, 19 focusing them on whether or not an individual had a drinking
-20 problem, that of and by itself was not the point of interest to 21 NRC, the-point of interest was whether or not their detection 22 program should,have spotted it, whether or not their alcohol
~ 23 abuse program showed a weakness, if it was true.
24: -The broadening is now something that I think is well 25- being' dealt with.
1 3
H
<: v 56' i ;l COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: .Now'to the latest cases.
2 Are:you.saying there is more than just the one case that is 3 Edescribad on the' bottom of page ten, this operator who was 4 responsible.for maintaining safety systems who are reported to-5- be under the~ influence of drugs?: Are there two cases or just-6- .the one?
7 MR. MARTIN: One. The case here, the individual-8 alleged to be and later proven to be not a problem, not having '
9 a problem. Basically the individual Mr. Kelly described as an '
10
'sw operator, he is really'in the maintenance department but he is-11 a licensed fuel handler. He was characterized as an operator.
12 In fact, he is not an operator to manipulate reactor controls,
'13' but:he is licensed as a fuel handler for this facility.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That is the one where the
- 15. company's investigation took place in May?
16 MR. MARTIN: Yes; in ten days.
17- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: From the time that we -
--e 18- provided the information to the company, how long did it take 19 for them to administer the test?
20 MR. MARTIN: I don't know. I think it was within two 21 days or something on that order. I think it was measured in ~
22: days, not in hours.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that soon enough so that 24 the test will provide a reliable indication of whether the 25 individual was doing drugs within the reasonable past?
I i
1
d..h , 'f' 5 7 --
1 MR., MARTIN: .Do you have when the test was
~
~2 administered in that,second~ case?'
3 MR.JWILLIAMS: 'It was.within a few days. I think the 4 ' ability.to detect would depend on the' continued use. We were 5- operating under the assumption it was.an accusation of 6 continuing ~use of marijuana.
- 7. MR. TAYLOR: There are various levels which I can't j 8- quote, depending upon what the substance is'and how.long it-9- -remains in_the body. -
- w 10- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Also the sophistication.of 11- the test.
12 MR. TAYLOR:- That's right. There'are periods, 13 . depending on what the substance is.
14- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:- One last question for Mr.
- 15- Kelly. Do you have any remaining concerns about the 1
- 16 forthrightness of the company in providing information to us 17 about' instances of drug or alcohol abuse or these kinds of -
18 questions, if and when they may crop up'and come to the I
19 company's attention?
20 MR. KELLY: No, sir. I think~we have come to an 21 understanding now. I think the last meeting with Mr. Martin 22 here in the Region helped them to understand what our 23 expectations are.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. Thank you. Lando, I 1
i 25 . join you as I suspect all of the commissioners would, in l
i 1
.. e-58 1- commending Mr. Kelly for his efforts.
-2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Did you get that, Mr. Kelly?
3 MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. I heard that, too.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Carr?
5 COMMISSIONER CARR: It is apparent to me that we 6 should have some kind of a procedure in place where'if we turn
- 7. over an investigation to the licensee, that there would be-8 follow up back to us from the licensee and we would follow up '
9 through whoever our man with the concern was so that ultimately -
- n 10 that circle is complete and the loop is closed. It sounds like 11 in this case, the problem was the loop didn't get closed in 12 ' time.
13 MR. MARTIN: To an extent, that's true, sir. .To a 14- great degree, that process is in place. The difficulty was 15 uniquely for Fort St. Vrain. The key individuals talked with 16 kept changing because of major corporate management changes i 17 that occurred during that period. 'l
.a 18 You are correct. There is a follow up system and it I
19 should be exercised.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If I understood you 21 correctly, the old managers just weren't doing the job. l 22 MR. MARTIN: They initiated some actions but the 23 actions'were not at all the kind of thing we expected. I think 24 other events tended to overtake them. I 25 COMMISSIONER CARR: This particular plant has a l
_o
')
4 ..;
59-l' Jresponsibility above all.others in that'it~is the hope of gas
.i 2 : cooled reactors. ;
'l T 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: .I'just want to make sure, Mr. Martin,- h 1
ithat you'are' satisfied that Fort.St. Vrain,'especially in'this 4
.]
'5 area of drug abuse,' fitness'for' duty, alcohol abuse,.in this
- 6. regard, are.you satisfied they are doing.what you expect them. l 7 to do and they will keep you informed.and work with you as you J
8' think they.should?. '
l 9 MR. MARTIN: 'f Let me answer it sequentially. I ;-j
' mp 'l ra 10' believe they.will-work'with me to keep me informed. We'.have 11 that clear understanding. I think they have instituted
.I 12' processes for handling these kinds'of problems that are far
~
13 superior to what they had before. They'havecdisciplined it. .
14' lThey have organized it. They now have the means for carrying 15 -it out.
'16 The last one singular example I had'seemed to 'l 17 l
' demonstrate that those procedures were working-well. I have -
.q
..e 1
18 avery confidence that seeing what I have seen of the company (
19 performing in other areas, that when they issue the resolve to 20 carry something out, they h&';c achieved it. I presume'the same .k i
.21- will occur here. Therefore, from that I draw the' confidence to
,. 2 2 give you a positive answer.
22~ I don't have a large number of examples. I do have 24 the confidence that it will work and work well. l 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I would exhort the licensee to make i
l l
l
} o
F Jl; >
- g ,
N 60 J... ~
.1 every effort to make sure that.the NRC personnel, residents, fregional' people, Mr.; Martin,-are informed about these matters.
6 3' < IL.trustL.that-is.what you h' ave a commitment to do. .Do I' 4- Lunderstand that,LMr. Williams?-
5 MR.' WILLIAMS:- That:is. correct.
'6. CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much..
~
7 I think at this time I'would ask my fellow-8 Commissioners if they'are ready to' vote:this afternoon.
.9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: 'Before we vo'e,.one t final - -
. !::e
.10 :commentJon i fitness for duty. I have one messageLto the 11 ' company. I would just say -that I realize; you = are.not required
'12 to do anything-but for myself,.I'm just'not satisfied or 13 comfortable with the' fitness.for duty program that does/not.
14 include a random. testing component. 'I'm not convinced that 15 behavioral observation.is' going to do the job an'd I would urge 16 :.you to pursue as at least some; utilities have,'a random testing 17 . component for.your. program. -
. u-18 As a practical matter, everybody sitting on this side
.19 :of the table has decided that for our own employees, who have a 20 ~ direct and immediate bearing on safety, random testing is going 21 to be an. essential element for us to be satisfied that our
- 22 people are drug free when they' do their jobs. The fact that we L 23 . feel that way for our people, I-think means we ought to feel 24 that way for your people as well.
25 I would send you that little message. I would urge
-i
[. '-
~ >
61 1 you to do it. I would have to say for m; ; elf also that I think 2 Mr. Kelly is absolutely right, and I think we ought to be 3 requiring _it. That is a broader policy question.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just support the comment of 5 Commissioner Asselstine on random testing. I certainly agree.
6 All of us' involved in any waf, fashion or form in my judgment 7 in nuclear safety patters should certainly be willing to 8 subject ourselves to random testing. I fully support that and 9 have.all'along. - -
10
'v w I hope our own agency will very soon be able to put 11 out our own drug policy. I commend the utilities for having 12 gotten out in front of us. At least you have something in 13 place that you are working with.
14 I do agree that random testing, especially for those 15 in the key areas and control areas of the plant and for those
,16 with major responsibilities of any kind, they should be as far 17 as I am concerned required. I am going to continue to push for
.a 18 that. I would say to you and not only your utility but other l
19 utilities to at least show their commitment to safety to the 20 American people by pushing and encouraging random testing for )
21 your key people. !
I think it is very important and I think we 22 owe it to the citizens of our country to try our very best to 23 create a drug free environment at the nuclear power plants. ,
24 Are there any other comments before we vote? )
25 [No response.]
a
- t 62 7
l' -CHAIRMAN 'ZECH: All those Commissioners who would 2 favor authoriz'ing the staff to permit the Public Service 3 Company of Colorado to operate its Fort St. Vrain gas cooled
'4 power reactor plant at power levels greater than 35 percent'but 5 not to exceed 82 percent of the' rated power, please signify by~
6 saying'aye.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Aye.
8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Aye . -
9 COMMISSIONER CARR: Aye. -
-t:w 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Aye. Those opposed?
11 [No response.)
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I should indicate that Commissioner 13 Bernthal is not with us today. The vote is 4 to 0. The 14 meeting is adjourned. !
j 15 {
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
16 17
.a 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 !
25 f i
i i
i 1
o 4:
ii : <
-]
1
'2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3' I 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of-the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6-7 TITLE OF MEETING: Discussion /Possible' Vote on Fort St'. Vrain j Authorization to Exceed 35. Percent Power Level 8- ' PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C. '
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, June 17, 1987 10 ::w
. e .-
o 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 13
- {[ stenographically ~by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14' me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and.
l 15 that the transcriptLis a true and accurate record of the 16 -foregoing. events. I 17 !
l
._a i 18 hE_Ja_dJ-__________'_____L_;.____
g!
Marilynn M. Nations 19 i
20 21 '
22' Ann Riley &. Associates, Ltd. ^
23 e
24 1
- 25 l
i FORT ST. VRAIN l
1
)
._l
-::n \
READINESS TO OPERATE TO 82% POWER l
l
-a 1 0
Public Service' l l
Public Service Company of Colorado l
i Resolution of Technical. Issues Supporting 82% Power Level e Safe Shutdown Cooling issue Resolved ;
e Modifications to Physical Plant Complete e Procedures and Training Completed I
- A
Operational Results
- Low Moisture Levels in Primary Coolant I i
e Demonstrated Operator Proficiency and Professionalism -l e Control Rod Performance EE -
- NRC Confirmation and Release at 10% Power
- PPS Spurious Actuations Significantly Reduced !
e Reliable Plant Performance !
_______-m
I Other Supporting Factors i e Nuclear Staff is Trained and Well Prepared e Organization is Committed to Operational Excellence e Successful Transition from Outage Management 'E to Operational Management e Direct Executive Oversight l
.a l
1
l l
l i
I I
l FORT ST. VRAIN IS READY ~-
. .w TO OPERATE AT 82% POWER l
l
.- l l
l 1
i l
l
___________________a
i 9
i i
i 1
i FORT ST VRAIN .
READINESS FOR ,
82% POWER OPERATION 4 i
l R. D. MARTIN F. J. MIRAGLIA !
i JUNE 17, 1987 -
d
.a N
i i
i
)
- l f Lr OVERVIEW - !
e COMMISSION HAS APPROVED OPERATION UNDER POWER .,
ASCENSION PLAN -
e ' PLANT OPERATING UNDER 35% POWER LIMIT . j e- COMMISSION REQUESTED STAFF ASSESSMENT OF j OPERATIONAL READINESS FOR CONTINUING POWER.
ASCENSION AT FEBRUARY 26, 1987 MEETING e STAFF PERSPECTIVE REFLECTS OPERATING EXPERIENCE AND RESOLUTION OF THE ADEQUACY- !
0F SAFE SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM
}
u
~
d- 18.
k . .'
!/ '
APPROVAL OF 82% POWER OPERATION
's. IN AUGUST 1986, LICENSEE DISCOVERED ERRORS AND LIMITATIONS IN ORIGINAL LICENSING ANALYSES OF SAFE :
E SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT. SYSTEM I
L e NRC.lMPOSED 35% POWER LIMIT UNTIL ADEQUACY OF. SAFE i
SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM COULD BE -
REESTABLISHED'BY REANALYSIS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS . j e CORRECTIVE ACTIONS INVOLVED , l i
LIMITING MAXIMUM POWER LEVEL
- . REVISED COOLDOWN STRATEGY .
ENDING RELIANCE ON REHEATERS-e LICENSEE'S ANALYSIS REVIEWED
<-. 1 COOLANT FLOWS THERMAL HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS INTEGRITY OF STEAM GENERATORS e STAFF REVIEW CONFIRMS LICENSEE'S ANALYSIS e STAFF PROCEEDING WITH APPROVALS o
Lj,#
f I
l AUGMENTED INSPECTION COVERAGE e UTILIZED. RESIDENT ~ INSPECTORS AND OTHER INSPECTORS- .c 1 1.>a.
e 24-H00R CONTROL ROOM COVERAGE FOR INITIAL'STARTUP AND OPERATION. 24-H00R COVERAGE USED FOR INITIAL TURBINE LOADING
- e. JOINT REGION IV - NRR OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW l
INSPECTION (MAY 18-20, 1987) J l
EXAMINED LICENSEE'S ACTIVITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION IN l
FIRE PROTECTION (APPENDIX R)
STEAM LINE RUPTURE DETECTION / ISOLATION SYSTEM ;
CONTROL R0D DRIVE MECHANISM MAINTENANCE SPURIOUS RESPONSES OF PLANT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM !
e INSPECTION RESULTS ARE ACCEPTABLE i
e SALP BOARD HAS CONFIRMED " INTERIM" SALP FINDINGS r
, i
- - i
- ,' h . t
'o E
. CONCLUSIONS- -
/
e OPERATION AT 82% POWER ACCEPTABLE . - -
=.w e- ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL READINESS l
OPERATORS ATTENTIVE PROFESSIONAL-HIGH MORALE ,
MANAGEMENT l
CONSERVATIVE .a INVOLVED e APPROVE OPERATION UP TO 82% POWER l
l l
l
?
..a
-) 1 i
i i
l SALP
Ops 2 Radcon 1 /*
Maintenance 2 ,
Surveillance 2 .
Fire Protection 1 l
Security 2 Emergency Protection 3 Quality Assurance 2 Licensing 2 Training 2 Outages 2 1
T 6/17/87 SCHEDULING NOTES f
TITLE: ' DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON FORT ST. VRAIN AUTHORIZATION TO EXCEED 35 PERCENT POWER-LEVEL SCHEDULED: 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1987 (OPEN)
I DURATION: APPROX 1-1/2 HRS PARMCIPANTS: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO 10 MINS
- Rio. WILLIAMS, JR.
1 VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR OPERATIONS
- D. WAREMBOURG, MANAGER NUCLEAR ENGINEERING l
- H.L. BREY, MANAGER j
LICENSING AND FUELS EDO 1
i
- JAMES TAYLOR
.a REGION IV 10 MINS l
- ROBERT MARTIN REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
- JAMES A.F. KELLY (VIA PHONE)
NRR 10 MINS
- FRANK MIRAGLIA l
~r ~
f\'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNy&&gQy&gGyg) hY h NNNNENNNhNN Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips TRANSMITTAL T0:
d The Public Document Room ADVMCFD COPY TO:
DATE:
[e 7 -
9 SECY Correspondence & Records Branch FROM:
g k
b Attached are copies of a Conenissicn meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and No other distribution is requested or h
{:(
f placement in the Public Document Room.
required.
- f D tc.iAg h io4 N O c D de, so korb N .V f6. M f Meeting
Title:
%%m-% 4., Ew4 % 9. ?.m I_maec f Open y Closed Meeting Date: (okmkt'l
' i Copies Item Description *: DCS Advanced '8 to PDR Cg l
-- 1 1
l 1
- 1. TRANSCRIPT
\ \t.LO, OO R 3 '
I :
$ nae s i 2.
7h _
1 e q
3-g s _
k !
4- _ .-..
)
~ s. .
i
- 6. _
Q
.p w'
h h 3
!
- POR is advanced out copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY gi Q
se papers.
- 5 y h.
a/M b bhhhhb b b bhb YbhYbkhbhhkhlhi J